20171041 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_2018_20200303

“This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation
and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.”

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN

Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina

Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101

DMS Project #: 100027
Contract #: 7187
USACE Action ID #: SAW-2017-01507
RFP #: 16-006993

Prepared for:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1052

November 2018

October 30, 2018

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Little Sebastian Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW-
2017-01507; DMS Project #100027

Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Dear Mr. Baumgartner:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT)
during the 30-day review for the Little Sebastian Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on July 27,
2018. Please note the comment period was extended to allow the provider to respond to project
concerns. These comments are attached for your review.

Based on our review of these comments and the provider’s response to comments, we have
determined that no major concerns have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is
considered approved with this correspondence. However, the provider’s proposed changes to the
Draft Mitigation Plan, in response to issues identified in the memo, must be addressed in the Final
Mitigation Plan.

The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. All
changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the
beginning of the document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of
the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of
this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning
construction on the project site. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of
permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues referenced above
are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation
Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation
credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

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

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding
this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please
contact Andrea Hughes at [phone] extension 59.

Sincerely,

for Henry M. Wicker
Deputy Chief, Wilmington District

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner, NCDMS

From:Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
To:Baumgartner, Tim
Cc:Wiesner, Paul; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US);
Haupt, Mac; Wilson, Travis W.; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wicker, Henry M Jr CIV USARMY CESAW
(US); Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Elliott,
William A CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Gledhill-earley, Renee; Bowers, Todd; Cara Conder
Subject:[EXTERNAL] NCDMS Draft Mitigation Plan Comments, Further Review Required/Little Sebastian Mitigation
Site/SAW-2017-01507/Surry County
Date:Monday, September 03, 2018 9:05:09 PM
Attachments:Draft Mit Plan Comment Memo_NCDMS Little Sebastian Mitigation Site_SAW-2017-01507_Surry County.pdf
Mr. Baumgartner,
The 30-day comment review period for the Little Sebastian Draft Mitigation Plan (SAW-2017-01507) closed on
July 27, 2018. All comments that were posted on the Mitigation Plan SharePoint Review Site during the review
process are attached for your records.
We have evaluated the comments generated during the review period, and determined that additional information is
required in order to complete our review. Please provide a response to the attached comment memo with copies of
any proposed revisions to the Draft Mitigation Plan. Once we have reviewed and concurred with the information and
any proposed changes, we will be able continue with the review process, and provide the IRT with notification that
we intend to approve the Mitigation Plan. After approval, all revisions will need to be included in the Final
Mitigation Plan to be submitted with the PCN application.
Please let us know if you have any questions about specific comments, this process, or additional information that is
requested. We will continue to coordinate with you on this project in an effort to resolve concerns as quickly as
possible.
Andrea W. Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, Wilmington District
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone]
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Hughes September 3, 2018
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: NCDMS Little Sebastian Draft Mitigation Plan - NCIRT Comments During 30-day
Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCDMS SharePoint Site during the
30-day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.
NCDMS Project Name: NCDMS Little Sebastian Mitigation Site, Surry County, North Carolina
USACE AID#: SAW-2017-01507
NCDMS #: 100027
30-Day Comment Deadline: July 27, 2018.
Todd Bowers, USEPA, July 27, 2018
See Attached Comments
Mac Haupt, NCDWR, May 18, 2018:
1. In the future, please try to minimize changes to the reach names from the initial concept
plan to the draft mitigation plan. DWR realizes changes in design or approach may result
in changing a reach name from time to time, however, we utilize the initial plan to review
our comments to compare to what is being proposed in the draft mitigation plan.
2. Reaches JN2-A, JN3-A, MC1-A, and MC3-A are all labeled as preservation. However,
all of these reaches include cattle exclusion fencing and some supplemental planting.
This type of reach would then be better labeled as Enhancement. Remembering these
reaches, DWR does believe these reaches warrant a 10:1 ratio given the status of the
mature riparian buffer.
3. In the Design Approach Section, DWR would like to see some information related to
channel substrate size (d50 and d84, etc.), particularly on the larger stream reaches (e.g.
JN3-B and MC1-C) where restoration is occurring.
4. Table 15 shows the preservation reaches increasing in length. Why is the proposed
length greater than the existing length for these reaches?
5. DWR prefers that RES utilize the October 2016 Mitigation Update for guidance
references rather than the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
6. DWR questions how there to be no credit loss in the riparian buffer calculations given the
appearance of less than 30 foot buffer on JN3-A and JN2-A.
7. It appears the dry detention basin proposed for near the top of BS-1 may be in a
jurisdictional stream.
8. On page 31 it is mentioned that reach JN-2A will have supplemental planting but no
supplemental planting is shown on the Planting Plan (P1).
9. DWR would like all typicals to be up-to-date. When we review these draft mitigation
plans some of our comments may be based on how you build structures or the size of
stone you may include in your constructed riffles (see #3).
10. In Section 6.2, for reach JN3-B, there is no mention of flood plain wetlands. The channel
in this reach will be built through some jurisdictional wetlands. It is likely that the raised
channel bed will at least enhance the wetlands’ hydrology, some mention of this should
be in the paragraph.
11. Also, in general, there should be some mention of functional uplift of the existing
degraded wetlands on site, there is no discussion of the functional change for the
wetlands.
12. Finally, there needs to be two gauges installed along JN3-B at station 6+25 and 9+75 on
stream right floodplain.
Andrea Hughes, USACE, September 3, 2018:
1. The resource labels should match the labels used in the JD and remain consistent
throughout the document. For example, the site map in the design plans depicts Reach
MC1 and MC2 however, the Sheet List Table (on the same page) refers to MC1 and MC
3. The JD map lists MC2/MC3 as JN7 (for the portion shown on the Gideon Site but
assumed for the entire reach). The conceptual map provided post site visit list MC1 as
JN1 and lists JN7 as MC1.
2. Page 12 indicates that MC3 (A, B, C, and D) is a slightly incised and relatively stable
gravel and cobble bed stream that appears to be managing its sediment load and the banks
are generally stable throughout. Based on this information, please explain why MC3C
214 LF) is proposed for bank stabilization. (The design sheets do not provide profile
details for this reach.)
3. The Morphological Parameters indicate that JN3B is an E3 channel with a BHR of 1.0
and an ER of 3.4 and the design parameters propose an E3 channel with a BHR of 1.0
and an ER of >2.2. The Morphological Parameters indicate that MC1C is a E3 channel
with a BHR of 1.0 and an ER of 2.9 and the design parameters propose an E3 channel
with a BHR of 1.0 and an ER of >2.2. Please explain why these two stream reaches are
proposed as restoration.
4. According to the design sheets, JN2A begins at Station 0+0 and ends at 04+38. Figure
10B indicates this reach is 418 LF. Please explain the discrepancy.
5. According to the design plans, it appears that MC1B begins at station 5+00.
6. Maps 10A-10C are labeled as conceptual plan maps. At the draft mitigation plan stage,
the plans should not be conceptual.
7. The plan indicates that additional credits will be generated for extended buffers.
However, the calculations do not appear to include terminal ends in the ideal buffer
measurements. Please refer to step 4 in the directions for the Buffer Tool. Also, if credits
are generated for additional buffers, the 5% exclusion does not apply and any areas that
do not meet the minimum buffer on both sides of the channel (JN3-A) will receive a
credit deduction.
8. Page 8, Section 3.3 states that the conservation easements will be protected with fencing
and areas outside the project will likely remain in agricultural use. However, according
to the conceptual map provided after the field visit, it appears that fencing will not extend
along one side of Mill Creek or along the east side of JN3A and most of the east side of
JN3B. Please explain how you will exclude cattle in areas where the fence ends: at the
west and south boundary of MC1A, east and south boundary – adjacent to an existing
pasture – on MC1C, and the east boundary of the upper portion of JN3B.
9. It appears that JN3B will be constructed through existing wetlands. You must document
that wetland hydrology is not impaired by channel construction.
10. Page 4, Section 6.5: Please note that revisions to the approved mitigation plan, including
credit adjustments, requires submittal of a modification request.
11. Page 42, Table 15: Please explain the existing versus proposed lengths for the
preservation and enhancement reaches.
12. Page 44, Bankfull events: You must demonstrate four bankfull events for all restoration
reaches. This section indicates crest gauges will be installed on JN2D, JN3B, MC1B and
BS1E. The restoration reaches include JN3B, MC1C, BS1A, BS1C, and BS1E.
13. Page 44, Cross Sections and Page 47, Table 16: The entrenchment ratio should be >2.2
for C/E channels and >1.4 for B channels.
14. Please name the party responsible for relocating the power and phone lines.
15. Reaches JN2B and JN2D are proposed for E1. Please add a cross section for each reach
to the monitoring plan.
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division
Memorandum to the Record
July 27, 2018

Agency Comments for modification to the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Program: Little Sebastian Site (SAW- 2017-
01507) in Surry County, NC

Andrea,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the draft mitigation plan for
the Little Sebastian Site as a component of the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) In-Lieu Fee Program (Project #: 100027). RES (the Site Sponsor) has presented a
potentially viable plan to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable jurisdictional stream
and wetland impacts associated with the US Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section
404 permit program (DA#: SAW-2017-01507). The site, as presented in the draft mitigation plan
is expected to provide approximately 4,703 cool-temperature stream mitigation units (SMUs)
through a combination of stream restoration, enhancement and preservation of non-tidal streams
in the Yadkin River 01 watershed (HUC 03040101). Operating in tandem with the adjacent
Gideon Mitigation Site (RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank), the chosen mitigation site
will also provide an excellent opportunity for the restoration, enhancement and preservation of
forested riparian buffers of the streams within the project conservation easements. SMU credit
also includes that generated by the functional uplift of wider than required riparian buffers within
the boundaries defined by the conservation easements.

Note: It is understood that site visits may have been made by IRT members and other project
managers during the development of site feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In that regard I
feel it necessary to mention that I have not been on-site during this process and that my
comments may reflect a lack of on-site observation and evaluation.

The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following site-
specific comments as they pertain to the Little Sebastian Draft Mitigation Plan dated June 2018:

Section 1.1/Page 1: Project Components
o The adjacent stream mitigation project is currently known as the Gideon
Mitigation Site as a component of the RES Yadkin 01 Stream and Wetland
Umbrella Mitigation Bank. It is listed in this section as well as several other
locations in the document as the Gideon Mitigation Bank with the exception of
Figure 1 Vicinity Map. Recommend updating Bank to Site when referring to
the Gideon project.
o While I do not think that a detailed discussion of the Gideon Site is warranted,
there should be some emphasis that the Gideon and Little Sebastian sites, both
sponsored by RES, will undergo construction in tandem with each other. I would
recommend adding the Gideon site conservation easements to any figure,
especially Figures 10A-C Conceptual Maps, to alert the reader that this site is
indeed adjacent to another proposed site with similar restoration approaches and
easement boundaries. Figure 8 of the Gideon Mitigation Site Plan is an example
of how maps for the Little Sebastian site could be presented.
Section 3.4/Page 8:
o I recommend some clarification in describing easement breaks within the project
and those that will be incurred due the Gideon Site boundaries. The bridge across
Ed Nixon Rd is a break but an intersite break rather than an intrasite break and
should also be noted.
o I would also recommend noting that there is, or at least there appears to be, no
intersite break at the downstream end of the Gideon Site and the eastern portion of
the Little Sebastian Site. Based on the best information I have, Figure 8 of the
Gideon Site plan, there appears to be no break as well.
Table 6/Page 10:
o There is no reference to or language supporting Table 6.
Section 3.5/Pages 10-15:
o Recommend referencing Figure 5 Existing Conditions Map in discussions of
existing channel morphology.
o Figure 5 does not have the reaches referenced in Section 3.5 labelled.
o Many of the stream descriptions do not describe streams that are worthy of
preservation. For example, JN2-A is described as channel is incised and heavily
degraded due to livestock impacts. The photos for JN2-A do not seem to
accurately represent this description.
o Descriptions for JN2-C and D are missing.
o Description of MC1-A includes an active pasture along the left bank yet this reach
is proposed for preservation when more than cattle exclusion is needed on this
reach.
o I highly recommend changing the naming of MC3 to MC4 due to the adjacent
Gideon Site has MC3 along Mill Creek. This may limit confusion during
construction by preventing work on two stream reaches with the same name.
o The description for MC3-A is not one that is worthy of preservation as it appears
that active pasture is present on the left bank and the immediate upstream and
downstream reaches are undergoing some enhancement work.
o Recommend adding a table with Table 8 for the Stream Quality Assessment
scores found in Appendix H or provide the scores with the individual reach
descriptions.
Section 5/Page 25-27:
o Riparian buffer will be restored along all project reaches, except for the
preservation reaches may be considered misleading since descriptions given in
Section 6.2 include planting riparian buffers (along with cattle exclusion) for
preservation reaches.
o Please elaborate on what HF (Highly Functioning) is in accordance with the
Stream Functions Pyramid Framework.
o Please elaborate on how functional lift above Functioning will be defined and
demonstrated.
o Recommend changing all Projected Ratings for reaches considered as HF to
F unless the metric for HF is defined and can be demonstrated.
Section 6.2/Pages 30-39:
o Generally good descriptions of how the Little Sebastian Site will tie into the
Gideon Mitigation Bank (Site!).
o It is somewhat difficult to determine what the difference between Preservation
and Enhancement II on some of the reaches. For example, MC1-B is undergoing
EII yet has no stream work proposed and is the same level of work as another
reach, MC1-A, which is proposed for Preservation. MC3-B and D and BS1-B and
D are also proposed for EII and have no description of in-stream work.
o The riparian area along the left bank, not the right bank, of MC1-A is to be
restored.
o Table 12 Vegetation Shear Stress numbers are erroneous with two decimal points.
Section 7.1/Page 44: Surface Flow
o JN2-A is a preservation reach and not undergoing restoration or enhancement
work. Recommend moving monitoring of seasonal flow to next downstream reach
undergoing work (JN2-B). This will make it consistent with Section 8.3.
Section 8.2/Page 45: Visual Monitoring
o Add language to address beaver (Castor canadensis) activity and damage.
Section 8.5/Page 46: Vegetation Monitoring.
o Please include the sampling protocol and plot type that will be used to monitor
vegetation. Peet et. al. is included in the references so I have to assume that the
CVS method will be utilized but this is not directly stated.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide feedback, comments and concerns with the Little
Sebastian Site draft mitigation plan as an addition to the NCDMS In-Lieu Fee Program. I believe
RES has provided a potentially viable plan to offset permitted impacts that will be incurred
within the Yadkin River 01 watershed geographic service area. If you, or the sponsor, have any
questions or need clarification on any of the comments stated above, please contact me at 404-
562-9225 or at [e-mail].
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers

Comments submitted to Andrea Hughes (SAW-PM) and NCIRT Members via email on July 27,
2018

MEMORANDUM

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NCIRT and NCDMS
FROM: Cara Conder - RES
DATE: September 19, 2018
RE: Response to Little Sebastian Draft Mitigation Plan NCIRT Comments 30-day review
DMS Project ID No. 100027, Contract #7187, USACE Action ID #SAW-2017-01507

Mac Haupt, NCDWR, May 18, 2018:

1. In the future, please try to minimize changes to the reach names from the initial concept plan
to the draft mitigation plan. DWR realizes changes in design or approach may result in
changing a reach name from time to time, however, we utilize the initial plan to review our
comments to compare to what is being proposed in the draft mitigation plan.
RES completely understands this request and we have really focused on getting reach labels
finalized in the initial concept plans going forward. Attached to the end of this memo is a Reach
ID Summary for the initial concept plan, JD, and final conceptual plan. Notable changes are
Reach JN1 is actually a named stream, Mill Creek, so in design this has been renamed to MC.
Mill Creek is also part of the Gideon Mitigation Bank (MC2) and then continues to the eastern
side of Little Sebastian, so the naming reflects this. Reaches JN2, JN3, and BS1 remain the
same reach name, but have breakdowns by treatment type (i.e., A, B, C).

2. Reaches JN2-A, JN3-A, MC1-A, and MC3-A are all labeled as preservation. However, all of
these reaches include cattle exclusion fencing and some supplemental planting. This type of
reach would then be better labeled as Enhancement. Remembering these reaches, DWR does
believe these reaches warrant a 10:1 ratio given the status of the mature riparian buffer.
Reach MC3-A will have cattle exclusion fencing and some supplemental planting and will
therefore be labeled Enhancement II at a 10:1 ratio due to the dense mature vegetation on one
bank. Reaches JN3-A and MC1-A will have cattle exclusion fencing and planting of an entire
bank and will therefore be labeled Enhancement II at a 7.5:1 ratio. Reach JN2-A does not need
supplemental planting or cattle exclusion because there is already a fence at this break point
(will remain preservation). This information (planting and fencing) has been removed from the
mitigation plan for Reach JN2-A – it was a typo.

Per a conversation with Mac Haupt on 9/17/18, he said he would consider Reaches MC1-A and
JN3-A at a 7.5:1 ratio vs. 10:1 if we install the floodplain gauges on JN3-B and justify the
treatment.

Revisions in Section 3.5, pgs 11 &12; Section 6.2 pgs 30 & 31

3. In the Design Approach Section, DWR would like to see some information related to channel
substrate size (d50 and d84, etc.), particularly on the larger stream reaches (e.g. JN3-B and
MC1-C) where restoration is occurring.

Revised per comment, see Section 6.2, pgs 31-32 and Morphology Table in Appendix B.

4. Table 15 shows the preservation reaches increasing in length. Why is the proposed length
greater than the existing length for these reaches?
The existing length was accidentally taken from GIS and not actual survey. The updated
existing lengths have been added to the mitigation plan and Table 15.

5. DWR prefers that RES utilize the October 2016 Mitigation Update for guidance references
rather than the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
The intro paragraph in Sections 7 and 8 have been updated to reflect this. The monitoring was
originally following the 2016 guidance, but only referenced the 2003 guidance.

6. DWR questions how there to be no credit loss in the riparian buffer calculations given the
appearance of less than 30 foot buffer on JN3-A and JN2-A.
There would be a credit loss in these areas and RES has addressed this by recalculating the
extended buffer areas and minimum buffer areas. Calculations include terminal ends where the
project streams leave the easement. See Figure 11 – Buffer Widths Zones and Appendix B for
the USACE Buffer Calculator.

7. It appears the dry detention basin proposed for near the top of BS-1 may be in a jurisdictional
stream.
The dry detention basin is above the E/I point on the stream and the E/I point has been added
to the design sheet.

8. On page 31 it is mentioned that reach JN-2A will have supplemental planting but no
supplemental planting is shown on the Planting Plan (P1).
This was a typo and page 30 (Section 6.2) has been revised to state that Reach JN2-A does not
need supplemental planting or cattle exclusion because there is already a fence at this break
point and mature forest on both sides of the reach.

9. DWR would like all typicals to be up-to-date. When we review these draft mitigation plans
some of our comments may be based on how you build structures or the size of stone you may
include in your constructed riffles (see #3).
The details have been updated to reflect reach specific log and rock sizes.

10. In Section 6.2, for reach JN3-B, there is no mention of flood plain wetlands. The channel in
this reach will be built through some jurisdictional wetlands. It is likely that the raised channel
bed will at least enhance the wetlands’ hydrology, some mention of this should be in the
paragraph.
This information has been added to pages 30 and 31 in Section 6.2.

11. Also, in general, there should be some mention of functional uplift of the existing degraded
wetlands on site, there is no discussion of the functional change for the wetlands.
This information has been added to page 30 in Section 6.2.

“In conjunction with the stream restoration, adjacent wetland hydrology will be enhanced
through raising the channel bed. No wetland mitigation credits will be generated from the
enhancement of these wetland areas; however, the enhancement and protection of these
currently degraded wetlands will store excess water during flood events, prevent erosion of
stream banks, and reduce in-stream sedimentation and nutrients.”

12. Finally, there needs to be two gauges installed along JN3-B at station 6+25 and 9+75 on stream
right floodplain.
RES is not claiming any wetland mitigation credits at this site. RES will install two gauges in
the floodplain of this reach; however, we might not have enough baseline data to know whether
or not we impact hydrology.
Andrea Hughes, USACE, September 3, 2018:
1. The resource labels should match the labels used in the JD and remain consistent throughout
the document. For example, the site map in the design plans depicts Reach MC1 and MC2
however, the Sheet List Table (on the same page) refers to MC1 and MC3. The JD map lists
MC2/MC3 as JN7 (for the portion shown on the Gideon Site but assumed for the entire reach).
The conceptual map provided post site visit list MC1 as JN1 and lists JN7 as MC1.
RES completely understands this request and we have really focused on getting reach labels
finalized in the initial concept plans going forward. In the design plans site map, MC2 should
have been MC3 and that was a typo – fixed now. Also, Reach JN7 on Gideon is 55 linear feet
under Wetland WF and is not labeling Mill Creek (MC2).

The main reach labels without treatment breaks in the mitigation plan do match the JD.
Attached to the end of this memo is a Reach ID Summary for the initial concept plan, JD, and
final conceptual plan. Notable changes are Reach JN1 is actually a named stream, Mill Creek,
so in design and PJD this has been renamed to MC. Mill Creek is also part of the Gideon
Mitigation Bank (MC2) and then continues to the eastern side of Little Sebastian, so the naming
reflects this. Reaches JN2, JN3, and BS1 remain the same reach name, but have breakdowns
by treatment type (i.e., A, B, C).

2. Page 12 indicates that MC3 (A, B, C, and D) is a slightly incised and relatively stable gravel
and cobble bed stream that appears to be managing its sediment load and the banks are
generally stable throughout. Based on this information, please explain why MC3C 214 LF) is
proposed for bank stabilization. (The design sheets do not provide profile details for this reach.)
Reach MC3 as a whole is relatively stable with localized areas of instability. Reach MC3-C’s
left bank is unstable and the ford crossing is being located at the treatment break in the design
plans. The cattle will also be excluded with fencing and the entire left bank will be planted.
Page 12 has been updated to reflect this language.

3. The Morphological Parameters indicate that JN3B is an E3 channel with a BHR of 1.0 and an
ER of 3.4 and the design parameters propose an E3 channel with a BHR of 1.0 and an ER of
>2.2. The Morphological Parameters indicate that MC1C is a E3 channel with a BHR of 1.0
and an ER of 2.9 and the design parameters propose an E3 channel with a BHR of 1.0 and an
ER of >2.2. Please explain why these two stream reaches are proposed as restoration.
These reaches have no buffer, are within an active pasture, and the banks are highly unstable.
There is active bank erosion (mass wasting/bank sloughing) which is contributing large
amounts of sediment to the system. Also, during the post contract IRT site visit, the IRT agreed

to restoration on these reaches. The existing conditions in Section 3.5, page 12 have been
revised to state this better.

4. According to the design sheets, JN2A begins at Station 0+0 and ends at 04+38. Figure 10B
indicates this reach is 418 LF. Please explain the discrepancy.
The callout on the design sheet has Reach JN2A Preservation Station 0+20 to 4+38. The E/I
call has been added to the plan to make this clearer.

5. According to the design plans, it appears that MC1B begins at station 5+00.
That station starts at 4+99.46. The plans show that it starts at 4+99 (rounding down). At 30
scale it might appear to be at 5+00 (there is a piece of LCE text right on top of it), but if you
zoom in, you can see the tick mark to the left of LCE.

6. Maps 10A-10C are labeled as conceptual plan maps. At the draft mitigation plan stage, the
plans should not be conceptual.
This is now labeled Concept Design Map. Also, the figure is now 11x17 and is only Figure 10
and not 10A-C.

7. The plan indicates that additional credits will be generated for extended buffers. However, the
calculations do not appear to include terminal ends in the ideal buffer measurements. Please
refer to step 4 in the directions for the Buffer Tool. Also, if credits are generated for additional
buffers, the 5% exclusion does not apply and any areas that do not meet the minimum buffer
on both sides of the channel (JN3-A) will receive a credit deduction.
RES has addressed this by recalculating the extended buffer areas and minimum buffer areas.
Calculations include terminal ends where the project streams leave the easement. Additionally,
on page 41 (Section 6.5) language the follow language was removed “ … and are not included
in the ideal and actual buffer calculations” in reference to required buffer width zones; as it is
incorrect and now how GIS analysis was performed. See Figure 11 – Buffer Widths Zones, and
Appendix B for the USACE Buffer Calculator.

8. Page 8, Section 3.3 states that the conservation easements will be protected with fencing and
areas outside the project will likely remain in agricultural use. However, according to the
conceptual map provided after the field visit, it appears that fencing will not extend along one
side of Mill Creek or along the east side of JN3A and most of the east side of JN3B. Please
explain how you will exclude cattle in areas where the fence ends: at the west and south
boundary of MC1A, east and south boundary – adjacent to an existing pasture – on MC1C, and
the east boundary of the upper portion of JN3B.
New fencing will tie-in to existing fencing on these reaches, therefore excluding livestock. JN3-
A and JN3-B already has an existing fence on the east side. A fencing plan has been added to
the plan set to show all existing and proposed fencing.

9. It appears that JN3B will be constructed through existing wetlands. You must document that
wetland hydrology is not impaired by channel construction.
DWR has commented we need to install two gauges in the floodplain of this reach and two
gauges will be installed. However, without enough baseline data, it could be unclear whether
or not we impact hydrology.

10. Page 4, Section 6.5: Please note that revisions to the approved mitigation plan, including credit
adjustments, requires submittal of a modification request.
This additional language has been added to Section 6.5, page 40.

11. Page 42, Table 15: Please explain the existing versus proposed lengths for the preservation
and enhancement reaches.
The existing length was accidentally taken from GIS and not actual survey. The updated
existing lengths have been added to the mitigation plan and Table 15.

12. Page 44, Bankfull events: You must demonstrate four bankfull events for all restoration
reaches. This section indicates crest gauges will be installed on JN2D, JN3B, MC1B and BS1E.
The restoration reaches include JN3B, MC1C, BS1A, BS1C, and BS1E.
Page 43- Crest gauges will be installed on reaches JN3-B, MC1-C, BS1-C, and BS1-E. BS1-A
already has a flow gauge, which can monitor bankfull events.

13. Page 44, Cross Sections and Page 47, Table 16: The entrenchment ratio should be >2.2 for C/E
channels and >1.4 for B channels.
Page 43 and Table 16 has been updated to reflect this.

14. Please name the party responsible for relocating the power and phone lines.
CenturyLink is relocating the phone line and Pee Dee Electric is relocating the power line. This
has been added to Section 3.4.

15. Reaches JN2B and JN2D are proposed for E1. Please add a cross section for each reach to the
monitoring plan.
The monitoring plan has been revised to show two cross sections added to JN2-B and the
previously proposed cross-sections for JN2-D will remain.
Todd Bowers, USEPA, July 27, 2018
Section 1.1/Page 1: Project Components
• The adjacent stream mitigation project is currently known as the Gideon Mitigation Site as a
component of the RES Yadkin 01 Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank. It is listed
in this section as well as several other locations in the document as the Gideon Mitigation Bank
with the exception of Figure 1 Vicinity Map. Recommend updating Bank to Site when referring
to the Gideon project.
‘Bank’ has been changed to ‘Site’ throughout the entire document.

• While I do not think that a detailed discussion of the Gideon Site is warranted, there should be
some emphasis that the Gideon and Little Sebastian sites, both sponsored by RES, will undergo
construction in tandem with each other. I would recommend adding the Gideon site
conservation easements to any figure, especially Figures 10A-C Conceptual Maps, to alert the
reader that this site is indeed adjacent to another proposed site with similar restoration
approaches and easement boundaries. Figure 8 of the Gideon Mitigation Site Plan is an example
of how maps for the Little Sebastian site could be presented.
Language about construction occurring in tandem at both sites has been added to Section 1.1
(page 1). Also, the easement boundary for the Gideon Site has been added to Figures 3 and 5-
11.

Section 3.4/Page 8:
• I recommend some clarification in describing easement breaks within the project and those that
will be incurred due the Gideon Site boundaries. The bridge across Ed Nixon Rd is a break but
an intersite break rather than an intrasite break and should also be noted.
The bridge/break at Ed Nixon Road is a terminal end for the Little Sebastian Site and after that
break the Gideon Site begins (still a continuous stream and treatment). Section 3.4 (pages 8-9)
has been updated to reflect this language.

• I would also recommend noting that there is, or at least there appears to be, no intersite break
at the downstream end of the Gideon Site and the eastern portion of the Little Sebastian Site.
Based on the best information I have, Figure 8 of the Gideon Site plan, there appears to be no
break as well.
Correct, Reach MC3-A is continuous with the Little Sebastian Site and there is no easement
break. This has been added to Section 3.4, page 9.
Table 6/Page 10:
• There is no reference to or language supporting Table 6.
Reference added to this section under ‘Environmental Screening and Documentation’ on page
10.
Section 3.5/Pages 10-15:
• Recommend referencing Figure 5 Existing Conditions Map in discussions of existing channel
morphology.
This reference has been added to this section on page 11.

• Figure 5 does not have the reaches referenced in Section 3.5 labelled.
Reach labels have been added to Figure 5, as well as the Gideon Mitigation Site easement
boundary.

• Many of the stream descriptions do not describe streams that are worthy of preservation. For
example, JN2-A is described as channel is incised and heavily degraded due to livestock
impacts. The photos for JN2-A do not seem to accurately represent this description.
This was also noted by DWR and the USACE. Reach MC3-A will have cattle exclusion fencing
and some supplemental planting and will therefore be labeled Enhancement II at a 10:1 ratio
due to the dense mature vegetation on one bank. Reaches JN3-A and MC1-A will have cattle
exclusion fencing and planting of an entire bank, and will therefore be labeled Enhancement II
at a 7.5:1 ratio. Reach JN2-A does not need supplemental planting or cattle exclusion because
there is already a fence at this break point. This information (planting and fencing) has been
removed from the mitigation plan for Reach JN2-A – it was a typo. Pages 11-12 updated.

• Descriptions for JN2-C and D are missing.
These were nested in the JN2-B description and have been broken out into separate sections on
pages 11-12.

• Description of MC1-A includes an active pasture along the left bank yet this reach is proposed
for preservation when more than cattle exclusion is needed on this reach.
This has been updated to be Enhancement II at a 7.5:1 ratio as RES is excluding cattle and
planting the entire buffer along the left bank in easement (page 12).

• I highly recommend changing the naming of MC3 to MC4 due to the adjacent Gideon Site has
MC3 along Mill Creek. This may limit confusion during construction by preventing work on
two stream reaches with the same name.
There was a typo on the design sheet and Little Sebastian is MC1 to the west and MC3 to the
far east. Mill Creek on Gideon is MC2.

• The description for MC3-A is not one that is worthy of preservation as it appears that active
pasture is present on the left bank and the immediate upstream and downstream reaches are
undergoing some enhancement work.
This has been addressed per DWR’s comment and the treatment is Enhancement at a 10:1 ratio.

• Recommend adding a table with Table 8 for the Stream Quality Assessment scores found in
Appendix H or provide the scores with the individual reach descriptions.
Appendix H has a summary table for all the reach scores. Without seeing the worksheet, like
in the appendix, the scores alone do not provide a lot of information. The scores have been
added to the individual reach descriptions on pages 11-13.
Section 5/Page 25-27:
• Riparian buffer will be restored along all project reaches, except for the preservation reaches
may be considered misleading since descriptions given in Section 6.2 include planting riparian
buffers (along with cattle exclusion) for preservation reaches.
This has been updated on page 25 to reflect that only Reach JN2-A is preservation.

• Please elaborate on what HF (Highly Functioning) is in accordance with the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework.
A paragraph has been added to Section 4, page 22 describing the categories.

• Please elaborate on how functional lift above Functioning will be defined and demonstrated.
Highly Functioning will not be demonstrated per the comment below and all reaches
considered HF have been revised to F.

• Recommend changing all Projected Ratings for reaches considered as HF to F unless the metric
for HF is defined and can be demonstrated.
This has been done and all reaches considered HF are F in Table 9 on page 26.
Section 6.2/Pages 30-39:
• Generally good descriptions of how the Little Sebastian Site will tie into the Gideon Mitigation
Bank (Site!).
Gideon labelled as ‘Site’.

• It is somewhat difficult to determine what the difference between Preservation and
Enhancement II on some of the reaches. For example, MC1-B is undergoing EII yet has no
stream work proposed and is the same level of work as another reach, MC1-A, which is
proposed for Preservation. MC3-B and D and BS1-B and D are also proposed for EII and have
no description of in-stream work.
Understood and this has been addressed and revised per multiple comments from DWR,
USACE, and EPA. The reaches originally proposed as preservation have mature riparian buffer
on one bank, but these are now labelled as enhancement reaches.

• The riparian area along the left bank, not the right bank, of MC1-A is to be restored.
This has been updated to left bank (page 31).

• Table 12 Vegetation Shear Stress numbers are erroneous with two decimal points.
This has been fixed (page 37).
Section 7.1/Page 44: Surface Flow
• JN2-A is a preservation reach and not undergoing restoration or enhancement work. Recommend
moving monitoring of seasonal flow to next downstream reach undergoing work (JN2-B). This will
make it consistent with Section 8.3.
Page 43- The flow gauge is located in the intermittent portion of the reach; JN2-B is perennial.
DWR and USACE guidance places the gauge in the upper third of the intermittent reach (JN2-A).
Section 8.2/Page 45: Visual Monitoring
• Add language to address beaver (Castor canadensis) activity and damage.
This has been added to Section 8.2, page 45.
Section 8.5/Page 46: Vegetation Monitoring.
• Please include the sampling protocol and plot type that will be used to monitor vegetation. Peet et.
al. is included in the references so I have to assume that the CVS method will be utilized but this is
not directly stated.

This has been added and reference to Peet removed: “Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-
EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis
of species composition and density of planted species. Data is processed using the CVS data entry
tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin
and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each
monitoring year.”

REACH ID SUMMARY
Site Proposal ID Proposal Treatment Post IRT Site Visit
Update ID
Post IRT Site Visit Update
Treatment JD
Final
Design
ID
Final Treatment
Little Sebastian
West JN2-A Preservation JN2 JN2-A Preservation
Little Sebastian
West JN2-A Restoration JN2-A Enhancement I JN2 JN2-B Enhancement I
Little Sebastian
West JN2-B Enhancement II JN2-A/JN2-B Enhancement II JN2 JN2-C Enhancement II
Little Sebastian
West JN2-B Enhancement II JN2-B Enhancement I JN2 JN2-D Enhancement I
Little Sebastian
West JN3-A Enhancement II JN3-A Preservation JN3 JN3-A Enhancement II
7.5:1
Little Sebastian
West JN3-B Restoration JN3-B Restoration JN3 JN3-B Restoration
Little Sebastian
West JN1-A Enhancement II JN1-A Preservation Mill
Creek MC1-A Enhancement II
7.5:1
Little Sebastian
West JN1-A Enhancement II JN1-A Enhancement II 5:1 Mill
Creek MC1-B Enhancement II
5:1
Little Sebastian
West JN1-B Restoration JN1-B Restoration Mill
Creek MC1-C Restoration
Little Sebastian East BS1 Restoration BS1 Restoration BS1 BS1-A Restoration
Little Sebastian East BS1 Enhancement II BS1 Enhancement II BS1 BS1-B Enhancement II
Little Sebastian East BS1 Restoration BS1 Restoration BS1 BS1-C Restoration
Little Sebastian East BS1 Enhancement II BS1 Enhancement II BS1 BS1-D Enhancement II
Little Sebastian East BS1 Restoration BS1 Restoration BS1 BS1-E Restoration
Little Sebastian East MC1 Enhancement II MC1 Preservation Mill
Creek MC3-A Enhancement II
10:1
Little Sebastian East MC1 Enhancement II MC1 Enhancement II Mill
Creek MC3-B Enhancement II
Little Sebastian East MC1 Enhancement II MC1 Enhancement I Mill
Creek MC3-C Enhancement I
Little Sebastian East MC1 Enhancement II MC1 Enhancement II 5:1 Mill
Creek MC3-D Enhancement II
5:1

MEMORANDUM

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NCIRT and NCDMS
FROM: Cara Conder - RES
DATE: October 31, 2018
RE: Revisions to Little Sebastian Final Mitigation Plan
DMS Project ID No. 100027, Contract #7187, USACE Action ID #SAW-2017-01507

While beginning the process of closing on project easements there have been a few minor revisions
to the Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan. These minor easement changes occur at crossing locations
and RES wanted to adjust for these now before printing the final mitigation plan and completing
the PCN package. None of the changes affected the stream design. We have walked the easement
boundary with the landowner and made some adjustments reflected below and these changes are
called out and highlighted on the updated Concept Design Map dated October 2018 (attached to
this memo).
• On the western portion of the project area, Reach JN2-C has two small sheds removed from
the easement area per the landowner.
• The shape of the crossing on MC3-B was altered slightly to allow the landowner better
access/use of this crossing. This area gets steep beyond the toe of slope.
• The crossing on BS1-E was angled/adjusted slightly to make this a usable crossing with
the steep terrain.
• The very last 46 LF of MC3-D was on another parcel that was deeded by the landowner.
This was not originally clear in the survey and deed research but has been confirmed as we
work on easement closings. This small section has been removed from the Little Sebastian
project and the easement ends at the boundary line.
• A break has been left between the parcel boundary and BS1-A. The easement still captures
beyond 50 feet around the stream origin.

The final credits have been adjusted downward to 4,554.3 SMUs (with a recalculated additional
buffer gain of 505.1 and a buffer loss of -278.7). The September 2018 final mitigation plan had
4,581.4 SMUs for a difference of 27.1 SMUs. An updated asset table (with changes highlighted),
asset map, buffer map, and buffer & GIS calculations are attached. The previous versions have
been included for comparison. This memo and the reflected changes will be included in the Final
Mitigation Plan. Please let me know if you need any more information.

Little Sebastian Site (ID-100027) - Mitigation Components October 2018 Revisions
Project
Component
(reach ID)
Wetland
Position
and
Hydro
Type
Existing
Footage Stationing
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
As-
Built
Footage
Restoration
Level
Approach
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Credits Notes/Comments
JN2-A 418 0+20 to 4+38 418 TBD Preservation 10.0:1 41.8 Livestock exclusion
JN2-B 187 4+38 to 6+25 187 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 124.7 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN2-C 307 6+25 to 9+32 307 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 122.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion. One 31-foot crossing is present on this reach, from 9+32 to 9+63.
- 837 9+63 to 18+00 837 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 334.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN2-D 39 18+00 to 18+43 43 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 28.7 Channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, crossing relocation, buffer plantings, and livestock exclusion. One 62 -foot crossing occurs from 18+43 to 19+05.
- 150 19+05 to 20+58 153 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 102.0 Channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, buffer plantings, and livestock exclusion.
JN3-A 350 0+0 to 3+50 350 TBD Enhancement II 7.5:1 46.7 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN3-B 900 3+50 to 11+31 781 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 781.0 Channel reconstruction in the natural valley, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. One 43 -foot crossing is occurs from 11+31 to
11+74.
- 224 11+74 to 14+36 262 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 262.0 Channel reconstruction in the natural valley, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion.
MC1-A 469 0+0 to 4+69 469 TBD Enhancement II 7.5:1 62.5 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC1-B 717 4+99 to 12+16 717 TBD Enhancement II 5.0:1 143.4 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion. One 41-foot easement break occurs at 12-16 to 12+57 for an existing utility line.
- 260 12+57 to 15+17 260 TBD Enhancement II 5.0:1 52.0 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC1-C 545 15+17 to 20+72 555 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 555.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
MC3-A 243 40+42 to 42+85 243 TBD Enhancement II 10.0:1 24.3 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC3-B 402 42+85 to 46+87 402 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 160.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC3-C 214 47+28 to 49+42 214 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 142.7 Bank stabilization, improved in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
MC3-D 395 49+42 to 53+37 395 TBD Enhancement II 5.0:1 79.0 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-A 205 1+05 to 3+19 214 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 214.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
BS1-B 190 3+19 to 4+94 175 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 70.0 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-C 580 4+94 to 10+35 541 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 541.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
BS1-D 185 10+35 to 12+12 177 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 70.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-E 278 12+12 to 14+86 274 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 274.0 One 45-foot crossing occurs from 14+86 to 15+31.
- 94 15+31 to 16+25 94 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 94.0
No Wetland Mitigation
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Restoration
Level
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Overall
Credits (linear
feet) (acres) (acres) Asset Category
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 2,721 Stream 4,327.9
Enhancement RP Wetland NA
Enhancement I 597 NR Wetland NA
Enhancement II 4,332 Buffer Loss SMU -278.7
Creation Buffer Gain SMU 505.1
Preservation 418 Total SMUs 4,554.3
High Quality
Pres
Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion.
Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
Little Sebastian Site (ID-100027) - Mitigation Components September 2018
Project
Component
(reach ID)
Wetland
Position
and
Hydro
Type
Existing
Footage Stationing
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
As-
Built
Footage
Restoration
Level
Approach
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Credits Notes/Comments

JN2-A 418 0+20 to 4+38 418 TBD Preservation 10.0:1 41.8 Livestock exclusion
JN2-B 187 4+38 to 6+25 187 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 124.7 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN2-C 307 6+25 to 9+32 307 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 122.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion. One 31-foot crossing is present on this reach, from 9+32 to 9+63.
- 837 9+63 to 18+00 837 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 334.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN2-D 39 18+00 to 18+43 43 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 28.7 Channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, crossing relocation, buffer plantings, and livestock exclusion. One 62-foot crossing occurs from 18+43 to 19+05.
- 150 19+05 to 20+58 153 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 102.0 Channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, buffer plantings, and livestock exclusion.
JN3-A 350 0+0 to 3+50 350 TBD Enhancement II 7.5:1 46.7 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN3-B 900 3+50 to 11+31 781 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 781.0 Channel reconstruction in the natural valley, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. One 43-foot crossing is occurs from 11+31 to
11+74.
- 224 11+74 to 14+36 262 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 262.0 Channel reconstruction in the natural valley, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion.
MC1-A 469 0+0 to 4+69 469 TBD Enhancement II 7.5:1 62.5 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC1-B 717 4+99 to 12+16 717 TBD Enhancement II 5.0:1 143.4 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion. One 41-foot easement break occurs at 12-16 to 12+57 for an existing utility line.
- 260 12+57 to 15+17 260 TBD Enhancement II 5.0:1 52.0 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC1-C 545 15+17 to 20+72 555 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 555.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
MC3-A 243 40+42 to 42+85 243 TBD Enhancement II 10.0:1 24.3 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC3-B 412 42+85 to 46+97 412 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 164.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC3-C 214 47+28 to 49+42 214 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 142.7 Bank stabilization, improved in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
MC3-D 441 49+42 to 53+83 441 TBD Enhancement II 5.0:1 88.2 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-A 205 1+05 to 3+19 214 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 214.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
BS1-B 190 3+19 to 4+94 175 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 70.0 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-C 580 4+94 to 10+35 541 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 541.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
BS1-D 185 10+35 to 12+12 177 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 70.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-E 318 12+12 to 15+26 314 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 314.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. One 42-foot crossing occurs from 15+26 to 15+68.
- 56 15+68 to 16+25 57 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 57.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion

No Wetland Mitigation

Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Restoration
Level
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Overall
Credits

(linear
feet) (acres) (acres) Asset Category
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 2,724 Stream 4,344.1
Enhancement RP Wetland NA
Enhancement I 597 NR Wetland NA
Enhancement II 4,388 Buffer Loss SMU -269.4
Creation Buffer Gain SMU 506.7
Preservation 418 Total SMUs 4,581.4
High Quality
Pres
!CMC3-C
JN
2
-
D BS1-ABS1-DJN
2
-
B
BS1-BMC3-A BS1-EJN3-A
MC3-
B
MC3-D
J
N
2
-
A
MC1-A
BS1-CMC1-C
MC1-B
JN
3
-BJN2-C
©
0 400200
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 10 - Concept Map 11X17.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
(25.90 ac)
Project Parcels
Proposed Gideon Site
!CAgricultural BMP
Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement II (5:1)
Enhancement II (7.5:1)
Enhancement II (10:1)
Preservation
Figure 10 - Concept Design Map
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
1 in = 400 feet
Reach Treatment Length Ratio SMUs
JN2-A Preservation 418 10:1 41.8
JN2-B Enhancement I 187 1.5:1 124.7
JN2-C Enhancement II 1,144 2.5:1 457.6
JN2-D Enhancement I 196 1.5:1 130.7
JN3-A Enhancement II 350 7.5:1 46.7
JN3-B Restoration 1,043 1:1 1,043.0
MC1-A Enhancement II 469 7.5:1 62.5
MC1-B Enhancement II 977 5:1 195.4
MC1-C Restoration 555 1:1 555.0
MC3-A Enhancement II 243 10:1 24.3
MC3-B Enhancement II 402 2.5:1 160.8
MC3-C Enhancement I 214 1.5:1 142.7
MC3-D Enhancement II 395 5:1 79.0
BS1-A Restoration 214 1:1 214.0
BS1-B Enhancement II 175 2.5:1 70.0
BS1-C Restoration 541 1:1 541.0
BS1-D Enhancement II 177 2.5:1 70.8
BS1-E Restoration 368 1:1 368.0
8,068 4,327.9
505.1
-278.7
4,554.3
Total
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
Total Adjusted SMUs
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
Easement RevisedEasement Revised Easement Revised
Easement Revised
Crossing realigned
~ 46 linear feet removed
due to boundary
easement revisions
October 2018 Final Concept Revisions
!CMC3-C
JN
2
-
D BS1-ABS1-DJN
2
-
B
BS1-BMC3-A BS1-EJN3-A
MC3-
B
J
N
2
-
A
MC1-A
MC3-DBS1-CMC1-C
MC1-B JN3-BJN2-C
©
0 400200
Feet
Date: 9/18/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 10 - Concept Map 11X17.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcels
Proposed Gideon Site
!CAgricultural BMP
Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement II (5:1)
Enhancement II (7.5:1)
Enhancement II (10:1)
Preservation
Figure 10 - Concept Design Map
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
1 in = 473 feet
Reach Treatment Length Ratio SMUs
JN2-A Preservation 418 10:1 41.8
JN2-B Enhancement I 187 1.5:1 124.7
JN2-C Enhancement II 1,144 2.5:1 457.6
JN2-D Enhancement I 196 1.5:1 130.7
JN3-A Enhancement II 350 7.5:1 46.7
JN3-B Restoration 1,043 1:1 1,043.0
MC1-A Enhancement II 469 7.5:1 62.5
MC1-B Enhancement II 977 5:1 195.4
MC1-C Restoration 555 1:1 555.0
MC3-A Enhancement II 243 10:1 24.3
MC3-B Enhancement II 412 2.5:1 164.8
MC3-C Enhancement I 214 1.5:1 142.7
MC3-D Enhancement II 441 5:1 88.2
BS1-A Restoration 214 1:1 214.0
BS1-B Enhancement II 175 2.5:1 70.0
BS1-C Restoration 541 1:1 541.0
BS1-D Enhancement II 177 2.5:1 70.8
BS1-E Restoration 371 1:1 371.0
8,127 4,344.1
506.7
-269.4
4,581.4
Total
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
Total Adjusted SMUs
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
September 2018/Final Draft Concept Design Map

MEMORANDUM

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
FROM: Cara Conder - RES
DATE: June 18, 2018
RE: Response to Little Sebastian Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan Comments
DMS Project ID No. 100027, Contract #7187

Paul Wiesner, NCDMS Comments:

General Comment: Please include the September 29, 2017 Post Contract IRT Meeting Minutes
in the appendices of the revised mitigation plan and confirm that the mitigation plan is consistent
with the meeting notes and IRT response e-mails (attached for reference).
Added September 29,2017 IRT meeting minutes to Appendix B and language to the mitigation plan
in Section 1.2 that the plan is consistent with the meeting notes and IRT response emails.

Executive Summary: Please reference the thermal regime. Please provide a brief introduction of
the Gideon site to describe the benefits such as easement continuity and riparian corridor.
Thermal regime cool added, along with a brief introduction of the Gideon site.

Section 1.2 - Project Outcomes: Edit the sentence “Due to its water classifications”. The
proposed improvements may result in outcomes consistent with these water quality classifications
but the outcomes are not “due to” them.
Removed the first part of the sentence and changed to “Proposed improvements to the Project will
help meet the river basin needs…”

Section 1.2 - Project Outcomes: Stating the proposed improvements will meet the water quality
needs of the basin should be reworded unless the parameters are to be quantified.
Revised the wording

Section 2.1 - Site Selection: This section indicates that improvement and restoration of water
quality will be achieved. Edit this assertion or modify the monitoring plan to include water quality.
Edited the language about achieving goal 1; however, goal 1 is being addressed, just not
quantified.

Section 3.1 - Watershed Summary Information-(Page 4): Land use comprises most of the text
under the drainage area subheading. Suggesting adding land use to the subheading.
This has been added to the subheading.

Section 3.2 - Landscape Characteristics: Please add a section for the site geology and provide
discussion.
This section has been added.

Section 3.2 - Landscape Characteristics-Existing Wetlands: DMS recommends contacting the
USACE and including the final PJD in the revised mitigation plan prior to the IRT mitigation plan
review.
The PJD is included in Appendix I.

Section 3.2 - Landscape Characteristics – Soil Survey: Please label the soil survey section
according to the entire discussion in the paragraph.
Moved ecoregion narrative to the beginning of the landscape characteristics, and the soil survey
section only discusses soil characteristics.

Section 3.3 - Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future: Land use discussion within the Gideon
site should be included in this section.
Added Gideon references along with the total protected area with both easements for the future
land use.

Section 5 - Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives: Project Goals - How is the improvement
of water quality/reducing sediment and nutrient loads, and increasing DO going to be measured
for success? Suggest clarifying this goal and tying it directly to an objective AND performance
criteria. Same comment for reduction in temperature.
This has been revised to reflect that our goals will indirectly support the goals of the RBRP to
improve water quality and reduce sediment and nutrient loads. This will not be a measurable
objective. Two additional goals have been added that are already tied to objectives: Improve
instream habitat, and restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation.

Section 5 - Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives: Project Objectives - What are the
appropriate pattern, dimension and profile? Is the intent to construct stream for a particular
discharge, or dominant discharge or bankfull discharge? Please clarify.
The objective has been reworded to: Design and reconstruct stream channels sized to convey
bankfull flows that will maintain a stable dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling,
watershed conditions, and reference reach conditions.

Section - 6.2 Design Parameters:
• Reach JN2-B: The text notes minimal grading and buffer reestablishment. Will any
structures be utilized/ installed in this Enhancement I reach? Yes, one log cross vane and
two log sills will be utilized. This has been added to the mitigation plan.
• Reach JN2-D: The channel appears to have been heavily modified/ditched. Is limited
grading the best approach for this reach? The minimal grading was a typo/carry over from
Reach JN2-C. Language in the mitigation plan has been updated to reflect that there is
some channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, and removing an existing ford
crossing and access road. Also, a structure has been added on this reach on the design
plan set.
• Reach MC1-C: Please discuss the transition into the Gideon site. Does the proposed
treatment compliment both sites? The restoration continues into the Gideon site for another

1,030 LF and will be a seamless transition. The Gideon site is being permitted concurrently
and will be constructed at the same time as Little Sebastian.
• USGS Regional Regression Equations: Please verify this equation is applicable/valid for
each of the drainage areas calculated. The equation is correct, but is not applicable to small
drainage areas. The table has been updated accordingly. The USGS Regional Regression
Equations are used in the process for verification that bankfull flows are appropriate.
• Section 5 indicates that two agricultural BMPs will be installed on the site (project
objectives). Please describe these and their proposed location in the Section 6.2 text. There
is only one BMP and the reference to two BMPs was a typo that carried over from the
proposal. The objectives have been reflected to show a single BMP. One BMP was
originally on Reach JN2-A, but per the IRT site visit notes, if the reach is intermittent the
BMP will not be constructed, rather the easement will be extended to provide preservation
to the origin point in the forested watershed. The JD determined the limits of the stream
preservation. The BMP will be installed at the top of Reach BS1-A, which already has the
conservation easement extended beyond the stream origin point. This BMP will be a dry
detention basin and has been added to the language in the mitigation plan for Reach BS1-
A.

Section 7.1 - Success Criteria: Specify which reaches will have transducers/ flow gauges
installed.
Added what reaches will have transducers/flow gauges: JN2-A and BS1-A.

Section 8.6 – Scheduling/ Reporting: “A mitigation plan and as-built drawings document…..”;
this should be, “A Baseline Monitoring report and as-built drawings document…..”. Please update
accordingly.
This has been fixed.

Table 16: The tree height success criteria in the table does not match what is reported in the text
(Section 7.2). Please update the table and QA/QC the table and report text to confirm they are
consistent.
The table has been updated to match the text – it had the Piedmont height criteria originally.

Figure 1 - Vicinity Map: This map appears to be a vicinity map for the Gideon site rather than
the Little Sebastian site. Please change the emphasis to highlight the active site.
This map has been revised to highlight the Little Sebastian site.

Figure 10A: Please update the title to “Little Sebastian Mitigation Site”.
This map has been revised.

Figures 10A-10C: Section 5 indicates that two agricultural BMPs will be installed on the site
(project objectives). Please show the proposed BMPs on the conceptual maps.
This was a typo in Section 5. Two BMPs were presented in the proposal, however since the entire
stream origin is being protected and the reach is intermittent, there will not be a BMP on Reach
JN2-A. One BMP is being installed on reach BS1-A even though this is a restoration reach and
the stream origin is being protected. Additionally, this has been added to the conceptual map and
design plans.

Appendices: Please check appendices for map order and labeling consistency.
The appendices and map order have been reviewed and revised as needed for map order and
labeling consistency

Preliminary Plan Set:
• Title Sheet – Please label the individual stream reaches. Done
• Sheet E1 Construction Note 7 – Add that any compromised trees should be removed to the
note. Done
• Sheet E2 – Edit the linetype to emphasize the project conservation easement. Done
• Sheet S1 – Add profile to include the proposed crossing. Done and now Sheet S2 and all
subsequent sheets will be number off because there is an additional sheet now.
• Sheet S12 – Add profile if needed for the crossing. A profile is not needed for this ford
crossing, as there is no change in bed elevation.
• BMP Sheets - Add sheets detailing the proposed BMPs noted in Section 5 of the report text
and show their locations on the applicable plan sheets. The one BMP on BS1-A has been
added to Sheet S7 and Sheet D2 has the structure details.
• Sheet P1: This appears to be the planting plan for the Gideon Mitigation Bank. Please
provide the planting plan for the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site. Please QA/QC the
document to confirm that other elements of the Gideon Mitigation Bank site MP have not
been included in the Little Sebastian Site MP. This was a mistake and we apologize. The
document has been QA/QCed for other Gideon elements.
• Sheet P1 Planting Note 1 – Add language to the effect “and final approval has been issued”
to the end of the first sentence. Done
• Sheet M1 – The monitoring plan sheet is not consistent with what is proposed in Section
8-Monitoring Plan (specifically the number of vegetation plots). Please QA/ QC the report
text and plan sheets to confirm that they are consistent. Consider moving the flow gauge
on Reach JN2 to the Enhancement I section rather than the preservation section. The
number of vegetation plots in Sheet M1 has been updated to match the mitigation plan,
which is 8 plots. The plan set and mitigation plan are consistent. The flow gauge on Reach
JN2 should stay in the preservation section to document intermittent flow per the post-
contract IRT site visit.
• Sheet D3 Log Vane Plan View - Consider extending the stone backfill along the entire
length of the log into the streambank. Done
• Sheet D4 Double Log Drop Plan View - The contact “hinge” point between the two rows
of logs is prone to piping. Consider adding a note to not require contact at the hinge point
as directed by the engineer. We extended the filter fabric and stone backfill along both logs
(including the hinge point) in order to reduce the risk of piping.
• Structure Details – Please provide boulder size specifications everywhere applicable within
the plan sheets. Done, these are on Sheets S4, S5, and S11, and D5. Rocks must have an
intermediate diameter of at least 24" for headers and 24-30" for footers. Sill rocks shall
have an intermediate diameter of at least 18". All rocks shall be approved by engineer
prior to installation. Width of header and footer rocks must be at least 36". Depth of header
and footer rocks must be at least 24".
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan ii November 2018
Project #100027
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Little Sebastian Mitigation Site (“the Project”) is located in Surry County, approximately 10 miles
north of Elkin. Water quality stressors currently affecting the Project include livestock production,
agricultural production, and lack of riparian buffer. The Project presents 8,068 linear feet (LF) of stream
restoration, enhancement, and preservation, generating 4,554 Cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU)
along Mill Creek and three unnamed tributaries.

The Project is located in the Yadkin River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03040101, Target Local
Watershed (TLW) 03040101080020, and NCDWR sub-basin 03-04-01. The current State classification
for Mill Creek is Class C, Trout Waters (Tr), and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) (NCDWQ
2011).

Consisting of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and wooded areas, the Project’s total easement area is
approximately 25.91 acres within the overall drainage area of 3,261 acres. The Project has two separate
portions and in between those portions is the Gideon Mitigation Site. While each site could be
developed independently of the other, the combined easements will result in a much larger contiguous
protected corridor and high quality aquatic habitat. The Gideon Mitigation Site has a total easement
area that is approximately 10.64 ac and presents 4,818 linear feet of stream restoration, enhancement,
and preservation. Therefore, a total 36.55 ac and 12,886 LF of stream will be protected in perpetuity.
Grazing livestock have historically had access to all stream reaches within the Project. The lack of
riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics have
contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the Project area.

Goals for the Project include an increase to hydrologic function and restoration to ecological function
within the existing stream and riparian corridor and protect these features in perpetuity. These will be
accomplished by returning the existing streams into stable conditions by constructing an E/C type
stream with appropriate dimensions and pattern, reconnecting the channel to the floodplain, and
backfilling the abandoned channel. In-stream structures will be utilized for vertical stability and to
improve habitat. Buffer improvements will filter runoff from agricultural fields, thereby reducing
nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Livestock exclusion fence will be installed along the
easement boundary. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas will also provide wildlife
corridors throughout the Project area. Benefits to be accrued from these activities include improved
water quality, and terrestrial and aquatic habitat.

The stream design approach for the Project is to combine the analog method of natural channel design
with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and
floodplain. The analog method involves the use of a reference reach, or “template” stream, adjacent to,
nearby, or previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog
reach are replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when
watershed and boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al.,
2001). Hydraulic geometry is developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.

After completion of all construction and planting activities, the Project will be monitored on a regular
basis throughout the seven-year post-construction monitoring period, or until performance standards
are met. The Project will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as
conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is
established.

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan iii November 2018
Project #100027
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
Project Components................................................................................................................ 1
Project Outcomes.................................................................................................................... 1
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION ............................................................... 2
Site Selection .......................................................................................................................... 2
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 4
Watershed Summary Information .......................................................................................... 4
Drainage Area and Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4
Surface Water Classification .......................................................................................................... 4
Landscape Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 5
Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Existing Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 6
Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Soil Survey ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future ............................................................................... 8
Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints ............................................................ 8
Property, Boundary, and Utilities ................................................................................................... 8
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass .................................... 9
Environmental Screening and Documentation ............................................................................... 9
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................. 9
Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................ 10
Reach Summary Information ............................................................................................... 10
Channel Classification .................................................................................................................. 11
Discharge ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Existing Channel Morphology ..................................................................................................... 11
Channel Stability Assessment ...................................................................................................... 13
Site Photographs ................................................................................................................... 15
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ....................................................................................... 21
Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements ............................................................ 22
Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Hydraulic ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Geomorphology ............................................................................................................................ 22
Physiochemical ............................................................................................................................. 23
Biology ......................................................................................................................................... 23
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................ 24
Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................................................................ 24
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ..................................................................................................... 27
Reference Stream.................................................................................................................. 27
Reference Watershed Characterization ........................................................................................ 27
Reference Discharge ..................................................................................................................... 27
Reference Channel Morphology ................................................................................................... 28
Reference Channel Stability Assessment ..................................................................................... 28
Reference Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................... 28
Reference Riparian Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 28
Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 29
Stream Restoration Approach ....................................................................................................... 29
Design Discharge.......................................................................................................................... 33
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 35
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan iv November 2018
Project #100027
Vegetation and Planting Plan ............................................................................................... 38
Plant Community Restoration ...................................................................................................... 38
On Site Invasive Species Management ........................................................................................ 39
Soil Restoration ............................................................................................................................ 40
Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 40
Determination of Credits ...................................................................................................... 40
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 43
Stream Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................... 43
Bankfull Events ............................................................................................................................ 43
Cross Sections .............................................................................................................................. 43
Digital Image Stations .................................................................................................................. 43
Surface Flow ................................................................................................................................. 43
Vegetation Success Criteria .................................................................................................. 43
8 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................. 45
As-Built Survey .................................................................................................................... 45
Visual Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 45
Hydrology Events ................................................................................................................. 45
Cross Sections ...................................................................................................................... 46
Vegetation Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 46
Scheduling/Reporting ........................................................................................................... 46
9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 48
10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................... 49
11 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 50

List of Tables

Table 1. Little Sebastian Project Components Summary ....................................................................... 1
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information .............................................................................. 3
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information ................................................................................ 4
Table 4. Little Sebastian Vegetation Plot Summary ............................................................................... 5
Table 5. Mapped Soil Series ................................................................................................................... 7
Table 6. Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 10
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ....................................................................... 11
Table 8. Channel Stability Assessment Results.................................................................................... 14
Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements .................................................................................. 26
Table 10. Scaling Factors for Sizing Planform Design Parameters ...................................................... 34
Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison ........................................................................................................ 36
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses ...................................................... 37
Table 13. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities ........................................................... 37
Table 14. Proposed Plant List ............................................................................................................... 39
Table 15. Little Sebastian Site (ID-100027) - Mitigation Components ............................................... 42
Table 16. Monitoring Requirements ..................................................................................................... 47

List of Charts

Chart 1. Stream Functions Pyramid ...................................................................................................... 21

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan v November 2018
Project #100027
List of Figures

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – USGS Map
Figure 3 – Landowner Map
Figure 4 – Land-use Map
Figure 5 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 6 – National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 7 – Soils Map
Figure 8 – Historical Conditions Map
Figure 9 – FEMA Map
Figure 10 – Concept Design Map
Figure 11 – Buffer Width Zones

Appendices

Appendix A – Plan Sheets
Appendix B – Data Analysis and Supplementary Information
Appendix C – Site Protection Instrument
Appendix D – Credit Release Schedule
Appendix E – Financial Assurance
Appendix F – Maintenance Plan
Appendix G – DWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix H – USACE District Assessment Forms
Appendix I – Wetland JD Forms and Maps
Appendix J – Invasive Species Plan
Appendix K – Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Appendix L – DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 1 November 2018
Project #100027
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Project Components
The Little Sebastian Mitigation Site (“Project”) is located within a rural watershed in Surry County,
approximately 10 miles north of Elkin and seven miles west of Dobson. The Project lies within the
Yadkin River Basin, North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-04-01
and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03040101080020
(Figure 1). The Project proposes to restore 2,721 linear feet (LF), enhance 4,929 LF, preserve 418 LF
of stream, and provide water quality benefit for 25.91 acres of drainage area. The Project is in the
Northern Inner Piedmont Level IV ecoregion.

The Project is comprised of two easement locations (east and west) involving Mill Creek and three
unnamed tributaries, totaling 8,189 existing linear feet, which eventually drain into the Yadkin River.
The stream mitigation components are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 10. The 10.64-acre Gideon
Mitigation Site is nestled between the east and west Project easements and will undergo construction
in tandem with the Project. Nine reaches are accessible from Ed Nixon Road and nine reaches are
accessible from Wild Wings Lane. Coordinates for the Project are as follows: 36.397000, -80.859000.
Project Outcomes
The streams proposed for restoration have been significantly impacted by livestock production,
agricultural practices, and a lack of riparian buffer. Proposed improvements to the Project will help
meet the river basin needs expressed in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) as well as ecological improvements to riparian corridor within the easement.

Through stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation, the Project presents 8,068 LF of proposed
stream, generating 4,554 Cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) (Table 1). This mitigation plan is
consistent with the September 29, 2017 Post Contract IRT Meeting Minutes and IRT response emails
(Appendix B).

Table 1. Little Sebastian Project Components Summary
Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Cool Base SMU
Restoration 2,721 1 2,721
Enhancement I 597 1.5 398
Enhancement II 1,898 2.5 759.2
Enhancement II 1,372 5 274.4
Enhancement II 819 7.5 109.2
Enhancement II 243 10:1 24.3
Preservation 418 10 41.8
Total 8,068 4,327.9
Credit Loss in Required Buffer -278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer 505.1
Total Adjusted SMUs 4,554.3

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 2 November 2018
Project #100027
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP identified several restoration needs for the entire Yadkin River
Basin, as well as for HUC 03040101. The Project watershed was identified as a Target Local Watershed
(TLW) (HUC 03040101080020, Middle Mitchell River TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need
and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. More specifically, goals outlined
in the 2009 RBRP for the watershed include:

1. Restoration of water quality and aquatic habitat in impaired stream segments;

2. Protection of high-resource value waters, including HQW, ORW, and WSW designated waters
and those containing large numbers of rare and endangered species (NHEOs);

3. Continuation of existing watershed restoration and protection initiatives and projects,
including efforts funded by Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), DWQ’s 319
Program, NC EEP, Ag Cost Share Program (ACSP) and Community Conservation Assistance
Program (CCAP);

4. Collaborative efforts with local resource agencies, land trusts and willing landowners to
implement new stream, riparian buffer and wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation
projects within TLWs;

5. Improved management of stormwater runoff (including the implementation of stormwater BMP
projects), especially in urban and suburban areas contributing to downstream degradation of
stream habitat and impairment of water quality; and

6. Implementation of agricultural BMPs in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal
coliform to streams from active farming operations.

Site Selection
The Project was identified as a stream and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water quality,
habitat, and hydrology within the Yadkin River Basin, and more specifically, as a TLW within the 2009
Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP. The site lends itself to accomplish multiple RBRP goals along Project
reaches due to an absence of riparian buffers, cattle access to the stream, and the historic land use,
which has led to channelization. Many of the Project design goals and objectives will address major
watershed stressors identified in the 2009 RBRP. Project-specific goals and objectives will be addressed
further in Section 5. A project watershed map with the Project’s drainage areas is shown on Figure 2
and watershed planning priority boundaries are shown on Figure 1.

The Project will address three of the six goals outlined in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP. By
establishing a conservation easement, ORW designated waters will be protected in perpetuity (RBRP
Goal 2). Collaborative efforts have been made with local and willing landowners to implement new
stream and enhancement projects within the Middle Mitchell River TLW (03040101080020) (RBRP
Goal 4). The Project will include the use of agricultural BMPs to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients,
and fecal coliform to streams from active farming operations (RBRP Goal 6). Establishing riparian
buffers, instream structures, and increasing bedform diversity will help address RBRP Goal 1, but
achievement will not be quantified.

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 3 November 2018
Project #100027
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes three
parcels in Surry County with the following ownership in Table 2 & Figure 3. Once finalized, a copy
of the land protection instruments will be included in Appendix C. The DMS Conservation Easement
model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instruments.

Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record
PIN
Or
Tax Parcel ID#
Stream Reach
Christopher Edward Nixon and
Gwyn Dobbins Nixon
495600199069
495600282159
(Surry County)
JN2-A, JN2-B, JN2-C, JN2-D, JN3-
A, JN3-B, MC1-A, MC1-B, MC1-C
The Byron Thomas Shaw II
and Mary Beth Shaw
Revocable Living Trust U/T/D
of November 7, 2011
495600581103
(Surry County)
MC3-A, MC3-B, MC3-C, MC3-D,
BS1-A, BS1-B, BS1-C, BS1-D,
BS1-E

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 4 November 2018
Project #100027
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Watershed Summary Information
Drainage Area and Land Use
The Project area is comprised of Mill Creek and three tributaries that flow west to east, and eventually
drain into the Yadkin River. The total drainage area for the Project is 3,261 acres (5.09 square miles).
Primary land use within the rural watershed consists of approximately 70% forest and 25% agricultural
land. Impervious area covers less than one percent of the total watershed (Table 3 & Figure 4). Within
the agricultural land use, pastureland accounts for 91 percent of the area, cropland comprises six percent
of the area, and hayland comprises three percent of the area. Although the project watershed is primarily
forested, the majority of the agricultural areas within the watershed are in close proximity to the Project,
and play a significant role in the degradation of the Project streams. Historic and current land-use within
the immediate Project area and west of Mill Creek have allowed cattle direct access to the streams.
These activities have negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the Project
streams and their tributaries. The resulting observed stressors include excess nutrient input, streambank
erosion, sedimentation, livestock access to streams, channel modification, and the loss of riparian
buffers.

Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information
Level IV Ecoregion 45e – Northern Inner Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101080020
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-01
Project Drainage Area (acres) 3,261
Percent Impervious Area <1%

Surface Water Classification
Mill Creek has been classified as Class C, Trout Waters (Tr), and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
(NCDWQ 2011).

Class C waters are protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption,
aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with
water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner (NCDWQ
2011).

Outstanding Resource Waters (OWR) are a subset of High Quality Waters. This supplemental
classification is intended to protect unique and special waters having excellent water quality and being
of exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. To qualify, waters must be rated
Excellent by DWR and have one of the following outstanding resource values: Outstanding fish habitat
and fisheries, unusually high level of water based recreation or potential for such kind of recreation,
some special designation such as North Carolina Natural and Scenic River or National Wildlife Refuge,
important component of state or national park or forest, or special ecological or scientific significance
(rare or endangered species habitat, research or educational areas) (NCDWQ 2011).
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 5 November 2018
Project #100027
Trout Water (Tr) is a supplemental classification intended to protect freshwaters which have conditions
which shall sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout on a year-round basis
(NCDWQ 2011).
Landscape Characteristics
The Project is located in the Northern Inner Piedmont Level IV ecoregion, which is characterized by
rolling to hilly higher elevations than the Southern Outer Piedmont, more rugged topography, and more
monadnocks or mountain outliers than other areas of the Piedmont. It has colder temperatures, more
snowfall, and a shorter growing season than in Southern Inner, Southern Outer, Northern Outer, and
Carolina Slate Belt Piedmont regions. It also has mostly mesic soils rather than the thermic soils that
cover other regions of the Carolina Piedmont. The region contains more Virginia pine and less shortleaf
pine than Southern Outer Piedmont and Carolina Slate Belt, more chestnut oak, and many mountain
disjunct plant species. Streams tend to have higher gradients than in the Outer Piedmont regions, and
contain many mountain-type macroinvertebrate species.
Vegetation
Vegetation around the unbuffered reaches of Mill Creek and its tributaries are primarily composed of
herbaceous vegetation and some scattered trees. In general, these riparian zones are disturbed due to
regular land management activities. On April 30, 2018 four 100-meter squared plots were surveyed
along the floodplain of Mill Creek, and its tributaries, to categorize the existing vegetation
communities. Forested riparian areas along the majority of Mill Creek and its tributaries have been
intermittently cattle-grazed and lack a well-developed understory and shrub strata, while short reaches
of enhancement and preservation represent more natural community assemblages. For this reason,
representative plots were surveyed along reach MC1, MC3 and BS1 within the project, and JN6 within
the Gideon Mitigation Site (Appendix B). Within each vegetation plot, all trees greater than or equal
to five inches (12.7 centimeters) diameter at breast height (DBH) were identified, measured, and used
to calculate both basal area and stems per acre. Trees greater than or equal to 54 inches (137
centimeters) in height were used to quantify tree species diversity. Canopy species data was calculated
to quantify the existing natural community (Schafale, 2012) (Table 4). Shrub species and herbaceous
species were also identified, and the percent cover was estimated.

Table 4. Little Sebastian Vegetation Plot Summary
Plot Basal Area
(m2/ha) Avg. DBH (cm) Trees per Acre Total Tree Species Natural Community
1 71.21 40.53 162 5 Disturbed Piedmont Headwater
Stream Forest
2 66.83 19.40 324 6 Disturbed Piedmont Alluvial
Forest
3* 64.80 27.85 405 6 Piedmont Headwater Stream
Forest
4 0 0 0 0 Pasture
AVG 50.71 21.94 222 4
* Indicates the vegetation survey was performed on the Gideon Mitigation Site

Dominant canopy species across the Project included tulip-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white oak
(Quercus alba), American holly (Ilex opaca), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
Sub-canopy species included great laurel (Rhododendron maximum), mountain laurel (Kalmia
latifolia), and spicebush (Lindera benzoin). Herbaceous species in the enhancement and preservation
reaches included Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum),
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 6 November 2018
Project #100027
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), trout lily (Erythronium americanum), wood anemone
(Anemone quinquefolia), and Solomon’s seal (Polygonatum biflorum).

Invasive species were also found within the vegetation survey plots, and in the vicinity of the site: tree
of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Non-native species included wavy bittercress
(Cardamine flexuosa), little leaf buttercup (Ranunculus abortivus), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
repens), common chickweed (Stellaria media), common white clover (Trifolium repens), common
speedwell (Veronica persica), mock strawberry (Duchesnea indica), annual meadow grass (Poa
annua), red fescue (Festuca rubra), and lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula).
Existing Wetlands
A survey of existing wetlands was performed on October 4, 2017. Wetland boundaries were delineated
using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Soils were characterized and classified using the Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (USDA-NRCS 2010). Within the
boundaries of the proposed Project, two jurisdictional wetlands are present. The two wetlands occur on
Reach JN3 (Figure 5) and are labeled as WA (Wetland A) and WB (Wetland B). WA is approximately
0.42 acres in size, and a small portion of the wetland is present within the easement boundary. WB is
approximately 0.48 acres in size, and a small portion of the wetland is present within the easement
boundary. Large portions of WA and WB are under active management for cattle. Vegetation within
the wetland areas was made up of tearthumb (Persicaria sagittata), Pennsylvania smartweed
(Persicaria pensylvanica), common rush (Juncus effuses), tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus), and green
bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens). Outside of the easement and wetland areas, cattle are actively managed
for, and fescue is the dominant forage. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was
sent to the USACE on October 27, 2017 and a final PJD was received on May 22, 2018 (Appendix I).

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not depict
any potential wetland areas within the Project, but there is freshwater pond mapped adjacent to Reach
JN3 (Figure 6). Moreover, the soils mapped adjacent to JN3 are considered predominantly nonhydric
(ArA, Arkaqua loam), and have the potential to be hydric (Figure 7).
Geology
According to geology data from the North Carolina Geologic Survey, published in 1985, the Project is
within geologic map unit Zabg, occurring in the Blue Ridge Belt. Zabg is associated with sedimentary
and metamorphic type rocks of Alligator Back formation that formed within the Late Proterozoic period
between 500 and 900 million years ago. This formation is finely laminated to thin layered; locally
contains massive gneiss and micaceous granule conglomerate; and includes schist, phyllite, and
amphibolite.
Soil Survey
The existing soil information from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) shows the
property is located within the Woolwine-Fairvew soil association. The association is found on Piedmont
uplands. It is made up of gently sloping to steep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and
a clayey subsoil. Woolwine-Fairview soil association is generally characterized by interfluves, ridges,
and low hills scattered throughout the county.

The Surry County Soil Survey shows several mapping units across the project. Map units include four
soil series. The soil series found on the Project are described below and summarized in (Table 5).
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 7 November 2018
Project #100027
Project soils are mapped by the NRCS as Arkaqua loam, Colvard and Suches soils, and Woolwine-
Fairview-Westfield complex within the easement (Figure 7). Arkaqua loam is a frequently flooded,
somewhat poorly drained soil that is found on drainageways on valleys. Colvard-Fairview-Westfield
complex is an occasionally flooded, well-drained soil that is found on natural levees on floodplains on
close to 50 percent of the Project. Woolwine-Fair-Westfield complex soils are stony, well drained, and
occur on 15-45 percent slopes on ridges.

The surrounding soils are mapped as Arkaqua, Colvard, and Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex.
Colvard and Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield Complex soils are considered non-hydric, while Arkaqua
is considered predominantly non-hydric. Arkaqua soils in drained areas have a moderate infiltration
rate, whereas undrained Arkaqua soils have a very slow infiltration rate; these soils occur on zero to
two percent slopes. Colvard soils have a high infiltration rate and occur on zero to three percent slopes.
Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex soils have a slow infiltration rate when saturated and occur on
slopes ranging from 15-45 percent slopes.

Arkaqua loam. This is a moderately deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on nearly level
floodplains along creeks and rivers in the Appalachian, Blue Ridge, and Great Smokey Mountains.
They formed in loamy alluvial sediments washed largely from soils formed in residuum from granite,
gneiss, schist, phyllite, and other metamorphic and crystalline rocks, and generally occur on slopes less
than two percent. Runoff is slow and permeability is moderate. Major uses are for pasture and crop
land. Arkaqua loam occurs in 17.4% of the total easement area at low elevation in reaches JN3-B, BS1-
E, MC3-A, MC3-B, MC3-C, and MC3-D.

Colvard and Suches soils. These are very deep, well-drained soils that occur on alluvium on
floodplains in the southern Appalachian Mountains. They formed in loamy alluvial sediments washed
largely from soils formed in residuum from granite, gneiss, schist, phyllite, and other metamorphic and
crystalline rocks, and generally occur on slopes between zero to three percent. Runoff is slow and
permeability is moderate to rapid. Major uses are cultivated crops and pasture land. Colvard and Suches
soils occur in 44.3% of the lower elevations in the western easement.

Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex. This is a very deep, well-drained soil that occurs on
hillslopes on ridges in the Piedmont upland. They formed in residuum from felsic or intermediate
metamorphic or igneous rock, and generally occur on slopes between 15-45 percent. Runoff is high and
permeability is moderate. Major uses include cultivated crops, pasture, and forest. Woolwine-Fairview-
Westfield occurs in 38.3% of sloped segments scattered along both easement areas.

Table 5. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Percent
Hydric
Drainage
Class
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Landscape
Setting
ArA Arkaqua loam, 0-2% slopes 8% Somewhat
poor B/D Drainageways on
valleys
CsA Colvard and Suches soils, 0-
3% slopes 0% Well A Natural levees on
floodplains
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 8 November 2018
Project #100027
Map
Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Percent
Hydric
Drainage
Class
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Landscape
Setting
WoD Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield
complex, 15-25% slopes 0% Well C Hillslopes on
ridges
WoE Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield
complex, 25-45% slopes 0% Well C Hillslopes on
ridges
Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery indicates that the Project and adjacent Gideon Mitigation Site, has been used
extensively for agricultural purposes, and that the location of the streams has not significantly changed
in over 50 years (Figure 8). Agricultural expansion occurred along the tributaries of the western
easement area beginning in the mid-1960’s. The eastern easement area remained heavily forested until
cattle pastures were established along most of its length after the western easement area reached its
current stage of use. Several watershed characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation, surface
drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. Soil structure and surface texture have
been altered from intensive agricultural operations.

The Project and adjacent Gideon Mitigation Site is currently still in agricultural use and is being used
as pasture for cattle. Livestock have full access to the project reaches, and these reaches remain heavily
impacted. The eastern side of the Project (cleared after 1976) remained cleared, but much of the area
has been allowed to regenerate naturally. The trees in this area are dispersed throughout the pasture and
have not formed a dense stand. Outside the Project area is also mostly in agricultural use and where it
is not, remains heavily forested.

The future land use for the Project and adjacent Gideon Mitigation Site will include 36.55 acres of
conservation easement, that will be protected in perpetuity. The combined conservation easements
encompass 12,886 linear feet of high functioning streams, a minimum 30-foot riparian buffer, and will
be protected with fencing. Outside the Project will likely remain in agricultural use. Much of the
forested area in the immediate vicinity of the Project has steep terrain, and if it is cleared, will likely be
used for pasture rather than cropland due to the erosive properties of the soils in the area.
Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
Property, Boundary, and Utilities
An existing overhead service powerline is present within the proposed easement area and will be
relocated outside the easement by Pee Dee Electric. In addition, a subsurface phone line is present,
which will also be relocated outside the easement by CenturyLink. No other utility lines are present.

There are five planned crossings within the Project. These crossings will occur at easement breaks and
will allow landowners to continue current land-use and access as needed. Three ford crossings will be
upgraded to culvert crossings, one additional culvert crossing will be added, and another ford crossing
will be improved. The bridge at the end of Ed Nixon Road will be replaced, and this is the terminal end
of the western part of the Project where the Gideon Mitigation Site begins after the break. There are
seven easement breaks; one easement break/culvert occurs along JN2-C that is approximately 27 feet;
one easement break/culvert occurs on JN2-D that is approximately 69 feet; one easement break occurs
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 9 November 2018
Project #100027
between MC1-A and MC1-B that is approximately 30 feet and will allow the road to be maintained;
one easement break occurs along MC1-B that is approximately 41 feet and is an existing utility line;
one easement break/culvert occurs along JN3-B and is approximately 43 feet; one easement/ford
crossing break occurs on MC3-B that is approximately 41 feet; and one easement break/culvert occurs
along BS1-E and is approximately 45 feet. The eastern side of the Project (Reach MC1-1) is continuous
with the Gideon Mitigation Site and there is no easement break.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, the Project includes a
portion of Mill Creek within the FEMA 100-year flood zone (Zone AE) (Figure 9). No regulated
floodway is mapped. Hydraulic modeling will be required to determine whether restoration activities
will have an effect on 100-year flood elevations downstream. The design and permitting of the
mitigation will include coordination with the Surry County Floodplain Administrator and a No-Rise
Certification or CLOMR/LOMR will be secured. No hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent
properties upstream or downstream of the project. The Project can be found on Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) Panel 4946 (map number 3710494600J), effective date August 18, 2009.
Environmental Screening and Documentation
To ensure that a project meets the “Categorical Exclusion” criteria, the Federal Highways
Administration (FHWA) and NCDMS have developed a categorical exclusion (CE) checklist that is
included as part of each mitigation project’s Environmental Resources Technical Report (ERTR). The
CE for the Little Sebastian Project is included in Appendix K and was approved by DMS and FHWA
in December 2017. Table 6 summarizes which regulatory considerations are applicable and which ones
remain outstanding.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under
provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) database lists three Federally listed species that may occur in proximity to
the Project: Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), small whorled pogonia (Isotria
medeolodies), and Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). No protected species or potential
habitat for protected species were observed during preliminary project evaluations. Species and species
habitat listed in the USFWS database were inspected during the field investigation to determine whether
they occur at the Project. No individual species or habitats were identified on site. Potential impacts to
species and habitat off site, downstream, and within the vicinity of the Project were also considered. A
letter was sent to the USFWS on October 20, 2017 requesting review and comment of possible issues
with respect to threatened and endangered species on the Project. USFWS responded on November 20,
2017 and stated that besides the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB), there is no record of other federally
protected species in the project vicinity. Incidental take of the NLEB is exempt, but the USFWS
encouraged avoiding tree cutting from May 15 – August 15, if possible. Documentation of this
correspondence can be found in Appendix K.

To comply with the NLEB 4(d) streamlined rule for federal agencies, the required consultation form
was submitted by the FHWA to the USFWS as part of the CE process for NCDMS projects. Federally
protected species met the Categorical Exclusion Criteria for FHWA and DMS projects and
documentation is included in Appendix K.

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with state fish and wildlife agencies when
“waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be
impounded, diverted…or otherwise controlled or modified.” A letter was sent to the North Carolina
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 10 November 2018
Project #100027
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on October 20, 2017 requesting review and comment of
possible issues with respect to fish and wildlife resources on the Project. A response was received on
December 01, 2017 and NCWRC indicated that there is potential for the brook floater (federal species
of concern; state endangered) to be present on the Project. A NCWRC biologist performed a field
investigation in April 2018 to determine if the species is present. NCWRC did not find any brook floater
in the Project area. Documentation is included in Appendix K.
Cultural Resources
A letter was sent to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) that described the Project and requested a review and comment of potential cultural
resources occurring within the vicinity of the Project. On October 17, 2017 the SHPO responded to the
public notice (on September 21, 2017), stating that there will be no effect on historic resources.
Documentation of this correspondence is found in Appendix K. Cultural Resources met the Categorical
Exclusion Criteria for FHWA and DMS projects and documentation is included in Appendix K.

Table 6. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes No Appendix K
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes No Appendix K
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix K
National Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix K
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes No Appendix L
Magnuson-Stevens Act - Essential
Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
Reach Summary Information
The Project area is comprised of two easement areas along Mill Creek. There are seven easement breaks
on the project; one easement break/culvert occurs along JN2-C; one easement break/culvert occurs on
JN2-D; one easement break occurs between MC1-A and MC1-B; one easement break occurs along
MC1-B; one easement break/culvert occurs along JN3-B; one easement/ford crossing breaks occurs
along MC3-B; and one easement break/culvert occurs along BS1-E. The stream channels include Mill
Creek and three unnamed tributaries, split into 18 reaches based on proposed treatment type (Figure
10). Results of the preliminary data collection are presented in Table 7.

In general, all or portions of JN2-B, JN2-C, JN2-D, JN3-A, JN3-B, MC1-A, MC1-B, MC1-C, BS1-A,
BS1-B, BS1-C, BS1-D, BS1-E, MC3-B, MC3-C, and MC3-D do not function to their full potential.
Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from agriculture,
livestock production, and lack of riparian buffer. Being heavily eroded and incised, some of the streams
do not access their floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to agricultural
operations. In many cases in the lower elevations, the riparian buffer is in poor condition where much
of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and row crops are present up to the edge of the existing
channel. In some of the higher elevation reaches, trees are present, but understory riparian buffer has
been heavily impacted by cattle. Habitat along the much of the restoration reaches is poor in that there
is little woody debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or protection for other aquatic species.
Morphological parameters are located in Appendix B.

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 11 November 2018
Project #100027
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach Drainage
Area (ac)
A BKF 1
(ft2)
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth (ft)
Width:Depth
Ratio Sinuosity Slope (ft/ft)
JN2-A 10 1.1 4.9 0.2 23.0 1.09 0.073
JN2-B 17 2.4 5.2 0.5 11.4 1.21 0.037
JN2-C 37 3.3 8.7 0.4 22.8 1.25 0.039
JN2-D 38 3.4 4.9 0.7 7.1 1.25 0.039
JN3-A 956 26.1 14.9 1.8 8.5 1.14 0.014
JN3-B 999 28.5 17.9 1.6 11.2 1.31 0.011
MC1-A 1,862 29.9 18.7 1.6 11.7 1.25 0.006
MC1-B 1,915 38.6 23.1 1.7 13.8 1.07 0.018
MC1-C 2,921 30.6 17.4 1.8 10.0 1.16 0.008
MC3-A/B/C 3,225 67.6 31.0 2.2 14.2 1.12 0.009
MC3-D 3,262 71.2 34.4 2.1 16.6 1.12 0.009
BS1-A/C/E 12-29 2.4 3.2 0.8 4.2 1.13 0.049
BS1-B/D 14-28 3.6 7.7 0.5 16.6 1.13 0.049
1A BKF = cross sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing conditions
data and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
Channel Classification
All stream reaches have been classified as perennial using the NCDWR Stream Identification Form
version 4.11 and are B-, C-, E-, and F-stream types as classified using the Rosgen stream classification
system (Rosgen, 1996). Channel characteristics are summarized in Table 7 and Appendix B. Stream
determinations have been verified by the USACE.
Discharge
Estimating flows (discharge) for the Project is difficult due to the channelization and agricultural
impacts of the existing streams. Several models, regression equations, and the Piedmont regional curves
were used to estimate existing bankfull discharges. Land use and slope were considered when the
discharge calculations were developed. All hydraulic and hydrologic analyses are discussed in Section
6.2. Data and analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic models are included as Appendix B.
Existing Channel Morphology
Existing channel conditions are described below and depicted in Figure 5.
JN2
Reach JN2-A is a headwater system that flows south through a narrow valley with a moderate sediment
load. The channel is stable and cattle do not have access to this reach. The riparian buffer is in good
condition with a mix of mature hardwoods. The stream quality assessment score is 56.

Reach JN2-B is a headwater system that flows south from JN2-A, and into Reach JN2-C. JN2 is
relatively stable as a whole, has a gravel/cobble bed, and an intact wooded buffer along the majority of
the reach on the west side. Livestock have access to the reach and resulting erosion from cattle impacts
is localized. There is significant bank cutting, steep or nearly vertical bank slopes, and large deposits
from the eroding channel. The stream quality assessment score is 52.

Reach JN2-C flows south into Reach JN2-D The channel is relatively stable in location, has a
gravel/cobble bed, and an intact wooded buffer along the majority of the reach on the west side.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 12 November 2018
Project #100027
Livestock have access to the reach; however, resulting erosion from cattle impacts is minor and
localized. Downstream 150 feet is in active pasture. The stream quality assessment score is 41.

Reach JN2-D is a headwater system that flows south into Mill Creek. JN2 is relatively stable as a whole,
has a gravel/cobble bed, and no buffer on either bank. This is an active pasture and livestock have
access to the reach, resulting in erosion. There is significant bank cutting, steep or nearly vertical bank
slopes, and large deposits from the eroding channel. There is also an existing ford located on this reach.
The stream quality assessment score is 35.
JN3
Reach JN3-A is a relatively stable, gravel/cobble bed stream with a low to moderate sediment load and
channel slopes ranging from one to two percent. The stream has been historically straightened and
relocated to the east side of the valley. The channel appears to be managing its sediment load and the
banks exhibit little to no erosion. The riparian buffer is fully intact and comprised of hardwoods and
little understory along the left back, while the buffer along the right bank is wooded yet narrow. Cattle
have direct access to the channel; however, there appears to be little evidence of livestock impacts. The
stream quality assessment score is 52.

JN3-B is a sand/gravel/cobble bed stream with a moderate to high sediment load that flows south from
JN3-A to MC1-C and is within an active pasture. Livestock have direct access to the channel, and the
resulting impacts have severely degraded the channel banks. There is active bank erosion (mass
wasting/bank sloughing) which is contributing large amounts of sediment to the system. The riparian
buffer is in poor condition with little to no woody vegetation located along the top of banks.
Jurisdictional wetlands are in the floodplain of the right bank; WA is approximately 0.42 acres in size
and WB is approximately 0.48 acres in size. The stream quality assessment score is 53.
MC1
Reaches MC1-A and MC1-B (located along Mill Creek) is a relatively stable, gravel/cobble bed stream
that flows west to east through the project. The bed profile appears stable and is controlled by cobble
riffles and bedrock outcrops. The channel appears to be managing its moderate sediment load and the
banks are generally stable throughout. The buffer is intact and forested along the right bank, while an
active pasture lines the left bank. The stream quality assessment score is 71 for MC1-A and 55 for
MC1-B.

MC1-C (located along Mill Creek) is a sand/gravel/cobble bed stream with a moderate to high sediment
load that flows to an existing bridge crossing. This reach is located in an active pasture and is
channelized. Livestock have direct access to the channel, and the resulting impacts have severely
degraded the channel banks. There is active bank erosion (mass wasting/bank sloughing) which is
contributing large amounts of sediment to the system. The riparian buffer is in poor condition with
little to no woody vegetation located along the top of banks. The stream quality assessment score is 30.
MC3
Reaches MC3-A, MC3-B, MC3-C and MC3-D (located along Mill Creek) flow west to east through
the project from the Gideon Mitigation Site. It is a slightly incised and relatively stable, gravel and
cobble bed stream as a whole, but there are localized areas of erosion along B, C, and D. The bed profile
appears stable and is controlled by downstream bedrock outcrops. The channel appears to be managing
its moderate sediment load and the banks are generally stable throughout. The buffer is intact and
forested along the right bank, while an active pasture lines the left bank. The upstream most portion
MC3-A has a more mature and wider riparian buffer. Reach MC3-B’s left bank is unstable. Reach
MC3-C currently has a ford crossing consisting of bedrock. The stream quality assessment score for
MC3 is 59.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 13 November 2018
Project #100027
BS1
Reaches BS1-A, BS1-C and BS1-E is a headwater system that flows south through a v-shaped valley,
eventually into Reach MC1. There are numerous headcuts and areas of incision present along the
channel, and livestock currently access the reach along its entirety. In areas where the valley floor is
slightly wider, livestock impacts are more severe, and subsequently generate higher sediment loads.
These more degraded areas are proposed for restoration. In contrast, the channel is more stable and has
coarser substrate in areas where the valley is narrower.

Reaches BS1-B and BS1-D is a headwater system that flows south through a v-shaped valley into Reach
MC1. There are numerous headcuts and areas of incision present along the channel, and livestock
currently access the reach along its entirety. In areas where the valley is more confined and little to no
floodplain is present, the channel appears relatively stable and has coarser substrate. These relatively
stable areas are proposed for enhancement. In contrast, livestock impacts are more severe, and the
channel is more degraded where the valley floor is slightly wider. The stream quality assessment score
for BS1-A/C is 32 and BS1-B/D is 33.
Channel Stability Assessment
A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (“channel assessment”) provided in
“Assessing Stream Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions” by Johnson (2006) was used
to assess channel stability for the Project’s existing channels. This method may be rapidly applied on a
variety of stream types in different physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials.

The original channel assessment method was designed to evaluate 13 stability indicators in the field.
These parameters are: watershed characteristics (frequency of watershed disturbances such as
agricultural activities, urbanization, etc.), flow habit, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel
confinement, bed material, bar development, presence of obstructions/debris jams, bank soil texture
and coherence, average bank angle, bank vegetation/protection, bank cutting, mass wasting/bank
failure, and upstream distance to bridge. See Appendix B for a detailed description of the stability
indicators. As this method was initially developed to assess stability at bridges, a few minor adjustments
were made to remove indicators that contradict stability characteristics of natural channels in favor of
providing hydraulic efficiency at bridges. First, the “channel pattern” indicator was altered such that
naturally meandering channels scored low as opposed to straightened/engineered channels that are
favorable for stability near bridges. Secondly, the last indicator, “upstream distance to bridge”, was
removed from the assessment as bridges are not a focus of channel stability for this project. The 12
indicators were then scored in the field, and a rating of excellent, good, fair, or poor was assigned to
each project reach based on the total score.

The channel assessment results (scores and ratings) for the Project are provided in Table 8. Seven of
the eighteen project stream reaches received “Fair” ratings, while eight reaches received “Good”
ratings. Most reaches along BS1 (A, C, and E) received a rating of “Poor.” Most Project streams were
observed to have relatively high bank angles and many were found to be actively eroding. A majority
of the channels have been impacted by farming practices or livestock production, and most are slightly
entrenched. These characteristics are reflected in the higher channel assessment scores for average bank
angle and bank vegetation/protection. Most reaches also scored poorly for watershed characteristics
since the surrounding land use is dominated by agriculture activities.

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 14 November 2018
Project #100027
Table 8. Channel Stability Assessment Results
JN2-A JN2-B JN2-C JN2-D JN3-A JN3-B MC1-A MC1-B MC1-C MC3-
A/B/C/D
BS1-
A/C/E BS1-B/D
1 Watershed
characteristics 3 6 7 7 4 7 9 8 12 4 11 10
2 Flow habit 4 7 7 7 3 7 5 5 6 4 7 6
3 Channel pattern 2 9 11 7 4 5 4 4 7 1 10 10
4 Entrenchment/channel
confinement 5 7 7 7 5 8 4 3 3 3 10 9
5 Bed material 4 7 7 8 6 6 5 5 3 6 11 9
6 Bar development 5 9 10 7 6 7 6 5 6 6 11 8
7 Obstructions/debris
jams 3 7 9 7 6 9 1 4 4 5 9 7
8 Bank soil texture and
coherence 3 8 8 7 4 6 8 5 4 4 11 10
9 Average bank angle 2 10 12 5 7 9 7 7 6 6 11 10
10 Bank
vegetation/protection 3 7 7 11 7 9 6 7 10 8 9 7
11 Bank cutting 3 7 11 9 4 7 4 6 7 4 9 8
12 Mass wasting/bank
failure 2 10 10 6 5 7 3 5 7 5 10 8
13 Upstream distance to
bridge NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Score 39 94 106 88 61 87 62 64 75 56 119 102
Rating* Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good Fair Good Poor Fair
* Excellent (0 < Score <= 36), Good (36 < Score <= 72), Fair (72 < Score <= 108), Poor (108 < Score <= 144)
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 15 November 2018
Project #100027
Site Photographs
Reach JN2-A looking upstream
01/09/2018
Reach JN2-A looking downstream
01/09/2018
Reach JN2-B looking upstream
01/09/2018

Reach JN2-B looking downstream
01/09/2018

Reach JN2-C looking upstream
01/09/2018

Reach JN2-C looking downstream
01/09/2018

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 16 November 2018
Project #100027
Reach JN2-D looking upstream
01/09/2018

Reach JN2-D looking downstream
01/09/2018

Reach JN3-A looking upstream
01/09/2018

Reach JN3-A looking downstream
01/09/2018

Reach JN3-B looking upstream
01/10/2018

Reach JN3-B looking downstream
01/10/2018

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 17 November 2018
Project #100027
Reach MC1-A looking upstream
01/10/2018

Reach MC1-A looking downstream
01/10/2018

Reach MC1-B looking upstream
01/10/2018

Reach MC1-B looking downstream
01/10/2018

Reach MC1-C looking downstream
04/30/2018

Reach MC1-C looking upstream
04/30/2018

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 18 November 2018
Project #100027

Reach BS1-A looking upstream
04/30/2018

Reach BS1-A looking downstream
04/30/2018

Reach BS1-B looking upstream
04/30/2018

Reach BS1-B looking downstream
04/30/2018

Reach BS1-C looking upstream
01/10/2018

Reach BS1-C looking downstream
01/10/2018

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 19 November 2018
Project #100027

Reach BS1-D looking upstream
01/10/2018

Reach BS1-D looking downstream
01/10/2018

Reach BS1-E looking upstream
04/30/2018

Reach BS1-E looking downstream
04/30/2018

Reach MC3-A looking upstream
04/30/2018

Reach MC3-A looking downstream
04/30/2018

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 20 November 2018
Project #100027

Reach MC3-B looking upstream
01/10/2018

Reach MC3-B looking downstream
01/10/2018

Reach MC3-C looking upstream
04/30/2018

Reach MC3-C looking downstream
04/30/2018

Reach MC3-D looking upstream
01/10/2018

Reach MC3-D looking downstream
01/10/2018

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 21 November 2018
Project #100027
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Harman et. al. 2012) uses stream functions to describe
project objectives, existing condition assessments and monitoring, performance metrics, and design
criteria. The Framework separates stream functions into five categories, ordered into a hierarchy, which
communicate the interrelations among functions and illustrate the dependence of higher level functions
(biology, physiochemical and geomorphology) on lower level functions (hydrology and hydraulics).
Functions that affect the greatest number of other functions are illustrated at the base of the Pyramid,
while functions that have the least effect on other functions are illustrated at the top. The Pyramid is
illustrated below Chart 1.

Chart 1. Stream Functions Pyramid

Fischenich (2006) found that the most critical functions include those that address hydrodynamic
processes, sediment transport processes, stream stability and riparian buffer restoration. By addressing
these fundamental functions and processes, a restored stream and riparian system are capable of
supporting more dependent functions that typically require time to establish, such as diverse biological
communities, chemical and nutrient processes, diverse habitats and improved water and soil quality.
The objectives of the Project will address the most critical functional objectives that will allow for a
more restored stream and riparian buffer over time.

While traditional mitigation approaches have generally relied on surrogate measures of success (i.e.
linear feet of restoration) for determining SMU credit yields, a function-based approach provides a
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 22 November 2018
Project #100027
more objective and flexible approach to quantify the expected ecological benefits of a mitigation
design. Additionally, a functional based approach broadens the reach-scale goals of a restoration project
by contextualizing the functional uplift to the watershed scale. The Little Sebastian Mitigation Project
will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Yadkin River Basin by applying
an ecosystem restoration approach. The restoration approach at the reach scale of this project will have
the greatest effect on the hydraulic and geomorphology function of the system but will benefit the
upper-level functions (physiochemical and biology) over time, and in combination with other projects
within the watershed. Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the Project area, as
based on the Function-Based Framework are outlined in Table 9. Neither the Stream Functions
Pyramid nor the Quantification Tool are proposed to determine success of the mitigation site.

A highly-functioning score means that the function is being met with little to no constraints. A
functioning score means that the measurement method is quantifying or describing one or more aspects
of a function-based parameter in a way that does support a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Functioning-at-
risk means that the measurement method is quantifying or describing one or more aspects of a function-
based parameter in a way that can support a healthy aquatic ecosystem. This can indicate the function-
based parameter is adjusting in response to changes in the reach or the watershed, and the trend may be
towards lower or higher function. A functioning-at-risk score implies that the aspect of the function-
based parameter is between functioning and not functioning (Harman et al. 2012).
Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
Hydrology
According to the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework, hydrology is defined as the transport of water
from the watershed to the channel. Therefore, the Project intends to make significant improvements to
the already functioning hydrology. Much of the improvement will come from altering land use within
these reaches’ small catchment areas. By converting land use for a significant percentage of the
catchment area from pasture to riparian forest, curve numbers will decrease and reach runoff will
improve. Additionally, installation of one agricultural runoff attenuation structure will regulate
upstream runoff coming into BS1.
Hydraulic
The hydraulic function of the Pyramid is defined as transport of water in the channel, on the floodplain,
and through sediments. Perhaps the greatest potential uplift at the Project will be achieved through
establishing healthy floodplain connectivity. Reaches in the Project do not have functioning floodplain
connectivity or stable flow dynamics. Reaches where floodplain connectivity is not-functioning or
functioning-at-risk will be improved to functioning by reducing bank height ratios and increasing
entrenchment ratios. Reaches in which stable flow dynamics are not functioning or functioning at risk
will be improved to functioning by constructing a new channel that is geometrically stable based on the
Project’s hydrology inputs. Additionally, instream structures will be installed to address the energy and
erosive power of the water so that a stable base flow is achieved post-project.
Geomorphology
Geomorphology as defined within the Pyramid Framework, is the transport of wood and sediment to
create bed forms and dynamic equilibrium. Sediment Transport will be improved in reaches that
currently function-at-risk or not-functioning by designing channels that transport sediment until it
reaches an appropriate place to settle like a point bar. Large Woody Debris Transport and Storage will
be improved through the use of woody debris such as log vanes, root wads, log weirs, and log toes for
in-stream structures on restoration and enhancement reaches. The restoration reaches are also designed
to accumulate woody debris by having defined shallow riffles where cobble catches and holds woody
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 23 November 2018
Project #100027
debris and leaf packs. Riparian vegetation is functioning in some areas but is either functioning-at-risk
or not-functioning on most reaches. Therefore, riparian buffers will be planted out to a minimum of 30
feet to improve the riparian vegetation to functioning levels. Bed form diversity will be improved in
restoration areas by using a natural riffle pool sequence from the reference reach to inform design of
functioning riffle pool sequences in constructed channels based on reference reach conditions. This bed
form diversity will also further improve aquatic habitat. All of these functional parameters are
interconnected and ultimately depend on each other in order to function properly. Therefore, by
focusing improvements to these parameters, the restored channels will achieve dynamic equilibrium
and provide maximum geomorphic functional uplift.
Physiochemical
The Pyramid Framework defines the physicochemical category as temperature and oxygen regulation,
and the processing of organic matter and nutrients. Although the Project would support the overarching
goal in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Priorities to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in
agricultural areas, it is difficult to measure nutrient and sediment reduction at this project level because
they are affected by so many variables. However, several restoration actions are known to help reduce
nutrients and sediment even though they may not be measurable at the project level. These activities
include cattle exclusion and direct removal of fecal inputs, filtering runoff through buffer areas, the
conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers, and improved denitrification and nutrient uptake
through buffer zones. Additional benefits may also come from functional uplift of the lower level
stream functions (hydraulics and geomorphology), which will reduce sediment and nutrients in the
system through bank stabilization and reforesting. Temperature regulation will also be improved
through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas. Oxygen regulation will occur
through two actions: first, the temperature of the water directly impacts the amount of gas held by the
water. Therefore, through planting the buffer to shade the channel, the temperature is decreased and
dissolved oxygen is increased. Second, the log structures placed in the stream create mixing zones
where oxygen dissolves much faster than the standard exchange rate of oxygen to dissolved oxygen.
The processing of organic matter will be improved once healthy riffles are shallow enough to catch
twigs and branches that then retain leaves. Many of these physiochemical benefits occur slowly over
time and are dependent on multiple variables within the stream ecosystem. Therefore, it is not practical
or feasible to directly measure these parameters within the monitoring time-frame of this project. With
that said, it is logical to use existing riparian buffer and visual performance standards to demonstrate
the positive correlation between geomorphic parameters and physicochemical parameters. For
example, as riparian buffer trees grow, as represented in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that
canopy cover is actively shading the stream channel and reducing water temperature. This is not a
substitute for direct physicochemical monitoring, but it is a useful tool to help project the long-term
benefits of the Project in terms of the functional uplift.
Biology
The highest category of the Pyramid is biology, defined as the biodiversity and life histories of aquatic
and terrestrial life, specifically referring to animals. As mentioned for the physiochemical stream
function, it will be difficult to measure the functional uplift of the biological functions at this site within
the monitoring period of the project. However, since the life histories of many species likely to benefit
from stream and wetland restoration are depending on all the lower-level functions, the functional uplift
from the hydraulic and geomorphic levels would have a positive effect to the biology over time and in
combination with other projects within the watershed is anticipated. Again, there is no substitute for
direct biological monitoring, but it is important to understand the hierarchy of the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework in order to help project long-term benefits of the Project though only categories
two and three (hydraulics and geomorphology) will be directly measured during the seven-year
monitoring period.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 24 November 2018
Project #100027
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream
Functions Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Project.
These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were
identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River RBRP. The Project
will address outlined RBRP Goals 2, 4, and 6 (listed in Section 2).

The Project goals are:
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non-erosive manner in a stable
channel;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbanks flows and
connection to the active floodplain;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation; and
• Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP to improve water quality
and to reduce sediment and nutrient loads.

The Project objectives to address the goals are:
• Design and reconstruct stream channels sized to convey bankfull flows that will maintain a
stable dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling, watershed conditions, and
reference reach conditions;
• Permanently exclude livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers;
• Add in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams;
• Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of
varying depths to restored and enhanced streams;
• Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions;
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least 30 feet on both sides of the channel along the
Project reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community;
• Implement one agricultural BMP in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal
coliform to streams from surrounding farming operations;
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project.

Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function
Based Framework are outlined in Table 9.

Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to the project boundaries.
While we are restoring the habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions that achieve our goals
within the Project parcels, we are unable to influence the effect of poor riparian buffers and livestock
impact in other areas within the watershed. However, through this Project’s connectivity with the
Gideon Mitigation Site within the watershed and responsible stewardship of other current restoration
projects, overall watershed functionality and health will improve to meet the RBRP goals.
Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs)
A suite of agricultural BMPs will be utilized for the Project to reduce direct effluent inputs, pollutant
contamination, and sediment loading. The combination of the following agricultural BMPs: riparian
buffer planting, bank stabilization, stream restoration, livestock exclusion, livestock watering facilities,
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan 25 November 2018
Project #100027
and pipeline, will ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site, while still allowing livestock
production to persist through the installation of alternative water sources.

The riparian buffer will be restored along all project reaches, except Reach JN2-A, which is a
preservation reach. Restored riparian buffers are established adjacent to and up-gradient from
watercourses of water bodies to improve water quality. The main advantages of the restored riparian
buffer will be to provide water quality treatment, erosion control, and water temperature benefits.
Moreover, there will be significant reductions in sedimentation, nutrient input, and fecal coliform input.

Approximately 13,500 linear feet of livestock exclusion fencing will be installed along the easement
boundary; therefore, livestock will no longer have stream access. The type of exclusion fence installed
will be based on landowner preference. The main advantages of exclusion fence are that there will be
significant reductions in sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform. To account for eliminating livestock
water access, landowners will be provided an alternate water source. A total of three wells and six
watering facilities will be installed to provide high quality drinking water to livestock.

One agricultural runoff attenuation structure will be installed at the top of BS1 where forms of
concentrated flow enter the conservation easement. The agricultural runoff attenuation structure will
be installed within the conservation easement so that the structure is protected. Failure or maintenance
of the structure is not anticipated as this structure will be installed in a low-gradient area, and the area
proposed to diffuse flow will be well vegetated and matted.

Stormwater management issues resulting from future development of adjacent properties will be
governed by the applicable state and local ordinances and regulations. It is recommended that any future
stormwater entering the Project maintain pre-development peak flow. Any future stormwater diverted
into the project should be done in a manner as to prevent erosion, adverse conditions, or degradation of
the project in any way.

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018
Project #100027 26
Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements
Level Function Goal Functional
Parameter
Existing
Rating/Projected
Rating
(Reach)
Objective Measurement Method
1
Hydrology
Transport of water from
the watershed to the
channel
to transport water from
the watershed to the
channel in a non-erosive
manner
Channel-Forming
Discharge
Precipitation/Runoff
Relationship
Flow Duration
Flood Frequency
Catchment
Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Baseflow Alteration
F/F
(All Reaches)
Convert land-use of
streams and their
headwaters from
pasture to riparian
forest

Install one agricultural
runoff attenuation
structure to regulate
upstream runoff and
coming into the reach.
(Reach BS1)
Percent Project drainage
area converted to
riparian forest
(indirect measurement)

Visually monitor
integrity of runoff
attenuation structure
2
Hydraulic
Transport of water in the
channel, on the floodplain,
and through the sediments
to transport water in a
stable non-erosive
manner
Flood Bank
Connectivity

Flow Dynamics
Groundwater/Surface
water exchange
F/F
MC1-A, JN2-A,
JN3-A, MC3-A

FAR/F
JN2-C, MC1-B,
BS1-B, BS1-D

NF/F
JN2-B, JN3-B,
MC3-C, BS1-A,
BS1-C, BS1-E
Improve flood bank
connectivity by
reducing bank height
ratios and increase
entrenchment ratios
Cross sections

Crest gauges

Bank Height Ratio

Entrenchment Ratio
3
Geomorphology
Transport of wood and
sediment to create diverse
bedforms and dynamic
equilibrium
to create a diverse
bedform
to achieve dynamic
equilibrium
Sediment Transport
Large Woody Debris
(LWD) Transport
and Storage
Channel Evolution
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
Bedform Diversity
Bed Material
Characterization
Sinuosity
F/F
MC1-A, JN2-A,
JN3-A, MC3-A

FAR/F
JN2-C, MC1-B,
BS1-B, BS1-D

NF/F
JN2-B, JN3-B,
MC3-C, BS1-A,
BS1-C, BS1-E
Reduce erosion rates
and channel stability
to reference reach
conditions

Improve bedform
diversity (pool
spacing, percent
riffles, etc.)

Increase buffer width
to 30 feet
As-built stream profile

Cross sections

Visual monitoring

Stream walks

Vegetation plots
4
Physiochemical °
Temperature and oxygen
regulation; processing of
organic matter and
nutrients
to achieve appropriate
levels for water
temperature, dissolved
oxygen concentration,
and other important
nutrients including but
not limited to Nitrogen
and Phosphorus
Water Quality
Water Temperature
Nutrient Load
Organic Carbon
Bacteria
F/F
MC1-A, JN2-A,
JN3-A, MC3-A

FAR/F
JN2-C, MC1-B,
BS1-B, BS1-D

NF/F
JN2-B, JN3-B,
MC3-C, BS1-A,
BS1-C, BS1-E
Unmeasured
Objectives

Improve stream
temperature
regulation through
introduction of
canopy

Decrease nutrient
loading through
filtration of planted
riparian buffer, and
removing livestock
from the riparian
areas
Vegetation plots
(indirect measurement)

Established fencing and
perpetual conservation
easement
(indirect measurement)
5
Biology *
Biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic life
histories and riparian life
to achieve functionality
in Levels 1-4 to support
the life histories of
aquatic and riparian
plants and animals
Microbial
Communities
Macrophyte
Communities
Benthic
Macroinvertebrate
Communities
Fish Communities
Landscape
Connectivity
F/F
MC1-A, JN2-A,
JN3-A, MC3-A

NF/F
JN2-B, JN2-C,
JN3-B, MC1-B,
MC3-C, BS1-A,
BS1-B, BS1-C,
BS1-D
Unmeasured
Objective

Improve aquatic
habitat through the
installation of habitat
features, construction
of pools at varying
depths, and planting
the riparian buffer
Vegetation plots
(indirect measurement)
Not Measured (NM); Not Functioning (NF); Functioning-at-risk (FAR); Functioning (F)
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 27
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
Reference Stream
The restoration portions of the Project are characterized by livestock practices. Portions of the Project
were historically diverted to form poorly-functioning stream channels. Physical parameters of the
Project were used, as well as other reference materials, to determine the target stream type. The
“Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina” was also used to narrow the potential
community types that would have existed at the Project (Schafale, 2012). An iterative process was used
to develop the final information for the Project design.

Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the Physiographic Region and ecoregion,
• Similar watershed size,
• Similar land use on site and in the watershed,
• Similar soil types on site and in the watershed,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat – several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among Piedmont streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.

Obtaining property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in locating
suitable reference sites for the Project. There was no predetermined amount of reference sites needed
as long as the site was suitable and met the parameters. Many streams in this watershed are impacted
by cattle and agricultural practices, having a minimal riparian buffer, making it difficult to find an ideal
reference for the Project site. A reference stream site that proves to be ideal in both geomorphology and
habitat is located just upstream of Reach JN3-A on site. The reference reach is located approximately
250 feet north of the project site. This site is the reference for JN3-B and MC1-C restoration reaches.
The reference site for BS1-A, BS1-C, and BS1-E is taken from a first order stream in Wilkes County,
an unnamed tributary flowing into Smithey’s Creek.
Reference Watershed Characterization
The first reference stream is an unnamed tributary that flows north to south and drains through the
project, JN3 to Mill Creek. The portion of this reference reach that was surveyed and analyzed is
approximately 225 feet long. The drainage area for the reach is 1.44 square miles (921 acres). The
second reference reach, UT to Smithey’s Creek, is also located within the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin.
This reach is 150 feet in length, with a drainage area of 0.18 square miles (118 acres). The land use in
both watersheds is characterized by mostly agricultural, with mixed pines and hardwoods (42%), and
a small amount of residential. Site photographs of the reference streams are located in Appendix B.
Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for each reference reach.
Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross sectional area were all factors considered
when performing the calculations. Using a combination of Piedmont Regional Curves, in-house
spreadsheet tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis, the existing discharge for
the onsite reach was found to be around 113-122 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) and 25-28 ft3/s for UT to
Smithey’s Creek. See Section 6.2 for a more detailed description of the hydrologic analyses performed
for this project.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 28
Reference Channel Morphology
In comparison to the restoration reaches, the onsite reference reach is approximately the same or slightly
smaller than Reaches JN3-B and MC1-C while UT to Smithey’s Creek was slightly larger than BS1-
A, BS1-C, and BS1-E when comparing pattern, dimension and profile, which is the reason for using a
scaling factor for the design. The scaling factor is based on the difference in bankfull area of the
reference channel. The designed reach would then have the necessary dimensions of either a smaller or
larger stream corresponding to differences in drainage area. The onsite reference reach was typically
17.5 feet wide and 1.6 feet deep. The cross sectional area was typically around 27.7 square feet with a
width to depth ratio around 11.1. For UT to Smithey’s Creek, the reach was typically 7.7 feet wide and
0.9 feet deep. The cross sectional area was typically around 7.1 square feet with a width to depth ratio
around 8.5.
Reference Channel Stability Assessment
The reference reaches were stable and showed no evidence of incision or erosion in the portions that
were surveyed and analyzed. Each stream appeared to maintain its slope and had sufficient amounts of
vegetation to secure its banks. Riparian buffer widths exceeded 30 feet on each side. The Channel
Stability Assessment scores and ratings for Reach JN3-A is provided above in and Section 3.5. The
reach received a “Good” rating as the channels demonstrate a stable meandering pattern and a well
vegetated riparian buffer upstream of Reach JN3-A.
Reference Bankfull Verification
Typical indicators of bankfull include vegetation at the bankfull elevation, scour lines, wrack lines,
vegetation lines, benches/inner berm, and point bars. Throughout the entire length of the reference
reaches, bankfull is located at the top of bank elevation. The accuracy of this bankfull stage is verified
by the Piedmont Regional Curves and hydrologic analyses using existing cross sections to calculate
area and discharge. Evidence that can further support the location of bankfull is the lack of any bench
or berm features within the channel, and wrack lines present within the floodplain.
Reference Riparian Vegetation
Both reference reach riparian communities are characteristic of a Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
community (Schafale, 2012). On March 8, 2018 two 100m2 plots were surveyed along the reach above
JN3-A and Smithey’s Creek, to categorize the existing vegetation community. Forested riparian areas
along the reference reach have not been heavily disturbed, and remain relatively intact. Dominant tree
species included red maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (Quercus alba), American holly (Ilex opaca),
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), tulip-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), northern red oak (Quercus
rubra), and eastern white pine (Pinus strobus). The average basal area was approximately 52.5m2 per
hectare, and the average stems per-acre was 303 stems/acre. There was a high species diversity in the
herbaceous stratum, including: greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor), hill cane (Arundinaria appalachiana), twister
sedge (Carex torta), partridge berry (Mitchella repens), wood anemone (Anemone quinquefolia), down
rattlesnake plantain (goodyera pubescens), shrub-yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), and
southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis). Some invasive species we present at the reference reach, most
notably Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).

It is anticipated that a local seed source for high dispersal species is present upstream at the Project and
will disperse across much of the Project area. These species are often found in early successional
communities and quickly fill disturbance gaps. Because many of these high dispersal species often
become aggressive in these sites, they are not included in the Restoration Planting List (Section 6.3).
Hardwood species typical of the target community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities
and were judged to be more appropriate for this site.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 29
Design Parameters
Stream Restoration Approach
Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries of the Project will be accomplished through analyses of
geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applies a combination of
analytical and reference reach based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both
ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment activities may range from minor bank
grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring
full restoration, natural design concepts have been applied and verified through rigorous engineering
analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that
provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape.

The Project will include priority I stream restoration, enhancement I, enhancement II, and preservation.
Priority I stream restoration will incorporate the design of a single-thread meandering channel, with
parameters based on data taken from reference sites, published empirical relationships, regional curves
developed from existing project streams, and NC Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques will
also be a crucial element of the project and will be used to determine the design discharge and to verify
the design as a whole. A design concept map is provided in Figure 10.

Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation as a result
of impacts from livestock and channelization performed to promote agricultural activities. Additionally,
the riparian buffer is in poor condition throughout most of the Project area, where much of it is devoid
of trees or shrubs, and active pasture is present up to the edge of the existing channel.

The Project design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including the on-site
streams, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel, habitat and floodplain
features were developed from analyses performed on the reference site data. Analytical design
techniques were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.

Engineering analysis will be performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the
reference reach based design. A combination of methods will be used to estimate bankfull flows, and
flows corresponding to other significant storm events. A HEC-RAS model will then be used to simulate
water surface elevations of flows generated by the hydrologic analysis. The development of the HEC
model is an important component to the design; therefore, model input parameters are field verified
when possible. Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as bankfull
or dominant discharge) will be determined. The subsequent design will be based on this calculated
discharge. As part of the design process, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply will be performed by
characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of windshield surveys, existing land use data, and
historical aerial photography, followed up by ground truthing, will be analyzed to assess existing and
past watershed conditions and to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact
sediment supply. Design parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data, watershed
characterizations, and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling will be confirmed using the Sediment
Transport Analysis components within HEC-RAS in conjunction with shear stress and velocity
analyses.

Geomorphic and habitat studies will be performed concurrently with the engineering analyses. While
stream design will be verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable
habitat features will be derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both in-
stream and riparian habitat features will be designed. In-stream structures will be used throughout the
project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream’s
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 30
energy. Bank stability may further be enhanced through the installation of brush mattresses, live stakes
and cuttings bundles.

Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled with material excavated from onsite to the
elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the new channel, installing channel plugs where
necessary. The floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will
provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a
combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare-root plantings, native material revetment
techniques (i.e., bioengineering), structure placement, and sod transplants where possible. The stream
and adjacent riparian areas will be protected by a minimum 30-foot conservation easement which will
be fenced to exclude livestock as needed. In conjunction with the stream restoration, adjacent wetland
hydrology will be enhanced through raising the channel bed. No wetland mitigation credits will be
generated from the enhancement of these wetland areas; however, the enhancement and protection of
these currently degraded wetlands will store excess water during flood events, prevent erosion of stream
banks, and reduce in-stream sedimentation and nutrients.

The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:

Reach JN2-A - This reach begins on the northwest end of the project, and flows south to JN2-B. This
reach totals 418 linear feet of Preservation. Mature forest is located on both sides of the reach.
Preservation activities will include improving the existing livestock exclusion fencing and buffers
greater than 30 feet. The easement will be extended to provide preservation beyond the origin point of
the stream as per the PJD.
Reach JN2-B -This reach begins on the northwest end of the project, from JN2-A, and flows south to
JN2-C. This reach totals 187 linear feet of Enhancement I. Sparse woodland and actively managed
pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through
supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. Minimal bank grading and buffer re-
establishment is also proposed along the downstream end. In-stream structures such as log sills and one
log cross vane will be installed for stability and to improve habitat. The restoration of the riparian areas
at the downstream end will filter runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide
wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach JN2-C - This reach begins on the northwest end of the project, from JN2-B, and flows south to
JN2-D. The reach is divided into two sections by an existing farm crossing and totals 1,144 linear feet
of Enhancement II. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach.
Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and
livestock exclusion fencing. Minimal bank grading and buffer re-establishment is also proposed along
the downstream end. The restoration of the riparian areas at the downstream end will filter runoff from
adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach JN2-D - This reach begins on the northwest end of the project, from JN2-C, and flows south to
MC1-B. The reach is divided into two sections by an existing farm crossing and totals 196 linear feet
of Enhancement I. Actively managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities
will include some channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, removing an existing ford crossing
and access road, improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings, and livestock exclusion
fencing. The restoration of the riparian areas at the downstream end will filter runoff from adjacent
pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach JN3-A – This reach begins on the northwest end of the project, and flows south to JN3-B. This
reach totals 350 linear feet of Enhancement II. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture is on the
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 31
right bank and the left bank has a more mature forest. Enhancement II activities at a 7.5:1 ratio will
include improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The
widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the right bank will filter runoff from adjacent
pasture and reduce sediment loads.
Reach JN3-B - This reach begins on the northwest end of the project, from JN3-A, and flows south to
MC1-C. The reach is divided into two sections by an existing farm crossing and totals 1,043 linear feet
of Restoration along a gravel/cobble channel (proposed D 50 of 50-60 mm). Sparse woodland and
actively managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Restoration activities will include
constructing a new channel within the natural valley to the north with appropriate dimensions and
pattern and backfilling the abandoned channel. In-stream structures such as log sills, brush toes, and
log vanes will be installed for stability and to improve habitat. Habitat will further be improved through
buffer plantings and livestock exclusion. Proposed buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will
filter runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Also,
the reach will be built through two small jurisdictional wetlands that are currently on the right bank
floodplain and degraded from cattle access and pasture-use. While this project is not claiming any
wetland credit, the raised channel bed should enhance the wetlands’ hydrology by reconnecting the
floodplain wetlands to the stream. Two gauges will be installed on the right floodplain to monitor the
wetland hydrology and will be reported in the yearly monitoring reports.
Reach MC1-A - This reach begins on the west end of the project, and flows west to MC1-B. This reach
totals 469 linear feet of Enhancement II at a 7.5:1 ratio. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture
is located on the left bank. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through supplemental
buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas
along the right bank will filter runoff from adjacent pasture and reduce sediment loads.
Reach MC1-B - This reach begins on the west end of the project, from MC1-A, and flows west to
MC1-C. The reach is divided into two sections by an existing farm crossing and totals 977 linear feet
of Enhancement II. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach.
Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and
livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank will
filter runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout
the Project area.
Reach MC1-C - This reach begins on the west end of the project, from MC1-B, and flows west to the
Gideon Mitigation Site where the restoration continues for another 1,030 LF. This reach totals 555
linear feet of Restoration along a gravel/cobble channel (proposed D 50 of 50-60 mm). Actively managed
pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Restoration activities will include using log structures to provide
vertical stability, assist in maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat features. Cut
and fill will be balanced in an effort to raise the channel bed to provide regular inundation of the
adjacent floodplain. Habitat will further be improved through supplemental buffer plantings and
livestock exclusion fencing. The Gideon Mitigation Bank will be constructed with the Project.
Reach MC3-A - This reach begins on the east end of the project, continuous from the Gideon
Mitigation Site, and flows west to MC3-B. This reach totals 243 linear feet of Enhancement II at a 10:1
ratio. Dense woodland is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving
habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and
restoration of the riparian areas along the right bank will filter runoff from adjacent pasture and reduce
sediment loads.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 32
Reach MC3-B - This reach begins on the east end of the project, from the MC3-A, and flows west to
MC3-C. This reach totals 402 linear feet of Enhancement II. Sparse woodland and actively managed
pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities will include reshaping the left bank,
install coir matting and livestakes, and improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and
livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank will
filter runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout
the Project area. A ford crossing will be installed on this reach.
Reach MC3-C - This reach begins on the east end of the project, from the MC3-B, and flows west to
MC3-D. This reach totals 214 linear feet of Enhancement I. Sparse woodland and actively managed
pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities will include reshaping the left bank,
install coir matting and livestakes, and improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and
livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank will
filter runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout
the project area.
Reach MC3-D - This reach begins on the east end of the project, from MC3-C, and flows west out of
the easement. This reach totals 395 linear feet of Enhancement II. Dense woodland and actively
managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat
through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration
of the riparian areas along the left bank will filter runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads,
and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach BS1-A - This reach begins on the northeast end of the project, and flows south to BS1-B. This
reach totals 214 linear feet of Restoration. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture is located
adjacent to the reach. Restoration activities will include using log and rock structures to provide vertical
stability, assist in maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat features. Cut and fill
will be balanced in an effort to raise the channel bed to provide small floodplain benches where
topography allows. Habitat will further be improved through supplemental buffer plantings and
livestock exclusion fencing. A flood attenuation structure in the form of a dry detention basin will be
installed at the top of this reach.
Reach BS1-B - This reach begins on the northeast end of the project, from BS1-A, and flows south to
BS1-C. This reach totals 175 linear feet of Enhancement II. Sparse woodland and actively managed
pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through
supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the
riparian areas along the left bank will filter runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and
provide wildlife corridors throughout the project area.
Reach BS1-C - This reach begins on the northeast end of the project, from BS1-B, and flows south to
BS1-D. This reach totals 541 linear feet of Restoration. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture
is located adjacent to the reach. Restoration activities will include using log and rock structures to
provide vertical stability, assist in maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat
features. Cut and fill will be balanced in an effort to raise the channel bed to provide small floodplain
benches where topography allows. Habitat will further be improved through supplemental buffer
plantings and livestock exclusion fencing.
Reach BS1-D - This reach begins on the southeast end of the project, from BS1-C, and flows south to
BS1-E. This reach totals 177 linear feet of Enhancement II. Sparse woodland and actively managed
pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through
supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 33
riparian areas along the left bank will filter runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and
provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach BS1-E - This reach begins on the southeast end of the project, from BS1-D, and flows south to
MC3-D. The reach is divided into two sections by an existing farm crossing and totals 368 linear feet
of Restoration. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach.
Restoration activities will include using log structures to provide vertical stability, assist in maintaining
riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat features. Cut and fill will be balanced in an effort to
raise the channel bed to provide small floodplain benches where topography allows. Habitat will further
be improved through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing.
Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described below, design discharges were selected that fall between
model results for the 1.1-year and 1.5-year flood frequency analysis for each reach. The selected flows
for the restoration reaches are 120-240 ft3/s for the larger reaches and 5-8 ft3/s for the smaller ones
along BS1. These discharges will provide frequent inundation of the adjacent floodplain.

The design discharges were selected based on the following rationale:
• The calculated bankfull discharge for the analog/reference reach and existing reaches fall
between the results of the 1.1-year and 1.5-year flood frequency analysis,
• The results of the 1.1-year flood frequency analysis are slightly higher than the NC regional
curve (Doll et al., 2002), and
• Selecting design discharges close to the 1.1-year storm events allows frequent inundation of
the adjacent floodplain.
Design Methods
There are three primary methods that have demonstrated success in stream restoration: analog,
empirical, and analytical. All three methods have advantages and limitations, and it is often best to
utilize more than one method to address site-specific conditions or to verify the applicability of design
elements. This is particularly true in developed watersheds where existing conditions do not always
reflect current inputs and events, and sediment and hydrologic inputs may remain unstable for some
time. Combinations of analytical and analog methods were used to develop the stream designs for the
Project.
Analytical Approach
Analytical design is based on principles and processes considered universal to all streams, and can
entail many traditional engineering techniques. The analytical approach utilizes continuity, roughness
equations, hydrologic and hydraulic models, and sediment transport functions to derive equilibrium
conditions. Since the project is located within a rural watershed, restoration designs are based on
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, including rainfall-runoff models to determine design discharges
coupled with reference reach techniques.
Analog Approach
The analog method of natural channel design involves the use of a “template” or reference stream
located near the design reach and is particularly useful when watershed and boundary conditions are
similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). In an analog approach, the
planform pattern, cross sectional shape, longitudinal profile, and frequency and locations of woody
debris along the analog reaches are mimicked when developing the design parameters for the subject
stream.

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 34
1. The appropriate bankfull cross sectional area (CSA) of each design reach was calculated using
an in-house spreadsheet based on Manning’s Equation. The input parameters included the
design discharge as determined by the hydrologic analysis described above, and proposed slope
based on site conditions and the sinuosity measured for the analog reach.

2. The cross sectional shape was adjusted within the spreadsheet to replicate the width-depth
ratios and side slopes surveyed along the analog reach, while also maintaining the CSA
necessary to convey the design discharge.

3. The scaling factor is determined from the ratio of the design topwidth to the analog topwidth
(Table 10). For this project, several cross sections and planform geometry were measured at
the analog site, resulting in an average width of 14.6 feet for the larger reaches and 7.6 feet for
BS1.

4. Pool cross sectional areas were calculated using both typical reference reach techniques and
the analog approach. Design CSAs were determined using the measured analog ratios of
shallow/riffle CSA to pool CSA as applied to the design CSAs. The pool cross sectional shape
was adjusted within the in-house spreadsheet as described above in step 2.

Table 10. Scaling Factors for Sizing Planform Design Parameters
Reach Drainage
Area (ac)
Proposed Bankfull
CSA (ft2)
Design
Topwidth (ft)
Analog Reach
Topwidth (ft)

Scaling
Factor

JN3-B 999 26.9 16 14.5 1.10
MC1-C 2921/3178 45.1/54.4 21/23 14.5 1.45/1.59
BS1-A/C/E 11-29 2.7 4.5 7.0 0.64
Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for riffles and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix A. The
cross section dimensions were developed for the four design reaches by using an in-house spreadsheet
described in Section 6.2 of this report. The cross sections were altered slightly to facilitate
constructability; however, the cross sectional area, width to depth ratio, and side slopes were preserved.
Typical pool sections include pools located on straight reaches and pools on meander bends.
Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignment are provided in Appendix A. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reach and was altered in some locations to provide
variability in pattern, to avoid on site constraints, to follow the valley pattern, and to make the channel
more constructible. The morphologic parameters summarized in the Appendix B were applied
wherever these deviations occurred.
Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix A. These profiles extend throughout the entire project
for the proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the analog reach bed features
that were sized with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and bankfull energy gradients were determined
for each design reach based on the existing valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach. Log
structures will be utilized in the design to control grade, divert flows, and provide additional habitat
diversity and stability.

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 35
In-Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve
aquatic habitat. Native materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures
where applicable. Additionally, rock structures will be utilized intermittently along Reaches JN3-B,
MC1-C, BS1-A/C/E to provide increased stability and habitat. Typical rock structures that will protect
the channel bed and/or banks will include riffle grade controls and cross-vanes.

Woody debris will be placed throughout the channel at locations and at a frequency that is similar to
those observed in the analog reaches. Woody habitat features installed will include dead brush, root
wads, brush toes, and log vanes. To provide additional bank stability, sod mats harvested on site will
be installed along stream banks during construction if and when feasible. Sod mats will only be
harvested and used if comprised of appropriate vegetation. The use of sod mats that include aggressive
turf grasses will be avoided. Sod mats are natural sections of vegetation taken from the banks when
they were cut during construction, and are about nine inches thick. Before installation, proposed banks
are graded lower than specified to accommodate the thickness of the mat. The mats are placed on top
of the bank to act as a natural stabilizer of native species, and they grow much faster than the
combination of coir fiber matting and seeding. Other bank stability measures include the installation of
live stakes, log sills, brush toes, log vanes, and log toes. Typical details for proposed in-stream
structures and revetments are in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine
and validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a
single model. Peak flows (Table 11) and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined
for comparison to design parameters using the following methods:

• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Hydrographs,
• NC and VA Regional Curves for the Rural Piedmont, and
• USGS regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Blue Ridge-Piedmont.

Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mi2) which passed the Dalrymple
homogeneity test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations.
Regional flood frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2-year peak discharges based
on the gauge data. Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were
compared to those predicted by the discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2-year
discharge equations.

Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Piedmont regional curves by Harman et al. (1999) and Doll et al. (2002) and the
Virginia Rural Piedmont regional curves by Lotspeich (2009) for discharge were used to predict the
bankfull discharge for the Project. The NC regional curves predicted flows that are similar to those
predicted by the 1.1-year flood frequency, while the VA curves are comparable to flows predicted by
the 1.5-year flood frequency equation. The regional curve equations for NC discharges by Doll et al.
(2002):
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 36

(1) Q bkf =89.04*(DA)0.73 (Harman et al., 1999)
(2) Q bkf =91.62*(DA)0.71 (Doll et al., 2002)
(3) Q bkf = 43.895*(DA)0.9472 (Lotspeich, 2009)

Where Q bkf =bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi2).

USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood-peak discharges. The
regression equations were developed from gauge data in different physiographic regions of the
Southeastern United States and are appropriate for drainage areas between one and 9000 mi2. For this
analysis, there was only concern for the 2-year return interval. The equation for the rural
Piedmont/Foothills (Hydrologic Region 1) (4) is:

(4) Q 2 =158*(DA)0.649 (Weaver et al, 2009)

Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach Drainage
Area (Ac)
FFQ
Q 1.1
FFQ
Q 1.5
NC Regional
Curve Q (1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
VA Regional
Curve Q (3)
Regional
Regression
Eqns. Q 2 (4)
Design/
Calculated
Q
JN2-B 17 11 17 6 7 1 NA 8
JN2-D 38 18 27 11 12 3 NA 12
JN3-B 999 107 173 123 126 67 211 120
MC1-B 1915 153 252 198 199 124 322 200
MC1-C 2921 194 321 270 269 185 423 240
BS1-A 11 9 13 5 5 1 NA 5
BS1-C 22 13 19 8 8 2 NA 8
BS1-E 29 15 23 9 10 2 NA 8
Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a
stable gravel bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport
is assessed to determine a stream’s ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various
sediment transport equations are applied when estimating entrainment for sand and gravel bed streams
found in the piedmont. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) report, Stability Thresholds for
Stream Restoration Materials (Fischenich, 2001), was used to obtain permissible shear stresses and
velocities. Data found in this document was obtained from multiple sources using different testing
conditions. The following methods and published documents were utilized during the sediment
transport analysis:

• Permissible Shear Stress Approach, and
• Permissible Velocity Approach.

Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses
are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation),
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 37
cohesiveness of bank materials, vegetative cover, and incoming sediment load. The shear stress
approach compares calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature. Shear stress is the force
exerted on a boundary during the resistance of motion as calculated using the following formula:

(1) τ = γRS
τ = shear stress (lb/ft2)
γ = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)

Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Reach Proposed Shear Stress at
Bankfull Stage (lbs/ft2)
Critical Shear Stress
(lbs/ft2)
Allowable Shear Stress1
Coarse Gravel
(lbs/ft2)
Cobble
(lbs/ft2)
Vegetation
(lbs/ft2)
JN3-B 1.08 >0.54 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 1.7
MC1-C 1.08-1.17 >0.54 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 1.7
BS1-A/C/E 0.99 >0.54 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 1.7
1(Fischenich, 2001)

Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Little Sebastian design reaches
fall between the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits.
Therefore, the proposed channel should remain stable.

Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank
materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to
aid in the verification of channel stability. Table 13 compares the proposed velocities calculated using
Manning’s equation with the permissible velocities.

Table 13. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning’s “n”
Value
Design Velocity
(ft/s) Bed Material Permissible
Velocity1 (ft/sec)
JN3-B 0.05 4.7 Coarse gravel to cobble 2.5 - 7.5
MC1-C 0.05 4.4-4.7 Coarse gravel to cobble 2.5 - 7.5
BS1-A/C/E 0.05 3.4 Coarse gravel to cobble 2.5 - 7.5
1(Fischenich, 2001)

Sediment Supply
In addition to the stability assessment, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply was performed by
characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of field reconnaissance and windshield surveys,
existing land use data, and historical aerial photography were analyzed to assess existing and past
watershed conditions to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment
supply. As discussed in Section 3.3, the land use throughout the site, and primarily around restoration
reaches JN3-B, MC1-C, and BS1-A/C/E has changed little since 1950. Much of the project area has
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 38
been used primarily for agricultural purposes over the past 60 years. Much of the forested areas are
located either within the headwater portions of the watersheds or along existing stream channels to the
north and to the east. Land use has remained relatively constant within this rural watershed, and
significant land disturbing activities are not anticipated for the future.

Observations and assessments of these reaches upstream and/or in the preservation reaches show little
signs of aggradation (deposition) or degradation, and that the streams appear physically stable. This
indicates the reaches are able to effectively transport the sediment supplied by their respective
watersheds. There are several localized areas of instability and erosion along the channels, which appear
to be a result of cattle activity and agricultural activities occurring up to and along channel banks and
not from watershed activities. It is anticipated that sediment supply from agricultural land adjacent to
the project will decrease as buffers are enhanced and widened, and flow from existing agricultural
ditches will be diffused before entering the proposed channel.

Since little deposition or degradation (scour) was observed along the restoration reaches, it appears that
the channels are able to effectively move the sediment supplied from the surrounding watershed.
Because observed areas of degradation can be attributed to farming practices adjacent to the channel
and not watershed activities, a threshold channel design approach was used. This approach assumes
minimal movement (vertical or lateral migration) of the channel boundary during design flow
conditions, and that the channel is not sensitive to sediment supply. Additionally, grade controls have
been integrated throughout the design to provide vertical stability in the event scour should occur.
Vegetation and Planting Plan
Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration project. The selection
of plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species present in the forest
surrounding the restoration site, and what is typically native to the area. Several sources of information
were used to determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project. The reference stream is
located within an intact Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest community. Dominant tree species
included red maple, white oak, American holly, sourwood, tulip-poplar, northern red oak, and eastern
white pine. The reference site was chosen due to the stability of the channel, the physical structure of
the forest community, and to evaluate stream habitat.

A Piedmont Stream Headwater Forest will be the target community type for all tributaries flowing into
Mill Creek (JN2-A/B/C/D/E, JN3-A/B, AND BS1-A/B/C/D/E); and a Piedmont Alluvial Forest will
be the target community along Mill Creek (MC1-A/B/C and MC3-A/B/C/D). These target communities
will be used for the planting areas within the project, shown in Appendix A. The plant species list has
been developed and can be found in Table 14. Although there is one planting zone, certain targeted
species will be planted in the appropriate target community location (Table 14). Species with high
dispersal rates are not included because of local occurrence, adjacent seed sources, and the high
potential for natural regeneration. The high dispersal species include red maple, tulip poplar, and
sweetgum.

The restoration of plant communities along the Project will provide stabilization and diversity. For
rapid stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
and black willow (Salix nigra) were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their
rapid growth patterns and high success rates. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species planted
around them, and they stabilize the stream banks. Willows will also be quicker to contribute organic
matter to the channel. When the other species are bigger, the black willows will slowly stop growing
or die out because the other species would outgrow them and create shade that the willows do not
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 39
tolerate. The live stake species will be planted along the outside of the meander bends three feet from
the top of bank, creating a three-foot section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be spaced one
per linear foot with alternate spacing vertically.

Table 14. Proposed Plant List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Species Common
Name
Target
Community
Spacing
(ft) Unit Type
% of Total
Species
Composition
Quercus nigra Water Oak PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 15
Quercus phellos Willow Oak PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 15
Betula nigra River birch PAF 9X6 Bare Root 15
Platanus
occidentalis
American
Sycamore PAF 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus rubra Northern Red
Oak PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 10
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Green Ash PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 10
Liriodendron
tulipifera Yellow Poplar PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 10
Diospyros
virginiana Persimmon PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 5
Sambucus
canadensis Elderberry PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 5
Nyssa biflora Black Gum PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 5
PAF, Piedmont Alluvial Forest; PHSF, Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest

Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species Common Name % of Total Species Composition
Salix nigra Black willow 60
Cornus ammomum Silky dogwood 40

On Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream
restoration. Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant
phenology and the location of the species being treated. All treatment will be conducted as to maximize
its effectiveness and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods
will include mechanical (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical (foliar spray, cut
stump, and hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds will be removed from
the Project and properly disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground
pesticide applicator with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide labels, and
NC and Federal laws. Management records will be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment
employed, type of herbicide used, application technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities
used. These records will be included in all reporting documents.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 40
Soil Restoration
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before
the topsoil is placed back over the Project. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be
stockpiled and placed over the Project during final soil preparation. This process should provide
favorable soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural
stabilization for the Project.
Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be
appropriate for this project because the watershed is rural, the causes of disturbance are known and
have been abated, and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design parameters were
developed from the measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject stream. The
parameters were then analyzed and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and
numerical simulations of fluvial processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the
restoration of natural Piedmont cobble/gravel-bed channel features and stream bed diversity to improve
benthic habitat. The proposed design will allow flows that exceed the design bankfull stage to spread
out over the floodplain, restoring a portion of the hydrology for any existing wetlands.

A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration
channel. However, many segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood
storage. Native woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress,
provide grade control, and increase habitat diversity.

Forested riparian buffers of at least thirty feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the
project reach. An appropriate riparian plant community, (Piedmont Alluvial Forest along MC1-A/B/C
and MC3-A/B/C/D; Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest along JN2-A/B/C/D/E, JN3-A/B, AND BS1-
A/B/C/D/E) will be established to include a diverse mix of species. within the project. The plant species
list has been developed and can be found in Table 14. Although there is one planting zone, certain
targeted species will be planted in the appropriate target community location. Replanting of native
species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted during construction.

Due to the nature of the project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible.
Proposed stream impacts, including stream relocation and culverts, will be replaced on site. Wetland
impacts associated with restoration and enhancement efforts will only temporarily impact wetlands and
will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along
the stream banks, and restored hydrology. All stream and wetland impacts will be accounted for in the
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) form.
Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 15 are projections based upon site design (Figure 10). Upon
completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will only be revised to be
consistent with the as-built condition if there is a large discrepancy. This will be done with submittal
of a modification request and an approved mitigation plan addendum. This will be approved by the
USACE.

Overall, the restoration approach at the reach scale of this Project will have the greatest effect on the
hydraulic and geomorphology function of the system, but will benefit the upper-level functions
(physiochemical and biology) over time. Furthermore, by establishing buffers wider than the minimum
30-feet, there is a direct relation to the higher functionality of the system. The wider riparian buffers
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 41
will further benefit the hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic, physiochemical, and biological processes
of this system; where the physiochemical and biological processes will be affected over time. Thus, the
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator from the USACE in January 2018 was utilized to
determine the functional uplift credit adjustment presented in Table 15.

To calculate functional uplift credit adjustments, the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit
Calculator from the USACE in January 2018 was utilized. To perform this calculation, GIS analysis
was performed to determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones
around all streams within the project. Minimum standard buffer widths are measured from the top of
bank (50 feet in Piedmont and Coastal Plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties). The ideal buffers
are the maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable
stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the
square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type
(e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the
vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas
within the easement that are more than 150 feet from creditable streams were not included in this
measurement. Non-creditable stream reaches within the easement are removed prior to calculating this
area with GIS (for both ideal and actual). The stream lengths, mitigation type, ideal buffer, and actual
buffer are all entered into the calculator. This is data is processed, and the resulting credit amounts are
totaled for the whole project (Table 15, Figure 11).

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018
Project #100027 42
Table 15. Little Sebastian Site (ID-100027) - Mitigation Components
Project
Component
(reach ID)
Wetland
Position
and
Hydro
Type
Existing
Footage Stationing
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
As-
Built
Footage
Restoration
Level
Approach
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Credits Notes/Comments

JN2-A 418 0+20 to 4+38 418 TBD Preservation 10.0:1 41.8 Livestock exclusion
JN2-B 187 4+38 to 6+25 187 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 124.7 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN2-C 307 6+25 to 9+32 307 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 122.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion. One 31-foot crossing is present on this reach, from 9+32 to 9+63.
- 837 9+63 to 18+00 837 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 334.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN2-D 39 18+00 to 18+43 43 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 28.7 Channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, crossing relocation, buffer plantings, and livestock exclusion. One 62-foot crossing occurs from 18+43 to 19+05.
- 150 19+05 to 20+58 153 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 102.0 Channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, buffer plantings, and livestock exclusion.
JN3-A 350 0+0 to 3+50 350 TBD Enhancement II 7.5:1 46.7 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN3-B 900 3+50 to 11+31 781 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 781.0 Channel reconstruction in the natural valley, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. One 43-foot crossing is occurs from 11+31 to
11+74.
- 224 11+74 to 14+36 262 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 262.0 Channel reconstruction in the natural valley, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion.
MC1-A 469 0+0 to 4+69 469 TBD Enhancement II 7.5:1 62.5 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC1-B 717 4+99 to 12+16 717 TBD Enhancement II 5.0:1 143.4 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion. One 41-foot easement break occurs at 12+16 to 12+57 for an existing utility line.
- 260 12+57 to 15+17 260 TBD Enhancement II 5.0:1 52.0 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC1-C 545 15+17 to 20+72 555 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 555.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
MC3-A 243 40+42 to 42+85 243 TBD Enhancement II 10.0:1 24.3 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC3-B 402 42+85 to 46+87 402 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 160.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion. One 41-foot crossing occurs from 46+87 to 47+28.
MC3-C 214 47+28 to 49+42 214 TBD Enhancement I 1.5:1 142.7 Bank stabilization, improved in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
MC3-D 395 49+42 to 53+37 395 TBD Enhancement II 5.0:1 79.0 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-A 205 1+05 to 3+19 214 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 214.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
BS1-B 190 3+19 to 4+94 175 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 70.0 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-C 580 4+94 to 10+35 541 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 541.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
BS1-D 185 10+35 to 12+12 177 TBD Enhancement II 2.5:1 70.8 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-E 278 12+12 to 14+86 274 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 274.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. One 45-foot crossing occurs from 14+86 to 15+31.
- 94 15+31 to 16+25 94 TBD Restoration 1.0:1 94.0 Channel bed will be raised, improve in stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion

No Wetland Mitigation

Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Restoration
Level
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Overall
Credits

(linear
feet) (acres) (acres) Asset Category
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 2,721 Stream 4,327.9
Enhancement RP Wetland NA
Enhancement I 597 NR Wetland NA
Enhancement II 4,332 Buffer Loss SMU -278.7
Creation Buffer Gain SMU 505.1
Preservation 418 Total SMUs 4,554.3
High Quality
Pres
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 43
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years. Crest gauges will be installed on JN3-B, MC1-C, BS1-
C, and BS1-E.
Cross Sections
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-
cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall
be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. For C/E channels,
bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within
restored reaches. For B channels, bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio
shall be no less than 1.4 within restored reaches. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a
minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period.
Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
Surface Flow
Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This
will be accomplished through direct observation and the use of hydraulic pressure transducers with data
loggers. Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow. Flow gauges will be
installed on JN2-A and BS1-A. The flow gauge on BS1-A will also be capable of monitoring bankfull
events.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project
will follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the
survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, five-year old trees at
six feet in height at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per
acre with an average height of eight feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted,
identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards
the success criteria of total planted stems. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 44
50% of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50% will be
shown in the monitoring table, but will not be used to demonstrate success.

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 45
8 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the DMS Monitoring Report Template dated June 2017
and NC IRT monitoring template. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that
will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, research purposes, and assist in decision
making regarding project close-out. Monitoring reports will be prepared annually and submitted to
DMS. Monitoring of the Project will adhere to metrics and performance standards established by the
USACE’s April 2003 Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the NC IRT’s October
2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Table 16 outlines
the links between project goals, objectives, and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and
performance standards within the context of functional uplift based on the Stream Functions Pyramid
Framework.
As-Built Survey
An as-built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by USACE. Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes
placed near the top of bank every 200 feet.
Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete
streamwalk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to
record each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual
monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital
images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.

Routine site visits will be used to determine if beaver management is needed. If beaver activity poses
a threat to project stability or vegetative success, RES will trap beavers and remove impoundments as
needed. All beaver management activities will be documented and included in annual monitoring
reports.
Hydrology Events
Crest gauges will be installed to document the occurrence of bankfull events. A minimum of one gauge
will be installed on each tributary that is greater than 1,000 feet in length, with one gauge required for
every 5,000 feet of length on each tributary and a maximum of five gauges per tributary. Reaches with
Priority 1 Restoration (designed to reconnect the stream to its floodplain), gauges will be capable of
tracking the frequency and duration of overbank events. Where restoration or enhancement activities
are proposed for intermittent streams, monitoring gauges should be installed to track the frequency and
duration of stream flow events.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018

Project #100027 46
Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in
pools and half in riffle on all Restoration and Enhancement I reaches. All cross section measurements
will include bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio. Cross sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2,
3, 5, and 7. There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should
be evaluated to determine if they represent movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-
cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version
4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data
will be processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot will be
permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot
are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year.

Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be nine plots within the planted area (10.7 acres). Plots will be
a mixture of fixed and random plots, with six fixed plots and three random plots. Planted area indicates
all area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included in the
planted area. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the fixed plots: species, height, planting
date (or volunteer), and grid location. For random plots, species and height will be recorded for all
woody stems. The location (GPS coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will be identified in
the annual monitoring reports. Vegetation will be planted and plots established at least 180 days prior
to the initiation of the first year of monitoring. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between
July 1st and leaf drop. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored so that none become dominant
or alter the desired community structure of the Project. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific
treatment plan.
Scheduling/Reporting
A baseline monitoring report and as-built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion on the Project. The report will include all
information required by DMS mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and
sampling plot locations, gauge locations, and a description of initial species composition by community
type. The report will also include a list of the species planted and the associated densities. Baseline
vegetation monitoring will include species, height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The
baseline report will follow DMS As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template June 2017, USACE
guidelines, and the October 2017 Mitigation Credit Calculation Memo.

The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the
success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final
success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.

Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to DMS. The
monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by USACE.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018
Project #100027 47
Table 16. Monitoring Requirements
Level Goal Treatment Outcome Monitoring Metric Performance Standard
1 Hydrology To transport
water from the
watershed to
the channel in a
non-erosive
manner
Convert land-use of
Project reaches from
pasture to riparian
forest

Install one
agricultural runoff
attenuation structure
to regulate upstream
runoff coming into
the reach (BS1-A)
Improve the
transport of water
from the watershed
to the Project
reaches in a non-
erosive way
NA NA
Visually monitor
integrity of runoff
attenuation structure:
Performed semiannually
(indirect measurement)
Identify and document instability
and/or flaws to the structure

2 Hydraulic To transport
water in a
stable non-
erosive manner
Reduce bank height
ratios and increase
entrenchment ratios
by reconstructing
channels to mimic
reference reach
conditions
Improve flood
bank connectivity
by reducing bank
height ratios and
increase
entrenchment
ratios
Crest gauges and/or
pressure transducers:
Inspected semiannually
Four bankfull events occurring in
separate years
At least 30 days of continuous flow
each year
Cross sections: Surveyed
in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no less than
1.4 within restored reaches
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2
3 Geomorphology To create a
diverse
bedform

To achieve
dynamic
equilibrium
Establish a riparian
buffer to reduce
erosion and sediment
transport into project
streams. Establish
stable banks with
livestakes, erosion
control matting, and
other in stream
structures
Reduce erosion
rates and channel
stability to
reference reach
conditions
Improve bedform
diversity (pool
spacing, percent
riffles, etc.

Increase buffer
width to 30 feet
As-built stream profile NA
Cross sections: Surveyed
in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
less than 1.4 within restored
reaches for B channels and no less than
2.2 for C/E channels
Visual monitoring Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2
Visual monitoring:
Performed at least
semiannually
Identify and document significant
stream problem areas; i.e.
erosion, degradation,
aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (6 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (8 ft. tall)
4 Physiochemical ° To achieve
appropriate
levels for water
temperature,
dissolved
oxygen
concentration,
and other
important
nutrients
including but
not limited to
Nitrogen and
Phosphorus
Exclude livestock
from riparian areas
with exclusion fence,
and plant a riparian
buffer
Improve stream
temperature
regulation through
introduction of
canopy

Decrease nutrient
loading through
filtration of planted
riparian buffer, and
removing livestock
from the riparian
areas
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
(indirect measurement)
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (6 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (8 ft. tall)
Visual assessment of
established fencing and
conservation signage:
Performed at least
semiannually
(indirect measurement)
Inspect fencing and signage.
Identify and document any
damaged or missing fencing
and/or signs
5 Biology * To achieve
functionality in
levels 1-4 to
support the life
histories of
aquatic and
riparian plants
and animals
Plant a riparian
buffer, install habitat
features, and
construct pools of
varying depths
Improve aquatic
habitat through the
installation of
habitat features,
construction of
pools at varying
depths, and
planting the
riparian buffer
Visual monitoring of in-
stream habitat features:
Performed at least
semiannually
(indirect measurement)
Identify and document significant
stream problem areas; i.e.
degradation, aggradation,
stressed or failed structures, etc.
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018
Project #100027 48
9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the
necessary performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the
members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018
Project #100027 49
10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program (or 3rd party if approved). This party
shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct
periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are
upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an
endowment is established. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system
within the nonreverting, interest‐bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of
funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A‐
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship,
monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.

The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as
needed. Any livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility the owner
of the underlying fee to maintain.

Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018
Project #100027 50
11 REFERENCES

Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-
A.

Doll, B.A., D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E. Smith and J.
Spooner. 2002. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout the
Piedmont of North Carolina. Journal of the American water Resource Association. 38(3):641-
651.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Fischenich, C. 2001. ‘‘Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials.’’ ERDC Technical Note
No. EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
Miss.

Fischenich, J.C., 2006. Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration, EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52), US Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. (available online at
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf)

Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P.
Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.

Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function-
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-
K-12-006.

Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-
HRT-05-072.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm; accessed November 2008.

LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018
Project #100027 51

Lotspeich, R.R., 2009, Regional curves of bankfull channel geometry for non-urban streams in the
Piedmont Physiographic Province, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2009–5206, 51 p.

North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geologic map of North Carolina: North Carolina
Geological Survey, General Geologic Map , scale 1:500000.

NCDENR 2012a. “Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina.” Water
Quality http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (February 2012).

NCDENR 2012b. “2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5.” Water Quality Section.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (August 2012).

NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2011. A Guide to Surface Freshwater
Classifications in North Carolina. Raleigh. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/
get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf; accessed October 2017.

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). “Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities 2009.”.

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2,
December 24, 2002.

USACE. 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.

USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and
C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.

USACE. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.

USACE. 2018. Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator.

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS).
1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.

USDA NRCS.. 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654), USDA

USDA NRCS. 2007. Soil Survey of Surry County, North Carolina.
Little Sebastian Mitigation Plan November 2018
Project #100027 52

USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov (October 2017).

USDA NRCS. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas,
G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Wadeable Streams.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. “Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina.”
North Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. (September 2014).

Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J., 2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural foods in the
Southeastern United States, through 2006—Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientifc Investigations Report 2009–5158, 111 p.

Figures List
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – USGS Map
Figure 3 – Landowner Map
Figure 4 – Land-use Map
Figure 5 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 6 – National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 7 – Soils Map
Figure 8 – Historical Conditions Map
Figure 9 – FEMA Map
Figure 10 – Concept Design Map
Figure 11 – Buffer Width Map
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/30/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 1 - Vicinity Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Proposed Gideon Site
Service Area - 03040101
TLW - 03040101080020
Checked by: ATP
Gideon Mitigation Site
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Map
Bottom (1973)
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/30/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 2 - USGS Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
Checked by: ATP
BS1
29 ac
JN2
38 ac
JN3
999 ac
MC1
2921 ac
MC3
3261 ac
Christopher Edward Nixon
and Gwyn Dobbins Nixon
495600199069
The Byron Thomas Shaw II and Mary Beth Shaw
Revocable Living Trust U/T/D of November 7, 2011
495600581103
Christopher Edward Nixon
and Gwyn Dobbins Nixon
495600282159
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 3 - Landowner Map
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/30/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 3 - Landowner Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcels
Proposed Gideon Site
Checked by: CSC
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 4 - Land-use Map
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/30/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 4 - Landuse Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
Landuse
Forest 89.6%
Agriculture 10.39 %
Urban 0.007%
Water 0.004%
Checked by: CSC
TTTTTTTTTTTTMC3-C
JN
2
-
D BS1-ABS1-DJN
2
-
B
BS1-BMC3-A BS1-EJN3-A
MC3-
B
J
N
2
-
A
MC1-A
MC3-DBS1-CMC1-C
MC1-B
JN
3
-BJN2-C
WA
WB
WE
WD
WF
WC
WG
©
0 400200
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 5 - Existing Conditions Map 11X17.mxdLegend
!CExisting Telephone Line
T T Existing Powerline
Existing Streams
Existing Wetlands
Proposed Easement
Proposed Gideon Site
Project Parcels
Figure 5 - Existing
Conditions Map
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
1 in = 400 feet
!C!CTelephone LineTelephone Line
Private Road
Crossing
PUBHh
PUBHh
0 600300
Feet
Figure 6 - National Wetland Inventory Map
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/30/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 6 - NWI Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Proposed Gideon Site
NWI Wetlands - None (06/25/2018)
Checked by: CSC
WoD
WoD WoD
WfC2
WoE
WoE
WoE
WoE
WfC2
WfC2
WfC2
WoD
WoD
WfC2
WfC2
WfC2
DeF
WoE
WfC2
WoD
WoD
WoE
WoD
WfB2
WfC2
WfC2
WfC2
WfC2
WoE
WoE
WoE
DeF
CsA
DeF
WoD
WoD
WoD
WfB2
WfC2 WfC2
WoD
BbC
WoD
WoD
WoE
WoE
WoE
WfC2
ArA
WoD
WoE
WoE
ArA
WoD
WoD
BdC
WfB2
WoD
ArA
WoE
WoD
WoD
WoD
WfB2
0 600300
Feet
Figure 7 - Soils Map
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/30/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 7 - Soils Map.mxdChecked by: CSC
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name
ArA Arkaqua loam, 0-2% slopes
CsA Colvard and Suches soils, 0-3% slopes
WoD Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, 15-25% slopes
WoE Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, 25-45% slopes
Legend
Proposed Easement
Hydric (100%)
Predominantly Hydric (66-99%)
Partially Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
Proposed Gideon Site
0 1,500750
Feet
Figure 8 - Historical Conditions Map
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/30/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 8 - Historical Imagery map.mxd1950
1993 1998
1966
Legend
Proposed Easement
Proposed Gideon Site
Source: NC OneMap Source: NC OneMap
Source: USGS Earth Explorer Source: USGS Earth Explorer
0 600300
Feet
Figure 9 - FEMA Map
Panel: 4946 Map No: 3710494600J Effective Date: Aug.18.2009
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/30/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 9 - FEMA Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Proposed Gideon Site
FEMA Zone AE
Checked by: CSC
!CMC3-C
JN
2
-
D BS1-ABS1-DJN
2
-
B
BS1-BMC3-A BS1-EJN3-A
MC3-
B
MC3-D
J
N
2
-
A
MC1-A
BS1-CMC1-C
MC1-B
JN
3
-BJN2-C
©
0 400200
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 10 - Concept Map 11X17.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
(25.90 ac)
Project Parcels
Proposed Gideon Site
!CAgricultural BMP
Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement II (5:1)
Enhancement II (7.5:1)
Enhancement II (10:1)
Preservation
Figure 10 - Concept Design Map
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
1 in = 400 feet
Reach Treatment Length Ratio SMUs
JN2-A Preservation 418 10:1 41.8
JN2-B Enhancement I 187 1.5:1 124.7
JN2-C Enhancement II 1,144 2.5:1 457.6
JN2-D Enhancement I 196 1.5:1 130.7
JN3-A Enhancement II 350 7.5:1 46.7
JN3-B Restoration 1,043 1:1 1,043.0
MC1-A Enhancement II 469 7.5:1 62.5
MC1-B Enhancement II 977 5:1 195.4
MC1-C Restoration 555 1:1 555.0
MC3-A Enhancement II 243 10:1 24.3
MC3-B Enhancement II 402 2.5:1 160.8
MC3-C Enhancement I 214 1.5:1 142.7
MC3-D Enhancement II 395 5:1 79.0
BS1-A Restoration 214 1:1 214.0
BS1-B Enhancement II 175 2.5:1 70.0
BS1-C Restoration 541 1:1 541.0
BS1-D Enhancement II 177 2.5:1 70.8
BS1-E Restoration 368 1:1 368.0
8,068 4,327.9
505.1
-278.7
4,554.3
Total
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
Total Adjusted SMUs
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this location
A
B
C D
E
F
G H
K
J
I
©
0 700350
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Index Map.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 700 feet
A
B
C D
E
F
G H
K
J
I
Ideal Buffers Actual Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Map Index
Index Sheet
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this location
J
N
2
-
A
JN2-
B
©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feet
JN2-
B
J
N
2
-
A
Sheet A
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this location
JN2
-
C
JN2-C©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feet
JN2
-
C
JN2-CSheet B
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this location
M
C
1
-
A JN2-D
©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feetJN2-D
M
C
1
-
A
Sheet C
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this locationJN2-D
J
N
2
-
D
MC1
-
B
MC1-
B
©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feetJN2-D
J
N
2
-
D
MC1-
B
MC1
-
B Sheet D
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this locationJN3-AJN3-B©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feetJN3-AJN3-BSheet E
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this locationJN3-BM
C
1
-
C
©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feetJN3-BM
C
1
-
C
Sheet F
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this location
©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feet
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this location
Sheet G
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this location
MC3-A MC3-
B
MC3-B
MC3-C
©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feet
MC3-B
MC3-C
MC3-A MC3-
B
Sheet H
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this locationBS1-ABS1-B©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feetBS1-ABS1-BSheet I
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this locationBS1-EBS1-D
©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feet
BS
1
-
EBS1-DBS1-EBS1-CSheet J
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4
No Credit loss in the Minimum Buffer ZoneGideon and Little Sebastian Easement are contiguous in this location
MC3-C
MC3-D
©
0 10050
Feet
Date: 10/30/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure11_NSBW MAPS\Figure 11 - Buffer Widths Map - Data Driven Pages.mxdFigure 11 - Buffer Width
Zones
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Surry County,
North Carolina
1 in = 100 feet
Ideal Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Buffer Width Zone
0-15 feet
16-20 feet
21-25 feet
26-30 feet
31-50 feet
51-75 feet
76-100 feet
101-125 feet
126-150 feet
MC3-C
MC3-D
Sheet K
Actual Buffers
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)242,040 80,680 80,680 80,680 322,720 403,400 403,400 403,400 403,400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)250,231 84,673 84,020 83,735 331,798 408,983 409,951 411,939 415,259
Actual Buffer (square feet)238,423 78,130 77,249 76,333 264,770 182,722 71,360 22,069 6,841
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2,164 866 649 649 390 303 260 216 130
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102 -67 -52 -57 311 135 45 12 2
Total Baseline Credit
4,327.9
Total Credit
4,554.3
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
505.1
Net Change in Credit from Buffers
226.4

Appendix A - Plan Sheets

© 2017 HERE © 2017 Microsoft Corporation OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEO
H
E
WOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDROCKROCKROCKROCKOHE OHE
O
H
E
XXXXX XX
X
X
X XXXXXXXXXX
XX X
X XXX
XX XXXXXXXX
X300600300PROJECT LOCATIONSITE MAPNTSS1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S11S12S13S13DMS PROJECT #:CONTRACT #:USACE ACTION ID #:RFP #:1000277187SAW-2017-0150716-006993FILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_COVER.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usRESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110RALEIGH, NC 27605VICINITY MAPNTS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEOCTOBER 2018YADKIN RIVER BASIN: HUC 03040101080020SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINALITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITEDPITRSAFMCSC0335-PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/31/2018REACH JN2REACH JN3REACH MC1REACH MC3REACH BS1Sheet List TableSheet Number Sheet Title-COVERE1GENERAL NOTES & LEGENDE2EXISTING CONDITIONSS1REACH JN2S2REACH JN2S3REACH JN2S4REACH JN2S5REACH JN3S6REACH JN3S7REACH JN3S8REACH BS1S9REACH BS1S10REACH BS1S11REACH MC1S12REACH MC1S13REACH MC3F1FENCING PLANP1PLANTING PLANP2EROSION CONTROL NOTESM1MONITORING PLAND1DETAILSD2DETAILSD3DETAILSD4DETAILSD5DETAILSD6DETAILSD7DETAILS
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us9/18/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONE10335CSCAFMTRSDPILITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
GENERAL NOTES & LEGEND
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA LEGENDTBTBBBBBOHEOHEXXEXISTING TREELINELCELIMITS OF PROPOSEDCONSERVATION EASEMENT50465042EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY LINEPROPOSED TOP OF BANKEXISTING FENCELINEEXISTING BOTTOM OF BANKEXISTING TOP OF BANKPROPOSED CONTOUR MINORPROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOREXISTING CONTOUR MINOREXISTING CONTOUR MAJOREXISTING WETLANDPROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)LOG SILL(SEE DETAIL D4)LOG SILL(PROFILE)PROPOSED FILL AREALOG CROSS VANE(SEE DETAIL D7)LOG CROSS VANE(PROFILE)DOUBLE LOG DROP(SEE DETAIL D4)PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNELEXISTING TREEEXISTING STREAMTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBCONSTRUCTION NOTES:1. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS DESCRIBED IN THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN ANDNOTES. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE PHASED-IN TO THOSE AREAS OF THE PROJECTCURRENTLY BEING WORKED ON. THE CONTRACTOR MAY MODIFY OR RELOCATE EROSIONCONTROL MEASURES TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR UNFORESEEN FIELD CONDITIONS SO LONGAS PROPER CONSTRUCTION IS MAINTAINED TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY AND USEFULNESS OF THEPROPOSED MEASURES. ALL DISTURBED AREAS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS SHALL BE STABILIZEDWITH TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH AT THE END OF EACH DAY.2. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAMDIRECTION.3. EXISTING WETLANDS CANNOT BE ENCROACHED UPON UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IF NOTAPPROVED AS DESIGNATED IMPACT AREAS. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING MUST BE PLACED AROUNDALL EXISTING WETLANDS THAT ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND/ORARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT.4. DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE ENDOF EACH WORKING DAY.5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION ANDSTABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE ABANDONED AT ANELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE PROPOSED CHANNEL.6. STOCKPILE AREAS MAY BE RELOCATED UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. SILT FENCINGMUST BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL STOCKPILE AREAS.7. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND SHALLNOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED,PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF THE TREES TO BE SAVED. ANYCOMPROMISED TREES NOT USED IN CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OFOFF SITE.8. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL/COBBLE SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS TOBE ABANDONED. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOWCHANNEL SECTIONS.9. IN-STREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS (BRUSH TOES,LOG VANES, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PERAPPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.10. THE WORK TO RESHAPE THE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE PERFORMED USING EQUIPMENT WORKINGFROM THE TOP OF THE EXISTING STREAM BANK, WHERE POSSIBLE.11. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN THE ACTIVE CHANNEL TO PERFORMWORK IF POSSIBLE. PLATFORMS SHOULD BE USED TO CROSS CHANNEL WHERE ACCESS IS NOTPOSSIBLE.12. NO MORE CHANNEL SHALL BE DISTURBED THAN CAN BE STABILIZED BY THE END OF THE WORKDAY OR PRIOR TO RESTORING FLOW TO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL SEGMENTS.13. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL DEVICES ONCE CONSTRUCTION ISCOMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED. A MAXIMUM OF 200 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM MAY BEDISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.14. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.15. AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS BEING MAINTAINED, TEMPORARY PUMPAROUND DAMS AND BYPASS PUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE-WATER THE WORK AREA ASDESCRIBED IN THE DETAILS.16. WHEN THE PROPOSED CHANNEL HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION, ALLTEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL ANDNORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATEDSPOILS AREAS PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAM.17. AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH ROCK STRUCTURES, BOULDER TOE STABILIZATION, AND LOG TOESTABILIZATION ARE CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS, TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS AND BYPASSPUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE-WATER THE WORK AREA, EXCEPT AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THENORMAL FLOW CAN BE DIVERTED AROUND THE WORK AREA WITH THE USE OF AN EXISTINGCHANNEL. WHEN THE TOE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO RESTRAIN EROSION ALLTEMPORARY COFFER DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL ANDNORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATEDSPOILS AREA PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY COFFER DAM.18. MATERIAL THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE STREAM WILL BE RE-DEPOSITED OUTSIDE OF THE ACTIVECHANNEL AND ITS FLOODPLAIN.19. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF ALL DISTURBED GRASSED AREAS AT THE TOP OFTHE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEEDING AND MULCHING SPECIFICATIONAS SHOWN ON PLANS.20. RE-FERTILIZE AND RE-SEED DISTURBED AREAS IF NECESSARY.21. TEMPORARY AND/OR PERMANENT IMPACTS TO EXISTING WETLANDS SHALL BE AVOIDED TO THEEXTENT POSSIBLE. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL EXISTINGWETLANDS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND/OR ADJACENT TO ANY CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES.STREAM CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:1. CONDUCT PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING INCLUDING OWNER, ENGINEER, ASSOCIATEDCONTRACTORS, NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL, AND OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES.CONTACT NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL AT 919-791-4200.2. OBTAIN EROSION CONTROL PERMIT FROM NCDENR - LAND QUALITY SECTION AND ALL OTHERAPPROVALS NECESSARY TO BEGIN AND COMPLETE THE PROJECT.3. CONTRACTOR IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL APPROPRIATE PARTIES ANDASSURING THAT UTILITIES ARE LOCATED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION.CALL NC ONE-CALL (PREVIOUSLY ULOCO) AT 1-800-632-4949 FOR UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONAND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.4. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, STABILIZED GRAVEL ENTRANCE/EXIT AND ROUTES OF INGRESS ANDEGRESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND DETAILS. MAINTAIN EXISTINGDRIVEWAY OVERTOPPING ELEVATION / PROFILE.5. PREPARE STAGING AND STOCKPILING AREAS IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTIONPLANS OR AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ANY EXCESS SPOIL FROM STREAM CONSTRUCTIONSHALL BE USED TO CONSTRUCT CHANNEL PLUGS AS SHOWN ON PLANS.6. INSTALL PUMP AROUND APPARATUS AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AT UPSTREAM END OF PROJECT.AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES, MOVE PUMP AROUND OPERATION DOWNSTREAM. (SEEDETAILS ON SHEET D1)7. INSTALL SILT FENCE, TEMPORARY CROSSINGS AND ALL OTHER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ASSHOWN ON PLANS.8. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TODOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.9. ROUGH GRADING OF CHANNEL SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.10. INSTALL STRUCTURES AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DETAILS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING, OBTAINAPPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.11. UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATSALONG CHANNEL BANKS.12. FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF THEENGINEER.13. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM ATTHE END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.14. DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE ENDOF EACH WORKING DAY.15. INSTALL LIVE STAKE, BARE ROOT, AND CONTAINERIZED PLANTINGS AS SPECIFIED ON PLANTINGPLANS.DOUBLE LOG DROP(PROFILE)ROCK CROSS VANE(SEE DETAIL D5)ROCK A-VANE(SEE DETAIL D7)ROCK CROSS VANE/A-VANE(PROFILE)RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL(SEE DETAIL D6)ANGLED LOG STEP POOL(SEE DETAIL D6)BRUSH TOE PROTECTION(SEE DETAIL D3)DRY DETENTION BASIN(SEE DETAIL D2)
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEO
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
WOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDROCKROCKROCKROCKOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
BBBB BBBB
BB
BB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TBTB
TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBB
BB
BB
B
B
BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
B
BBBBBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BB
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TBT
B
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBT
B
TB
T
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB
B
B
BB
BB BB
BB BB BB BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBB
BB BBBB BBBBBB
BB
BB
BBBBBB BBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBB
B
BB BBBB
BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBB BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB BB BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTB TB
TB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB
TBTB TBTB
TBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
T
B TBTBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTB TB TBTB TB TB TB TBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTB TBTBTB TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBTBT
B TBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB TBTBTB TB
TB TB TB
TB TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB TB TB
TB TB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBT
B
TB TB
TB TB
TB TB TB
TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBB BB BB B
B
BB
BB
BB
BB
B
B
BB
BB
BBBB
BB BB
BB BB BB
BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBB BB BBBB
BB BBBBBB
BB
BB
BBBBBB
BB
BB
BB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCE LCE LCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
L
C
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
1503001500FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usSURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
LITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
BRCTRSAFMCSC0335E2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/30/2018 REACH JN2REACH MC1REACH JN3REACH BS1REACH MC3
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBT
B
T
B
TBXXX0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+
5
0
6+006+50S34S35S360+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+
5
0
6+006+50LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN2.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/31/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS10335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN2
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH JN2-APRESERVATIONSTA 0+20 TO 4+38REACH JN2-BENHANCEMENT ISTA 4+38 TO 6+25M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

6
+
0
0
S2 INTERMITTENT/EPHEMERAL BREAK
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB5+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+50
9+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+00
12+5013+00S35S365+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+50
9+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+00
12+5013+00LCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'11901200121012201230119012001210122012306+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+00S36EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINE(STA 9+32)
(STA 9+63)CONSERVATIONEASEMENTBREAKPROP 24 LFOF 36" RCP0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN2.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us6/15/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS20335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN2
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
306030REACH JN2-CENHANCEMENT IISTA 6+25 TO 9+32PROPOSED 24 LFOF 36" RCPM
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

1
2
+
0
0
S3
S1MATCH LINE 6+00
REACH JN2-CENHANCEMENT IISTA 9+63 TO 18+00
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE SOIL ROADWO
O
D
SHE
D
WO
O
D
SHE
D
BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBXXXXXXX XXX11+0011+5012+0012+5013+00 13+5014+0014+50 15+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+50S51S5211+0011+5012+0012+5013+00 13+5014+0014+50 15+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+50LCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN2.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/31/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS30335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN2
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH JN2-CENHANCEMENT IISTA 9+63 TO 18+00S2MATCH LINE 12+00
MAT
C
H

L
I
N
E

1
8
+
0
0
S4
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
OHE SOIL ROADWOODSHED WOODSHED
TB
T
B
T
B
TBTB
T
BTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TBT
B
TBT
B
T
B
T
B
TBXXXXXXXXXX15+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5020+62S51S5215+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5020+66LC
E LCEL
C
E
L
C
E
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'115011601170118011901150116011701180119018+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5021+00S52S51S52S52-2.50%-2.50%-2.00%EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINE(STA 18+39)(STA 19+08)CONSERVATIONEASEMENTBREAKPROP 24 LFOF 36" RCPPROPOSEDCHANNEL BED3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN2.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/31/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS40335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN2
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REMOVE EXISTING FORDCROSSING AND REMOVEACCESS ROADREACH MC1PROPOSED 24 LFOF 36" RCPS3MATCH LINE 18+00 REACH JN2-DENHANCEMENT ISTA 18+00 TO 18+39,STA 19+08 TO 20+58
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEN. INV. = BURIEDS. INV. = 1158.90'TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB BB
B
B
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTB
TBTB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX0+000+501+001+502+002+50 3+
0
0
3+504+004+505+005+506+006
+
5
0
7
+
0
0
7+50OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHES1S2S3S4S5LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCE LCE
LCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'11551160116511701175115511601165117011750+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00-1.10%S1S2S3PROPOSEDTOP OF BANKPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEEXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN3.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/31/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS50335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN3
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH JN3-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 0+00 TO 3+50TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION2.9'5.1'16.0'1.9'7.5'5.5'16.0'3.4'3.4'5.5'7.5'16.0'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH JN3 STA 3+50 TO STA 14+362.3'
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

6
+
0
0
S
6 REACH JN3-BRESTORATIONSTA 3+50 TO 11+31EXISTING POWER POLETO BE REMOVED BYSURRY-YADKIN EMCPROPOSED POWER POLE TO BEINSTALLED BY SURRY-YADKIN EMCPOWER LINE TO BE RELOCATEDBY SURRY-YADKIN EMC
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBB BB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBXXXX
X
X
X XXX5+005+506+006+50 7+00 7+508+008+509+009+5010+00
10+5011+
0
0
11+5012+001
2
+
5
0
13+00OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHES2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'11501155116011651170115011551160116511706+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+00-1.10%-1.10%-1.10%S9S4S5S6S7S8(STA 11+31)
(STA 11+74)CONSERVATIONEASEMENTBREAKPROP 24 LF OFDBL 48" RCPPROPOSEDTOP OF BANKPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEEXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN3.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/31/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS60335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN3
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH JN3-BRESTORATIONSTA 3+50 TO 11+31TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION2.9'5.1'16.0'1.9'7.5'5.5'16.0'3.4'3.4'5.5'7.5'16.0'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH JN3 STA 3+50 TO STA 14+362.3'
S5MATCH LINE 6+00
MATCH LINE 12+00
S7 PROPOSED 24 LFOF DBL 48" RCPEXISTING POWER POLETO BE REMOVED BYSURRY-YADKIN EMCPOWER LINE TO BERELOCATED BYSURRY-YADKIN EMCPROPOSED POWER POLETO BE INSTALLED BYSURRY-YADKIN EMC
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE
ED NIXON ROAD50' RIGHT OF WAYTB TB TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB BB BBBBBB BBBB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTB TB TBTB TB TBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
XXXXXXXXX X
X
X
X
XXXXX
1
4
+
6
09+5010+0010+5011+00 11+5012+0012+50
13+0013
+
5
0
1
4
+
0
0
1
4
+
5
0OHES7S8S9S10S11S26LCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCELCELCELCE LCE
LCELC
ESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'114511501155116011651145115011551160116512+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+00-1.10%-1.10%-1.10%S10S11PROPOSEDTOP OF BANKPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEEXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN3.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us11/06/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS70335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN3
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH JN3-BRESTORATIONSTA 11+74 TO 14+36TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION2.9'5.1'16.0'1.9'7.5'5.5'16.0'3.4'3.4'5.5'7.5'16.0'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH JN3 STA 3+50 TO STA 14+362.3'REACH MC1S6MATCH LINE 12+00
TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
TBT
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBX X X0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006
+
5
0S39S40S41S42S43LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'11701180119012001210117011801190120012100+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00S40S41S39S42-5.00%-3.00%-3.00%-3.00%EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_BS1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/31/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS80335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH BS1
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH BS1-ARESTORATIONSTA 1+05 TO 3+19REACH BS1-CRESTORATIONSTA 4+94 TO 10+35TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION0.6'1.65'4.5'0.7'3.4'1.3'5.3'1.3'1.3'1.3'3.4'5.3'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH BS1 RESTORATION AREAS (TYP.)MATCH
L
I
N
E

6
+
0
0
S9 REACH BS1-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 3+19 TO 4+94PROPOSED DRYDETENTION BASINSEE DETAIL SHEET D2INTERMITTENT/EPHEMERAL BREAK
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB TBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB5+005+506+006+50 7+007+508+008+509+009+5010+001
0
+
5
0
11+0011+5012+001
2
+
5
0 S43S44S47S45S46LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'11401150116011701180114011501160117011806+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+00S43S44S45-3.00%-3.00%-3.00%-3.00%S46EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_BS1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/31/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS90335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH BS1
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH BS1-CRESTORATIONSTA 4+94 TO 10+35REACH BS1-DENHANCEMENT IISTA 10+35 TO 12+12TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION0.6'1.65'4.5'0.7'3.4'1.3'5.3'1.3'1.3'1.3'3.4'5.3'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH BS1 RESTORATION AREAS (TYP.)MATCH LINE 6+00S8MATCH

LI
N
E
1
2
+
0
0
S10
36" CMPINV. IN = 1124.22'INV. OUT = 1123.54'TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
TB TB
TB TBTB
TB TB TBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBB
B
BBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBB
B
BBB
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBX
X
X
X XXXXX
X
10+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+501
5
+
0
0
15+501
6
+
0
0
16+46S47S48S45S49S46S50LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
LCE LCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'112011301140115011601120113011401150116012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+00S47S48-3.00%-3.00%-3.00%S49S50-4.70%-3.00%EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINE(STA 14+86)
(STA 15+31)CONSERVATIONEASEMENTBREAKPROP 24 LFOF 36" RCPPROPOSED TOPOF BANKPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_BS1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/31/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS100335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH BS1
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH BS1-ERESTORATIONSTA 12+12 TO 14+86REACH MC3TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION0.6'1.65'4.5'0.7'3.4'1.3'5.3'1.3'1.3'1.3'3.4'5.3'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH BS1 RESTORATION AREAS (TYP.)MATCH LINE 12+00S9PROPOSED 24 LFOF 36" RCPREACH BS1-ERESTORATIONSTA 15+31 TO 16+25
OHETBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBBBBB
BB BBBB
BBBBBBBBTBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBX
XXX0+000+501+00 1+50 2+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506
+
0
0
6+507+007+508+008+50S52LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEOHEOHEOHEROCKO
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
ETBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
T
B
TBT
B
TBXXXX8+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+
0
0
15+50LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
L
C
E
LCELCE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_MC1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us09/18/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS110335CSCAFMTRSDPILITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH MC1
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH MC1-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 0+00 TO 4+69REACH MC1-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 4+99 TO 12+16MATCH LINE 8+00REACH MC1-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 4+99 TO 12+16MATCH LINE 8+00MATCH LIN
E

1
4
+
7
5
S12 CONSERVATION EASEMENT BREAKEXISTING ACCESS ROAD TO REMAINREACH MC1-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 12+57 TO 15+17CONSERVATIONEASEMENT BREAK
GRAVEL ROAD
ED
N
I
X
O
N

R
O
A
D
50'
R
I
G
H
T

O
F

W
A
Y ROCKTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BB BBBBBBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TB TBTBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBXX X
X XXXXXXXX
X
XXXXXX
XXX14+0014+5015+00 15+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+
0
0
19+5020+0020+5021+0021+50S11S24S26S27LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'114011451150115511601140114511501155116015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5021+0021+50-0.85%-0.85%S24S26S27(STA 20+72)
(STA 21+20)CONSERVATIONEASEMENTBREAKPROPOSEDTOP OF BANKPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEEXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_MC1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us09/18/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS120335CSCAFMTRSDPILITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH MC1
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH MC1-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 12+57 TO 15+17REACH MC1-CRESTORATIONSTA 15+17 TO 20+72TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION3.8'6.7'21.0'2.5'9.9'7.2'21.0'4.3'4.3'7.2'9.9'21.0'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH MC1 STA 15+17 TO STA 19+702.9'
S11MATCH LINE 14+75
GIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITEREACH JN3TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.2'7.3'23.0'2.7'10.8'7.9'23.0'4.7'4.7'7.9'10.8'23.0'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH MC1 STA 19+70 TO STA 20+723.3'PROPOSED BRIDGE
40+0040+5041+0041+5042+0042+5043+0043+5044+0044+5045+0045+5046+0046+5047+0012" CMPN. INV. = BURIEDS. INV. = 1126.63'ROCKROCKTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE46+0046+5047+0047+5048+00 48+5049+0049+5050+0050+5051+0051+5052+
0
0
5
2
+
5
0
53+005
3
+
5
0
5
3
+
8
3 36" CMPINV. IN = 1124.22'INV. OUT = 1123.54'ROCKTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
T
B
TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
BBBBB BBBBBBX
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE
3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_MC3.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/30/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS130335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH MC3
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH MC3-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 40+42 TO 42+85REACH MC3-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 42+85 TO 46+87GIDEON STREAMMITIGATION SITEREACH MC3-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 42+85 TO 46+87REACH MC3-CENHANCEMENT ISTA 47+28 TO 49+42REACH MC3-DENHANCEMENT IISTA 49+42 TO 53+37REACH BS1MATCH LINE 46+50
MAT
C
H

L
I
N
E

4
6
+
5
0PROPOSED FORD CROSSINGSEE DETAIL SHT D3RESHAPE LEFT BANK, INSTALLCOIR MATTING & LIVE STAKESSTA 42+85 TO 43+78REMOVE EXISTING PIPE ANDDISPOSE OF OFF SITERESHAPE LEFT BANK, INSTALLCOIR MATTING & LIVE STAKESSTA 47+78 TO 49+42
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEO
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
WOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDROCKROCKROCKROCKOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
BBBB BBBB
BB
BB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TBTB
TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBB
BB
BB
B
B
BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
B
BBBBBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BB
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TBT
B
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBT
B
TB
T
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB
B
B
BB
BB BB
BB BB BB BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBB
BB BBBB BBBBBB
BB
BB
BBBBBB BBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBB
B BB BBBB
BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBB BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB BB BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTB TB
TB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB
TBTB TBTB
TBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTB TB TBTB TB TB TB TBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTB TBTBTB TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB TBTBTB TB
TB TB TB
TB TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB TB TB
TB TB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBT
B
TB TB
TB TB
TB TB TB
TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBB BB BB B
B
BB
BB
BB
BB
B
B
BB
BB
BBBB
BB BB
BB BB BB
BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBB BB BBBB
BB BBBBBB
BB
BB
BBBBBB
BB
BB
BB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCE LCE LCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
L
C
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
1503001500FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usSURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FENCING PLAN
LITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
BRCTRSAFMCSC0335F1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/30/2018 REACH JN2REACH MC1REACH JN3REACH BS1REACH MC3FENCING LEGENDLIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTLCEEXISTING FENCELINEPROPOSED FENCELINEINSTALL 2480 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCE(SEE DETAIL SHT D5)INSTALL 2205 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCE(SEE DETAIL SHT D5)INSTALL 1807 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCE(SEE DETAIL SHT D5)INSTALL 2290 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCE (NOTE 1)(SEE DETAIL SHT D5)INSTALL 3129 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCE(SEE DETAIL SHT D5)INSTALL 744 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCE(SEE DETAIL SHT D5)INSTALL 775 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCE(SEE DETAIL SHT D5)FENCING NOTES:1. CONTRACTOR TO TIE PROPOSED FENCEINTO EXISTING FENCE WHERE APPLICABLETO MAINTAIN CATTLE EXCLUSION.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL FENCINGLOCATED WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENT.NOTE 2
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEO
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
WOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDROCKROCKROCKROCKOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
BBBB BBBB
BB
BB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TBTB
TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTB
TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBB
BB
BB
B
B
BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
BBBBBBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BB
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TBT
B
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBT
B
TB
T
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBBB BB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB
B
B
BB
BB BB
BB BB
BB BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BB BB
BB BBBB BBBBBB
BB
BB
BBBBBB BBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBB
B
BB BBBB
BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBB BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB BB BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTB TB
TB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB
TBTB TBTB
TBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
T
B TBTBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTB TB TBTB TB TB TB TBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTB TBTBTB TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBTBT
B TBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB TBTBTB TB
TB TB TB
TB TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB TB TB
TB TB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTB
TB TB
TB TB
TB TB TB
TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBB BB BB B
B
BB
BB
BB
BB
B
B
BB
BB
BBBB
BB BB
BB BB BB
BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBB BB BBBB
BB BBBBBB
BB
BB
BBBBBB
BB
BB
BB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCE LCE LCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
L
C
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
1503001500FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/30/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONP10335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
PLANTING PLAN
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAPLANTING NOTESALL PLANTING AREAS1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATIONIS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECTEROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES AREFUNCTIONING PROPERLY.2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BEESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR SPRING-TOOTHCHISEL PLOW TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSSPLANTING AREAS WITH THE IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHICCONTOURS.4. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. LIVESTAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2.5. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6" DBH SHALLBE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.6. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO 6 PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES AREGROUPED TOGETHER.7. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE (IN SUPPLEMENTALPLANTING AREAS 400 STEMS PER ACRE).8. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTHBANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.9. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREASWITH SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1.10. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.11. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE. RIPARIAN PLANTING(TOTAL AREA: 10.7 AC)PLANTING LEGENDLive Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionSilky dogwoodCornus amomum40%Black willowSali[ nigra60%PLANTING TABLEPermanent Riparian Seed Mi[Common NameScientific NamePercentCompositionVirginia WildryeElymus virginicus25%Indian GrassSorghastrum nutans25%Little Blue StemSchi]achyrium scoparium10%Soft RushJuncus effusus10%Blackeyed susanRudbeckia hirta10%DeertongueDichanthelium clandestinum10%Common MilkweedAsclepias syriaca5%Showy GoldenrodSolidago erecta5%LIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTLCEREACH JN2REACH MC1REACH JN3REACH BS1REACH MC3Bare Root Planting Tree SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionWater OakQuercus nigra15%Willow OakQuercus phellos15%River BirchBetula nigra15%American SycamorePlatanas occidentalis10%Northern Red OakQuercus rubra10%Green AshFra[inus pennsylvanica10%Yellow PoplarLiriodendron tulipifera10%PersimmonDiospyros virginiana5%ElderberrySambucus canadensis5%Black GumNyssa biflora5%EXISTING TREELINESUPPLEMENTAL RIPARIAN PLANTING(TOTAL AREA: 0.3 AC)
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEO
H
E
O
H
E
O
H
E
WOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDROCKROCKROCKROCKOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
BBBB BBBBBB
BB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TBTB
TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBB
BB
BB
B
B
BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
B
BBBBBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BB
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TBT
B
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBT
B
TB
T
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB
B
B
BB
BB BB
BB BB BB BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBB
BB BBBB BBBBBB
BB
BB
BBBBBB BBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBB
B BB BBBB
BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBB BBBB BBBB
BBBB BBBB BB BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTB TB
TB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB
TBTB TBTB
TBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
T
B TBTBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTB TB TBTB TB TB TB TBTB TB TB TB TB TBTBTB TBTBTB TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBTBT
B TBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB TBTBTB TB
TB TB TB
TB TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB TB TB
TB TB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBT
B TBT
B
TB TB
TB TB
TB TB TB
TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBB BB BB B
B
BB
BB
BB
BB
B
B
BB
BB
BBBB
BB BB
BB BB BB
BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBB BB BBBBBB BBBBBB
BB
BB
BBBBBB
BB
BB
BB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCE LCE LCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
L
C
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
1503001500FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/30/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONM10335CSCAFMTRSBRCLITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
MONITORING PLAN
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINALEGENDVPPROPOSED VEGETATION PLOT(AREA: 0.02 AC)PROPOSED CREST GAUGERIPARIAN PLANTINGLIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROPOSED CROSS SECTIONLOCATIONSLCEREACH JN2REACH MC1REACH JN3REACH BS1REACH MC3VPVPVPVPVPVPVPVPPROPOSED FLOW GAUGEPROPOSED GROUNDWATERMONITORING GAUGEVP
WHEN AND WHERE TO USE ITSILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS:WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE IS 100-FEET.WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS 2H:1V.THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS.DO NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP.CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:1. USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 95% BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER, WHICH ISCERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM D 6461.SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE AMINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF 0° TO 120°F.2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/LINEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 FEET.MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE FASTENING THE FABRIC.CONSTRUCTION:1. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS.2. ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUNDSURFACE. (HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE OF THESTRUCTURE.)3. CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOIDJOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH 4FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST.4. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH 6 FEET POST SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE.SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM50 POUND TENSILE STRENGTH.5. EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED LINE OFPOSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER.6. PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH.7. BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH COMPACTIONOF THE BACKFILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE.8. DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES.MAINTENANCE:INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRSIMMEDIATELY.SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE ITPROMPTLY.REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND TOREDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND STABILIZEIT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.8"4"24" MIN
24" MIN
8"RUNOFFRUNOFF18" TO 24"FLAT-BOTTOM TRENCH DETAILV-SHAPED TRENCH DETAILSILT FENCE INSTALLATION18" TO 24"TEMPORARY SILT FENCENTSCOIR MATTINGNTSINSTALLATION NOTES:SITE PREPARATION1. GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.2. REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT MATTING WILLHAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.3. PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE.4. TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT SOIL TEST RESULTS TO THEENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH AS LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE SOIL IF NEEDED.SEEDING1. SEE PLANTING SHEETS FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.2. APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING.INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK1. SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FORINFORMATION REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING.2. OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS 3" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 12"ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAMMAT.3. EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER.4. LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT.5. ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINS.6. CUT 8" x 8" TRENCH ALONG TOP OF BANK FOR MAT TERMINATION AS SHOWN IN FIGURES 1& 2. EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK.7. PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OVERLAP.SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, ANDCOMPACT SOIL.8. STAPLE AT 12" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.9. STREAM BANK MATTING TO BE INSTALLED FROM TOE OF BANK TO A MINIMUM OF 2.0'PAST TOP OF BANK. SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TERMINATION AT TOP OF BANK.10. IF MORE THAN ROLL IS REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWNTO THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'.EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THEFOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:·100 % COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO AHIGH STRENGTH MATRIX.·THICKNESS - 0.35 IN. MINIMUM.·SHEAR STRESS – 5 LBS/SQFT·FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED 16 FT/SEC·WEIGHT - 29 OZ/SY·OPEN AREA - 38%·SLOPES – UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 1:1SEE S
ITE
PLANEXIST
ING
ROAD50' MIN.VARIES COARSE AGGREGATE -STONE SIZE = 2"-3"PURPOSE:STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE LEAVING ACONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD.CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:1. CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL ANDPROPERLY GRADE IT.2. PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL, AND SMOOTH IT.3. PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.4. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TOSEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.MAINTENANCE:MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE. AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTUREUSED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALSSPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS.TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCENTSNOTE: HOSE SHOULD BEKEPT OUTSIDE OF WORKAREANOTES:1. EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND/OR ISOLATED SECTIONS OFCHANNEL.2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAMFLOW.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED INONE WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONETIME.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING PUMP SIZESUFFICIENT TO PUMP BASE FLOW.5. DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-ERODIBLE MATERIALS SUCH AS SANDBAGS.SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:1. INSTALL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS A RIP RAP AT THEDOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA.2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARYPIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREATO THE STABILIZED OUTFALL.3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FORSTREAM DIVERSION.4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING PUMPINGAPPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSEFOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA.THIS WATER WILL ALSO BE PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLASS A RIPRAP.5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFOREREMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATERMUST BE PUMPED THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS,AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKEFIRST.6. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP AND IMPERVIOUSDIKES AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH.7. ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING IMPERVIOUS DIKE.SILT BAG PROFILE15' TO 20'FLOWINTAKE HOSEPUMP AROUNDPUMPCLASS ASTONEWORKAREADE-WATERINGPUMPIMPERVIOUSDIKESILT BAGLOCATIONSTABILIZED OUTFALLCLASS A STONEFILTER FABRICEXISTINGGROUNDDISCHARGEHOSE8" OF CLASS ASTONEFILTER FABRICSTABILIZEDOUTFALL CLASS ASTONEEXISTINGCHANNELDISCHARGE HOSEIMPERVIOUS DIKECLASS ASTONEPUMP AROUND & DEWATERING DETAILNTSSECTION B-BFLOWSECTION A-APLANFLOWCLASS I AND II RIPRAPSPILLWAY CREST1' MIN OF # 5WASHED STONECLASS I AND IIRIP RAPFILTER FABRICGENERAL NOTES:1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION CONTROLMANUAL.2. ROCK DAM RIPRAP SHALL BE 50/50 MIX OF CLASS I AND II.3. PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS B RIPRAP ROCK APRON 5 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE OF ROCKDAM.1.5' THICK CLASSB ROCK APRON1.5' THICK CLASSB ROCK APRONCUTOFF TRENCHFILTERFABRIC# 5 WASHED STONETEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAMNTSFLOWSECTION A-ANOTE: END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BEHIGHER THAN THE LOWEST POINT OF FLOW CHECK.SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE PLACED TOPREVENT SCOURING.SECTION B-BBBAAPLAN VIEWSANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OF SANDBAGS.THE BOTTOM LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS OF BAGS, THE MIDDLE LAYERSHALL CONSIST OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND THE TOP LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 1ROW OF BAGS. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED SANDBAG SHALL BEAPPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT X 0.5 FT X 1.5 FT.SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKENTS1
.
0
'MIN.KEY-IN MATTING PERFIG. 1 OR FIG. 2FLOW18"FLOWSTEP 1STEP 2FLOWSTEP 1STEP 2FLOW1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 18"O.C1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 12"O.C1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 24"O.CFIGURE 1FIGURE 2SOIL PILEFROM TRENCHTRENCH APPROX.8" WIDE X 8" DEEP1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 24"O.CKEY-IN AND/ORSTAKE MATTINGJUST ABOVECHANNEL TOE2.0'MIN.EROSION CONTROL WATTLENTSEXISTINGGRADEMINIMUM 9" EROSIONCONTROL STRAW WATTLEOR COIR WATTLE/LOGNOTE:EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOGS/WATTLES MAY BE USED IN PLACE OFSILT FENCE.SLOPEINSTALL WATTLE IN 3" TO5" TRENCH2" x 1" OR 2" x 2"WOODEN STAKEBACKFILL TRENCH WITHCOMPACTED EARTH1.25 LB./LINEAR FT. STEEL POSTSEXTRA STRENGTHFILTER FABRICUSE EITHER FLAT-BOTTOMOR V-BOTTOM TRENCHSHOWN BELOWBURY FABRICHEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIEFOR STEEL POSTS6' MAX WITH STANDARD FABRICFILTER FABRICCOMPACTEDEARTHFILTER FABRICFILTER FABRICCOMPACTEDEARTHRUNOFFFILTERFABRICTRENCH APPROX.8" WIDE x 8" DEEPSOIL PILEFROM TRENCHSOIL FILLEDFROM SOIL PILE,COMPACT WITH FOOTSOIL FILLEDFROM SOIL PILE,COMPACT WITHFOOTBBAA3:
1
2:12'5' MIN.W (SPILLWAY)MIN. 23 STREAM WIDTH6" MIN.MIDDLE LAYERBOTTOM LAYERTOP LAYEREARTH SURFACETRENCH 0.25' DEEPONLY WHENPLACED ON EARTHSURFACEENDS OF BAGS INADJACENT ROWSBUTTED SLIGHTLYTOGETHERSEE NOTELOWEST POINTGROUND LEVELEARTH SURFACE2'2' MIN. BELOWLOWEST BANKLEVELSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us9/18/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND10335CSCAFMTRSDPILITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NOTES:1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, 6-9 FEET LONG, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, ANDHARDWOOD.2. CABLE ANCHORS SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3' FROM EACH END OF LOG. REBAR (5/8" MINIMUM DIAMETER3' MIN. LENGTH TYPICAL) MAY BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR CABLE ANCHORS PER DIRECTION OFENGINEER.3. IF REBAR IS USED, PRE-DRILL HOLES WITH 5/8" DRILL BIT.FINISHED GRADE30'FLOWTYPICAL SECTIONLOG TOE PROTECTIONNTSCHANNEL PLUGNTSNOTES1. INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL. TOP OF STAKE SHOULDNOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.2. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (DEPTH APPROX 1/2 TO 2/3 OF LOG DIAM) FORPLACEMENT OF ROLL.3. COIR LOGS SHALL BE 10 FT LONG AND HAVE A DIAMETER OF 12 IN.COIR LOG (TOE PROTECTION)NTSWOODSTAKESNOTE:1. ACCEPTABLE SPECIES INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA), SILKY WILLOW(SALIX SERICEA) AND SILKY DOGWOOD (CORNUS AMMOMUM).2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED IN AN AREA EXTENDING 3 FEET OUT FROM TOPOF BANK TO JUST BELOW BANKFULL.3. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE SPACED 3 FEET APART, ALTERNATE SPACING.41DETAILLIVE STAKES SHOULD BE LONG ENOUGHTO REACH BELOW THE GROUNDWATERTABLE. (GENERALLY, A LENGTH OF 2 TO 3FEET IS SUFFICIENT.) ADDITIONALLY, THESTAKES SHOULD HAVE A DIAMETER INTHE RANGE OF 0.75 TO 2 INCHES.WATER TABLELIVE STAKENTSDIBBLE PLANTING METHODUSING THE KBC PLANTING BAR1. INSERTPLANTING BAR ASSHOWN AND PULLHANDLE TOWARDPLANTER.4. PULL HANDLE OFBAR TOWARDPLANTER, FIRMINGSOIL AT BOTTOM.2. REMOVEPLANTING BARAND PLACESEEDING ATCORRECT DEPTH.3. INSERTPLANTING BAR 2INCHES TOWARDPLANTER FROMSEEDING.5. PUSHHANDLEFORWARDFIRMING SOILAT TOP.6. LEAVECOMPACTIONHOLE OPEN.WATERTHOROUGHLY.PLANTING NOTES:PLANTING BAGDURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALLBE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG ORSIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT THEROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.KBC PLANTING BARPLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADEWITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION,AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH THICK ATCENTER.ROOT PRUNINGALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOTPRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NOROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.NOTES:BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED 6FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER,RANDOM SPACING, AVERAGING 8FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY680 PLANTS PER ACRE.BARE ROOT PLANTINGNTSMAX. 75'EXISTINGCHANNELMIN. 25'FILL TO TOP OFBANKFILL AT LEAST70% OF CHANNELMAX. 75'MIN. 25'NOTES:1. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL TO BANKFULL ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.2. CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 12" TO 18" LIFTS,3. IF CHANNEL CANNOT BE COMPLETELY FILLED TO TOP OF BANK, FILL TO TOP OFBANK FOR 25' OUT OF EVERY 100' SEGMENT.CHANNEL BACKFILLNTSOLD CHANNEL TO BEDIVERTED ORABANDONEDNEW CHANNEL TO BECONSTRUCTEDCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" LIFTS)IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)10' MINUNCOMPACTED BACKFILL1.5' MINIMUM1111BANKFULL ELEVATION1/4 TO 1/3 OF LOGDIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSEDPRIOR TO FINAL GRADINGPROPOSED BEDMINIMUM OF 2/3 OF LOGDIAMETER BEDDED BELOWEXISTING CHANNEL INVERT12" MINIMUM LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)INSTALL CABLE ANCHOR AS SHOWN. DRILL (ORSAW CUT) PILOT HOLE THROUGH LOG 1/3 TO1/4 OF THE WAY DOWN SO THAT ANCHORCABLE IS NOT EXPOSED.BANKFULL ELEVATION1/4 TO 1/3 OF LOGDIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSEDPRIOR TO FINAL GRADINGPROPOSED BEDMINIMUM OF 1/2 TO 2/3 OFLOG DIAMETER BEDDEDBELOW CHANNEL INVERT12" LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)CHANNEL PLUG30' MIN.BANKFULL ELEVATIONNEW CHANNEL BANK SHALLBE TREATED AS SPECIFIEDIN PLANSPROPOSEDCHANNEL INVERTLOG TOE OR COIR LOGEXISTINGCHANNELBOTTOMTOP OF BANKCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" TO 18" LIFTS)COIR FIBERMATTINGFLAT TOP ENDLATERAL BUDSIDE BRANCHREMOVED ATSLIGHT ANGLE45 DEGREETAPERED BUTTEND0.5' TO 1.5'18" MIN.0.75" TO 2"3' MIN.COIR FIBERMATTING2"PLAN VIEWSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us9/18/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND20335CSCAFMTRSDPILITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA XBCATZWZOUTLET ELEV: EPOOL ELEV: DPLAN VIEW6" #57 STONE ONGEOTEXTILE FABRICEVEN MIX OF NCDOT CLASS 1AND CLASS 2 RIPRAP 30" DEEPUNDISTURBED SOILSECTION A-A' YTYPICAL DRY DISSIPATER BASINNTSNOTE:BASINS WILL BE SIZED BASED ONCONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREATO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE.AA'FLOW
LOG VANENTSBANKFULL STAGEBASEFLOWPLAN VIEW - TRENCHING METHODFLOWPLAN VIEW - DRIVE POINT METHODFLOWDRIVE POINT METHOD:SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE "DRIVING" IT INTOTHE BANK. ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE STREAM FLOWMEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90-DEGREE ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATERAWAY FROM THE BANK. A TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACEDON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMEDBY THE ROOT WAD. THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 3' X 2' X 2'.TRENCHING METHOD:IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE BANK NEEDSTO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD SHOULD BE USED. THISMETHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTIONOF THE ROOT WAD. IN THIS CASE, A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLEDUNDERNEATH THE ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THEBANK AND WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WADSHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.ROOTWADNTSBOULDER(AS DIRECTED BYENGINEER)ROOT WADFOOTER LOGBOULDER(AS DIRECTED BYENGINEER)ROOT WADIF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVERENTIRE BANK & CONSTRUCTIONIS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TOMID MARCH, PROTECT BANKWITH BRUSH LAYER.FOOTER LOGLEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTBALLAST BOULDEROR DUCKBILL ANCHORSPOOLHEADER LOGBANKFULLVARIES
0' TO 0.8'3% TO 6%BANKFULLHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGSTREAM BEDIN POOLVARIES0' TO 12 WIDTHFLOWSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBALLAST BOULDEROR DUCK BILL ANCHORSFLOWLOG VANENON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)STREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBANKFULL1/2 WIDTHFLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")MIN 4.0'LEFT OR RIGHT VANEARM BANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINT1. LOG VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE OR MORE LOGS HELD IN PLACE BY EITHER BALLAST BOULDERS, DUCKBILLANCHORS, OR REBAR. LOGS SHALL BE A MIN. LENGTH OF 30' AND DIAMETER OF 12" AND BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD,RECENTLY HARVESTED. THE LENGTH SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE LOG IS BURIED INTO THE SOIL OF THE STREAM BANK (ON ONEEND) AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT-SIDED BALLAST BOULDERS SHALL BE OF SIZE2' X 2' X 1.5' OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.2. THE VANE SHALL INTERCEPT THE STREAM BANK AT A HEIGHT EQUAL TO BETWEEN ½ BANKFULL STAGE AND BANKFULL STAGE. ANELEVATION CONTROL POINT MAY BE ESTABLISHED AT THE LEFT OR RIGHT STREAM BANK/VANE INTERCEPT POINT. THE VANEINTERCEPT LOCATION MAY BE OTHERWISE DESCRIBED BY ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BANKFULL STAGE OR BY THE LENGTH AND SLOPEOF THE VANE ARM. BANKFULL IS NOT NECESSARILY THE TOP OF THE STREAM BANK SLOPE.3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THEVANE. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED ASNEEDED.4. LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS:A. OVER-EXCAVATE STREAM BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE HEADER (AND FOOTER IF SPECIFIED)LOGS.B. PLACE FOOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM IS MEASURED ALONG THE VANE ARMWHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREAM BANK AND PROFILE.C. INSTALL HEADER LOG OF THE VANE ARM ON TOP OF AND SLIGHTLY FORWARD OR BACK FROM THE FOOTER LOG.D. NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO THE HEADER LOG USING A GALVANIZED NAIL WITH A PLASTIC CAP. THE SIZE AND GAGE OF NAILAND NAIL SPACING SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.E. PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE.F. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND LOGS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE LOGS ARE FILLED.G. BACKFILL REMAINDER OF VANE WITH PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL.5. IF ANY EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAM BANK/VANE INTERCEPT POINT THEMATTING EDGES SHALL BE NEATLY SECURED AROUND THE LOGS.SECTION A-A PLAN VIEWPROFILE VIEW20° TO 30°NOTES:1. TREES NOT INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BEPROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION INACCORDANCE WITH PLANS.2. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLINGCOIR MATTING.INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DETAIL D1EXCAVATE / GRADE UPPER BANKINSTALL LIVE STAKES (SEE PLANTING PLAN)EXISTING CHANNEL BANKTIE TO EXISTING GRADEMIN SLOPE 2.5H:1VEXISTINGCHANNEL BEDTYPICAL BANK GRADINGNTSVARIES(DESIGNER TO MARK IN FIELDPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION)10' TO 15'BENCHTYPICAL PLAN VIEWCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKCOIR MATTINGF
LOW
BRUSH TOENTSSECTION A-ASMALL LOGS AND/ORLARGE BRANCHES WITH AMIN DIAMETER OF 4".SMALL BRANCHESAND BRUSHCOMPACTED SOILTOP OF BANKLIVE STAKES1. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACELARGER BRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN.LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING 6 IN TO 18 IN OF THELARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.2. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGERBRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) ANDCOMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TOLOCK IN PLACE.3. ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES A INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW(SALIX NIGRA) AND SILKY WILLOW (SALIX SERICEA). WILLOWCUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOWBETTER ROOTING.4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTEDSOIL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.5. INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVECUTTINGS LAYER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH1/4 MAX POOL DEPTHLIVE CUTTINGSNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DWG D1MIN 2.0'3' MAXIMUMBANK HEIGHTSTREAM CHANNELSURFACE FLOWDIVERSIONNOTES:1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATECHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.5. GRADE SLOPES TO A MINIMUM OF 2:1 SLOPE, MAXIMUM6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOTENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, 6 TO 9 INCHES THICK, LINED WITHFILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.8. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.9. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (8' MIN.) TO ACCOMMODATE THELARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TOEQUIPMENT UTILIZED.11. TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE.CLASS A STONE OVERFILTER FABRICSTONE APPROACHSECTION: 2:1 MIN., 5:1MAX. SLOPE ON ROADSURFACE FLOWDIVERSIONFORD CROSSINGNTSCLASS A STONEEXISTING STREAMBANKFILTER FABRICSOD MATSFLOOD PLAINBOULDER(AS DIRECTEDBY ENGINEER)24" MIN.DIAMETER BOULDER10-15 FEET LONG>10" DIAMETERFOOTER LOG > 12" DIAMETERMINIMUM OF 1/2 OF DIAMETERINSTALLED BELOW STREAM BEDTOP OF BANKAAAACROSS SECTION VIEWSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us9/18/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND30335CSCAFMTRSDPILITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CHANNEL TOPOF BANKA'APLAN VIEWSECTIONAL VIEW A - A'NOTES:REBAR (1/2" MINIMUM DIAMETER 3' MIN. LENGTHTYPICAL) SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3' FROM END OFLOG. ADDITIONAL REBAR TO BE PLACED AT 6'OFFSETS. LAST REBAR SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3'FROM END OF LOG. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BEUSED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR REBAR, 2 PER LOG.FLOODPLAIN SILLNTSNTSLOG SILLSECTION A-ASECTION B-B (OPT 1)FLOWCOARSE BACKFILLCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKTYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 1)AABBFLOWREBAR OR DUCKBILLANCHORREBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) ORDUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PERMANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)COIR MATTINGPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDTACK FABRICTO LOGMIN. 5.0'HEADER LOGFOOTER LOG5.0'MINCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")POOLPOOL APPROX.0.75' TO 1.5' DEEPCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")DOUBLE LOG DROPNTSNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)FOOTERLOGPROFILE A-A'HEADER LOGINVERT ELEVATIONMAX ALLOWABLEDROP OF 0.5 FTFLOWPLAN VIEWBANKFULLFOOTER LOGHEADER LOGHIGHLOWLOG BURIED INBANK MIN 5FTLOG BURIED INBANKMIN 5FTBB'AA'CMAX DEPTH 12 OFLOG DIAMETER(TYP)4% TO 6%4% TO 6%MIN. 2.5' OFCOVERMIN 5FTMIN 5FTMIN 5FTMIN 5FTPROFILE B-B'PROFILE C-C'OVERLAP OFUPSTREAM LOGOVERLAP OFDOWNSTREAM LOGHIGHHIGHLOWLOWNOTES:1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. LOG DIMENSIONS:MIN DIAM. = 10", MIN LENGTH = 14'3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5' ALONG THE LOG.COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")HIGHLOW4' TO 8'POINT REFERENCED INSTRUCTURE TABLEPOINT REFERENCED INSTRUCTURE TABLEHEADER LOGINVERT ELEVATIONDIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURENTSSECTION A-A0.5% SLOPE(MAX)AAFLOW
VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO 40')VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO 40')NOTES:1. NO FLOODPLAIN GRADING IS ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FT OFTHE PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP OF BANK.2. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10'-20' LONG AND AT LEAST 8INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND HARDWOOD.PLAN VIEWFLOWLOG STRUCTURE(SEE DETAIL)PROPOSEDLIMITSOF GRADINGGRADE AREA SUCH THATMAX SLOPE BELOW LOGSTRUCTURE IS 1%FILL DITCH SUCH THATTHE DOWNSTREAMELEVATION TIES INTOEXISTING GRADE OF THEFLOODPLAINPROPOSED CONSERVATIONEASEMENT LIMITSEXISTING DITCHBANKEXISTING DITCHTOP OF BANKEXISTINGDITCH INVERTLOG SILL(SEE DETAIL)PROPOSED GRADEEXISTING GRADETIE-IN TOEXISTINGFLOODPLAINELEVATIONFILL DITCH ANDINSTALL COIRMATTINGSECTION B-BEXISTINGGROUND3:1 MAX SLOPE3:1 MAXSLOPEFILL DITCHCUTBBCONSTRUCTPOOLINSTALL COIR MATTING PERMANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONS1% TO 3%HIGHLOWROOTWAD ORBRUSHTOE1% TO 3%HIGHLOWNOTES:1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5' ALONG THE LOG.3. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR.CHANNEL TOPOF BANKTYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 2)AABBFLOW5.0'MINPOOL1% TO 3%HIGHLOWROOTWAD ORBRUSHTOEHIGH
LOW
SECTION B-B (OPT 2)PROPOSED STREAM BANKHEADER LOGFOOTER LOG1% TO 3%HIGHLOWOVERLAP OFDOWNSTREAM LOGREBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) ORDUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PERMANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)COARSE BACKFILLCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKFILTER FABRICMIN 5.0'MIN 3.0'MIN. 4.0'NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)MINIMUMDIAMETER12"6'REBARLOGS5'LENGTH VARIESDOWNVALLEY5/8" REBARPROPOSEDFLOODPLAINSURFACE5'6" (TYP.)BANKFULL LIMITS OFPROPOSED CHANNELCSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us9/18/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND40335CSCAFMTRSDPILITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAREACH IDMIN. LENGTHMIN. DIAMETERMC123'12"JN212'10"JN320'12"BS112'10"LOG DIMENSIONS:
LINE PANELWOVEN WIRE:ASTM CLASS 3 GALVANIZED.TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE.INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN.12 1/2 GAUGE.NOTES:1. LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 4 IN. DIAM. OR 4 IN. SQUARE.2. LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U, OR Y SHAPED, WITH ANCHOR PLATES.3. MIN. WEIGHT 1.3 LBS./FT. (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BE DRIVEN A MINIMUMOF 18" DEEP AND MUST BE AT LEAST 5.5 FT IN LENGTH4. SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIESSUCH AS RED CEDAR, BLACK LOCUST OR OSAGE-ORANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, ORNON-DURABLE WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS./CUBIC FOOTCCA, OR EQUIVALENT NON-CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED PINE.WOVEN WIRE FENCE (NRCS DETAIL 382A)NTSWOVEN WIRE WITH ONE BARB DETAILTIMBER MAT CROSSINGTIMBER MAT APPROACHTOP OF BANKCLASS B RIP RAPTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPERPENDICULARTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPARALLELTIMBER MAT(TYP)CARRIAGE BOLTFLOWTOE OF BANK(TYP)TIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPERPENDICULARTOP OF BANKCLASS B RIP RAPCARRIAGE BOLT(TYP)FILTER FABRICAPPROXIMATE BASE FLOWWATER SURFACE(5' MIN)RIP RAP APPROACHTIMBER MATINSTALLED PARALLELTOE OF BANKPLAN VIEWSECTION VIEWTIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSINGNTSNOTES:1. TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARYCONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDYARES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND TO CROSS THESTREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.2. THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN FLOW ISLOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF THECHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING THEAPPROACHES OR CROSSING.3. THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CROSS THESTREAM OR CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCHTHAT THE TIMBER MAT EXTENDS PAST THE TOP OF BANK ONEACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TOSUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USING THECROSSING.4. STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBERMAT LENGTHS ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE TOPS OFTHE STREAM BANKS. TIMBER MAT STREAM APPROACHESSHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHSORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.5. STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALLBE CONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVERFILTER FABRIC.6. ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BECOMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE CROSSINGIS REMOVED.NOTES:1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.2. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.3. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE APPROPRIATE BEDDING MATERIAL WITH MANUFACTURER.4. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.5. WIDTH OF TYPICAL FARM CROSSINGS SHALL BE PER PLAN OR A MINIMUM OF 12'.6. WHEN REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE PIPE MATERIAL AND COVER MEET H-20 LOADINGREQUIREMENTS.PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSINGNTSSTREAM CHANNELFLOW MIN 3'MIN 3'PLAN VIEWSECTION VIEW2" - 3"LINE POSTWOVEN WIREBARBED ORELECTRIC WIRELINE POST16' MAX.BARBED ORELECTRICWIREWOVEN WIREGROUND LINE4" TO 6"LINE POST3" MIN.32" TO 42"6"6' MIN.2' MIN.MIN. 18"FILTER FABRICCOARSE AGGREGATE(#5 WASHED STONE) 6"DEEPEARTH FILL COVERED BYLARGE ANGULAR ROCKPIPE SIZE PER PLANINVERT PER PLAN BURYCULVERT 0.6' UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE BYENGINEERINSTALL CLAY PLUG 2FEET BELOW CULVERTINVERTCOARSE AGGREGATEEARTH FILL COVEREDBY LARGE ANGULARROCKLOG OR ROCK SILL SET TOPOF LOG 1FOOT ABOVECULVERT INVERTTOP OF BANKLOG OR ROCK SILL;SET TOP A MINIMUM OF0.6' ABOVE CULVERTINVERT10' MIN.10' MIN.SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us9/18/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND50335CSCAFMTRSDPILITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINALOG OR ROCK SILLHEADER AND FOOTERBOULDERSPOOLFLOWCROSS VANE INVERTCONTROL POINTFILTER FABRICSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBANKFULLFOOTER ROCKLEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTPOOLHEADER ROCKBANKFULLVARIES0' TO 0.8'3% TO 5%BANKFULLHEADER BOULDERFOOTER BOULDERSTREAM BEDIN POOLFILTER FABRICVARIES0' TO 13 WIDTHFLOWSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKFLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")SECTION A-A'PROFILE VIEWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")MIN5.0'COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTLEFT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINT13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTHMIN5.0'20° TO 30°PLAN VIEWFILTERFABRICFOOTER BOULDERHEADER BOULDER13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTHVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTSECTION B-B'BBAAROCK CROSS VANENTSXZYMATERIALS NOTES:1. ROCKS MUST HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER (Z) OF AT LEAST 24" FOR HEADERSAND 24-30" FOR FOOTERS. SILL ROCKS SHALL HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF ATLEAST 18". ALL ROCKS SHALL BE APPROVED BY ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION2. WIDTH OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS (X) MUST BE AT LEAST 30". DEPTH OF HEADERAND FOOTER ROCKS (Y) MUST BE AT LEAST 24"3 PRIMARY ROCK DIMENSIONS:X. LONGEST DIMENSIONY. SHORTEST DIMENSIONZ. INTERMEDIATE DIMENSION
PLAN VIEWPROFILECROSS SECTION A-A'FLOWVARIESEND RIFFLE CONTROL POINTPROPOSED TOPOF BANKBEGIN RIFFLECONTROL POINTVARIES CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTHBEGIN RIFFLEEND RIFFLERIFFLE MATERIALFLOWTOP OF BANKTOE OF BANK4' MIN 4' MIN4'MIN4'MINRIFFLERUNGLIDESMALL POOLLARGE COBBLE/SMALL BOULDERSLOGS/WOODYDEBRISLOGS/WOODYDEBRISTOP OF BANK4.0' (TYP)RIFFLE MATERIAL1.25' MIN0.75' MINTOP OF BANKPROPOSED TOE OF BANKGRADE CONTROL ROCK50/50 MIX OF CLASS A ANDB RIPRAPLOGS/WOODY DEBRISSMALL POOL, TYP4.0'TYPLARGE COBBLE/SMALLBOULDERS, TYPRIFFLE MATERIAL;EQUAL MIX OF SURGESTONE AND NATIVESUBSTRATE MATERIALFLOWTHALWEGTHALWEGCHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH4.0' (TYP)4.0'TYPNOTES:1. CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BEREQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.3. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B RIPRAP. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLEMATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND WOOD. THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF SURGE STONE AND NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BEEXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. OTHERWISE ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, “RIVER-TYPE” ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCKCHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHANNEL. IN ADDITION, LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE INCLUDED WITH THE ROCK MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.5. THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT “JUMP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAMPOOL-GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT “DROP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAM RUN-POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALLGENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.6. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN-STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL OR J-HOOK).7. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED BY THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY" SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OFTHE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOT BE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.RIFFLE MATERIAL;EQUAL MIX OF SURGESTONE AND NATIVESUBSTRATE MATERIALGRADE CONTROL ROCK50/50 MIX OF CLASS A ANDB RIPRAPRIFFLE GRADE CONTROLNTSAASCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us9/18/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND60335CSCAFMTRSDPILITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA POOLPOOLFLOWTOP OF BANKSTEP ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTPOOLPOOLPOOLBALLAST BOULDERPOOL ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTTIE-IN TO STREAMBANK (TYP.)FLOWHEADER LOGTIE-IN TO STREAMBED (TYP.)A'ASTREAM BANKPROTECTIONANGLED LOG STEP POOLNTSTOP OF BANKBALLAST BOULDERFOOTER LOGHEADER LOGSTEP ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTUPSTREAM POOL ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")STEP ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTPOOL ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTBANKFULLHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGFILTER FABRICNOTES:1. LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF 15' IN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER AND RELATIVELYSTRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOG COMBINATION, PERDIRECTION OF DESIGNER.3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(S) AND THE STREAMBED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLEIN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED, TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS NEEDED.4. COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO A THICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THEHEADER (AND ANY FOOTER) LOGS AND SHALL EXTEND OUT FROM THE VANE ARMS TO THESTREAM BANK AND UPSTREAM.5. AS AN OPTION, FLAT-SIDED BOULDERS MAY BE PLACED AS BALLAST ON TOP OF THESTREAM BANK SIDE OF THE EMBEDDED VANE ARMS. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED INLIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.6. DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAY BE USED TO SECURE LOGSINTO THE STREAM BED AND/OR BANKS. FLAT SIDED BOULDERS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OFTHE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHOR SYSTEM.PLAN VIEWPROFILESECTION VIEW
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us9/18/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND70335CSCAFMTRSDPILITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA POOLFLOWFOOTER LOGINVERT LOGPOOLA'ASTREAM BED13 W13 W20°-30°FILTER FABRICSTREAM BANK, TYPICALCROSS VANE INVERTINVERT LOGHEADER LOGBANKFULLDUCKBILL ANCHORMIN5'BANKFULLHEADER LOGFOOTER LOG, IFSPECIFIEDSTREAM BED IN POOLFILTER FABRIC0' TO 13 WSTREAM BANKFILTER FABRICFLOWFLOWFOOTER LOGBANKFULL, TYPICALTOE OF BANK, TYPICAL13 W3% TO 6%COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")PROFILE VIEWPLAN VIEWSECTION A-A'COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")LOG CROSS VANENTSNOTES:1. LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF 15' IN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER AND RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD,RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOG COMBINATION, PER DIRECTION OF DESIGNER.3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(S) AND THE STREAM BED, UNDER THE COARSEBACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED,TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS NEEDED.4. COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO A THICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THE HEADER (AND ANY FOOTER)LOGS AND SHALL EXTEND OUT FROM THE VANE ARMS TO THE STREAM BANK AND UPSTREAM.5. AS AN OPTION, FLAT-SIDED BOULDERS MAY BE PLACED AS BALLAST ON TOP OF THE STREAM BANK SIDE OF THEEMBEDDED VANE ARMS. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.6. DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAY BE USED TO SECURE LOGS INTO THE STREAM BEDAND/OR BANKS. FLAT SIDED BOULDERS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHOR SYSTEM.VANE ARM LOG, TYPICALOPTIONAL BALLAST BOULDERHEADER LOGHEADER AND FOOTERBOULDERSPOOLFLOWCROSS VANE INVERTCONTROL POINTFILTER FABRICSTREAM BANK, TYPICALTOE OF BANK, TYPICALBANKFULL, TYPICALFOOTER ROCKSLEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTPOOLHEADER ROCKSBANKFULLVARIES0' TO 0.8'3% TO 5%BANKFULLHEADER BOULDERFOOTER BOULDERSTREAM BEDIN POOLFILTER FABRICVARIES0' TO 13 WIDTHFLOWSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKFLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")SECTION A-A'PROFILE VIEWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")MIN5.0'COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTLEFT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINT13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTHMIN5.0'20° TO 30°PLAN VIEWFILTERFABRICFOOTER BOULDERHEADER BOULDER13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTHVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTSECTION B-B'BBAAROCK A-VANENTSPOOLFILTER FABRICPOOLSTEP INVERTCONTROL POINTXZYMATERIALS NOTES:1. ROCKS MUST HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER (Z) OF AT LEAST 24"FOR HEADERS AND 24-30" FOR FOOTERS. SILL ROCKS SHALL HAVE ANINTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF AT LEAST 18". ALL ROCKS SHALL BEAPPROVED BY ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION2. WIDTH OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS (X) MUST BE AT LEAST 30".DEPTH OF HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS (Y) MUST BE AT LEAST 24"3 PRIMARY ROCK DIMENSIONS:X. LONGEST DIMENSIONY. SHORTEST DIMENSIONZ. INTERMEDIATE DIMENSION

Appendix B – Data Analysis and
Supplementary Information

IRT Meeting Notes

June 14, 2018

Mrs. Cara Condor
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, N.C. 27605

Subject: DRAFT Mitigation Plan for the
Little Sebastian Site
Yadkin River Basin – CU# 03040101– Surry County
DMS Project ID No. 100027
Contract # 7187

Dear Mrs. Condor:

On May 18, 2018, the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) received the DRAFT Mitigation
Plan for the Little Sebastian Site from Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES).

The report establishes the proposed mitigation activities on the project site. Anticipated mitigation
on the site includes 2,724 linear feet of Stream Restoration; 590 linear feet of Stream Enhancement
(Level I); 3,326 linear feet of Stream Enhancement (Level II); and 1,480 linear feet of stream
preservation for a total of 4,703 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs). The following are our
comments on the DRAFT mitigation plan report and preliminary plan set:

General Comment: Please include the September 29, 2017 Post Contract IRT Meeting Minutes
in the appendices of the revised mitigation plan and confirm that the mitigation plan is consistent
with the meeting notes and IRT response e-mails (attached for reference).

Executive Summary: Please reference the thermal regime. Please provide a brief introduction
of the Gideon site to describe the benefits such as easement continuity and riparian corridor.

Section 1.2 - Project Outcomes: Edit the sentence “Due to its water classifications”. The
proposed improvements may result in outcomes consistent with these water quality classifications
but the outcomes are not “due to” them.

Section 1.2 - Project Outcomes: Stating the proposed improvements will meet the water quality
needs of the basin should be reworded unless the parameters are to be quantified.

Section 2.1 - Site Selection: This section indicates that improvement and restoration of water
quality will be achieved. Edit this assertion or modify the monitoring plan to include water quality.

Section 3.1 - Watershed Summary Information-(Page 4): Land use comprises most of the text
under the drainage area subheading. Suggesting adding land use to the subheading.

Section 3.2 - Landscape Characteristics: Please add a section for the site geology and provide
discussion.

Section 3.2 - Landscape Characteristics-Existing Wetlands: DMS recommends contacting the
USACE and including the final PJD in the revised mitigation plan prior to the IRT mitigation plan
review.

Section 3.2 - Landscape Characteristics – Soil Survey: Please label the soil survey section
according to the entire discussion in the paragraph.

Section 3.3 - Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future: Land use discussion within the Gideon
site should be included in this section.

Section 5 - Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives: Project Goals - How is the improvement
of water quality/reducing sediment and nutrient loads, and increasing DO going to be measured
for success? Suggest clarifying this goal and tying it directly to an objective AND performance
criteria. Same comment for reduction in temperature.

Section 5 - Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives: Project Objectives - What are the
appropriate pattern, dimension and profile? Is the intent to construct stream for a particular
discharge, or dominant discharge or bankfull discharge? Please clarify.

Section - 6.2 Design Parameters:
• Reach JN2-B: The text notes minimal grading and buffer reestablishment. Will any
structures be utilized/ installed in this Enhancement I reach?
• Reach JN2-D: The channel appears to have been heavily modified/ditched. Is limited
grading the best approach for this reach?
• Reach MC1-C: Please discuss the transition into the Gideon site. Does the proposed
treatment compliment both sites?
• USGS Regional Regression Equations: Please verify this equation is applicable/valid for
each of the drainage areas calculated.
• Section 5 indicates that two agricultural BMPs will be installed on the site (project
objectives). Please describe these and their proposed location in the Section 6.2 text.

Section 7.1 - Success Criteria: Specify which reaches will have transducers/ flow gauges
installed.

Section 8.6 – Scheduling/ Reporting: “A mitigation plan and as-built drawings document…..”;
this should be, “A Baseline Monitoring report and as-built drawings document…..”. Please update
accordingly.

Table 16: The tree height success criteria in the table does not match what is reported in the text
(Section 7.2). Please update the table and QA/QC the table and report text to confirm they are
consistent.

Figure 1 - Vicinity Map: This map appears to be a vicinity map for the Gideon site rather than
the Little Sebastian site. Please change the emphasis to highlight the active site.

Figure 10A: Please update the title to “Little Sebastian Mitigation Site”.

Figures 10A-10C: Section 5 indicates that two agricultural BMPs will be installed on the site
(project objectives). Please show the proposed BMPs on the conceptual maps.

Appendices: Please check appendices for map order and labeling consistency.

Preliminary Plan Set:

• Title Sheet – Please label the individual stream reaches.
• Sheet E1 Construction Note 7 – Add that any compromised trees should be removed to the
note.
• Sheet E2 – Edit the linetype to emphasize the project conservation easement.
• Sheet S1 – Add profile to include the proposed crossing.
• Sheet S12 – Add profile if needed for the crossing.
• BMP Sheets - Add sheets detailing the proposed BMPs noted in Section 5 of the report text
and show their locations on the applicable plan sheets.
• Sheet P1: This appears to be the planting plan for the Gideon Mitigation Bank. Please
provide the planting plan for the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site. Please QA/QC the
document to confirm that other elements of the Gideon Mitigation Bank site MP have not
been included in the Little Sebastian Site MP.
• Sheet P1 Planting Note 1 – Add language to the effect “and final approval has been issued”
to the end of the first sentence.
• Sheet M1 – The monitoring plan sheet is not consistent with what is proposed in Section
8- Monitoring Plan (specifically the number of vegetation plots). Please QA/ QC the report
text and plan sheets to confirm that they are consistent. Consider moving the flow gauge
on Reach JN2 to the Enhancement I section rather than the preservation section.
• Sheet D3 Log Vane Plan View - Consider extending the stone backfill along the entire
length of the log into the streambank.
• Sheet D4 Double Log Drop Plan View - The contact “hinge” point between the two rows
of logs is prone to piping. Consider adding a note to not require contact at the hinge point
as directed by the engineer.
• Structure Details – Please provide boulder size specifications everywhere applicable within
the plan sheets.

Please provide a written response to the comments provided and a revised electronic copy of the
updated draft mitigation plan. If you have any questions, please contact me at any time at (828)
273-1673 or email me at [e-mail] .

Sincerely,

Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] Mobile

cc: file

412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2nd Floor 3751 Westerre Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 137½ East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

MEMORANDUM
Date: September 29, 2017

Re: Little Sebastian Site Post-Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
CU: 03040101
DMS Project No.: 100027
DEQ Contract No.: 7187
County: Surry
Location: 36.395995° N, -80.861755° W; Ed Nixon Road, Thurmond, NC
DMS Project Manager: Paul Wiesner

Meeting Summary
Date: August 15, 2017
RES Attendees: Daniel Ingram, Cara Conder, David Godley, Daniel Ramsay
DMS Attendees: Paul Wiesner, Harry Tsomides, Kirsten Ullman
IRT Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Mac Haupt (NCDWR), Olivia Munzer (NCWRC)

General Summary: IRT members generally agreed the Little Sebastian Site is suitable to provide
compensatory stream mitigation credits. IRT members commented on the proposed mitigation
ratios for several stream reaches. Because of the IRT comments a modified conceptual plan is
attached to this memorandum detailing the updated approach, ratios, and estimated credit yield.
Total site credits were originally proposed as 4,653 have been reduced to 4,368 (285 credit
reduction). However, some opportunities exist to increase credit yield based on the final
mitigation approach and buffer widths. The proposed mitigation approach and crediting will be
justified in the final mitigation plan. Specific discussions related to each reach are discussed
below.

Reach JN1-A: RES proposed this reach as EII with a 2.5:1 credit ratio. IRT members
questioned the appropriateness of this ratio and proposed bank stabilization efforts. The upper
end of this reach lacks obvious livestock impacts and has an intact buffer on the right bank. Bed
material is mostly cobble and lacks obvious sedimentation issues. To address IRT comments the
proposed credit ratio has been changed to 10:1 above the driveway crossing and 5:1 through the
remainder of the pasture.
Reach JN1-B: IRT members agreed this reach merits restoration along most of its length. Todd
Tugwell questioned the proposed upstream limit of restoration and suggested it be moved
downstream based on channel conditions. In response, the revised conceptual plan begins
restoration approximately 100’ downstream from where originally proposed. Due to the tie-in
with JN3 and elevation constraints RES believes that is a feasible break point between
enhancement and restoration. Topo survey and detailed channel assessments will determine the

412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2nd Floor 3751 Westerre Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 137½ East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901
final proposed limits of restoration. The proposed Gideon RES Bank Site located between JN1
and MC1 was also discussed. RES intends to permit and construct this bank site in sequence
with the Little Sebastian project, However, due to its downstream location from JN1 it is not
expected to impact development of the full delivery project.
Reach JN2: This reach was originally proposed as restoration and EII. IRT members questioned
the necessity for restoration on the upper reach but generally accepted EII as an appropriate ratio
for most of the reach. IRT members agreed the upstream most segment in the upper pasture area
is highly impaired by livestock access and a higher level of intervention is appropriate. RES has
proposed this short segment as EI to address IRT comments. The ephemeral reach proposed for
protection and BMP placement was discussed as potentially intermittent and appropriate for
preservation at either 10:1 or 5:1 credit based on protected buffer width. If the reach is
intermittent the BMP will not be constructed, rather the easement will be extended to provide
preservation to the origin point in the forested watershed. The JD will ultimately determine the
limits of preservation. The downstream end of Reach JN2 near the confluence with Mill Creek
is proposed as EI based on IRT comments. Mac Haupt stated that restoration may also be
acceptable based on survey and detailed channel assessment results.
Reach JN3: RES originally proposed JN3 as a combination of EII on the upstream end and
restoration along most of its length. The IRT generally agreed with this approach, however they
suggested the upstream segment is more appropriate as preservation at a 10:1 ratio. IRT
members commented that the upstream limit of restoration could be extended to better tie-in with
the valley low point and provide adequate buffer from the farm road. The revised concept plan
incorporates these modifications.
Reach MC1: RES originally proposed this reach as EII with a consistent 2.5:1 ratio. Based on
IRT feedback throughout the Little Sebastian site visit that concept has been refined to include a
short segment of 10:1 preservation at the upstream end, EII along most of the reach, EI at the
ford crossing, and 5:1 enhancement below the crossing. The EII segment will include bank
stabilization and riparian plantings in conjunction with an improved ford crossing. The EI ratio
is intended to include substantial bank stabilization and instream structures to provide a stable
ford crossing. The 5:1 enhancement will include livestock exclusion and left bank riparian
plantings. The final exact limits of each mitigation prescription will be based on topo survey and
design.
Reach BS1: No changes to the BS1 conceptual plan are proposed. IRT members generally
agreed with the enhancement and restoration approach based on impairment and construction
access. Restoration in-place was discussed with the group and agreed to be an acceptable
approach where floodplain access is limited. Final limits of restoration and enhancement will be
based on topo survey and detailed channel assessments.
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[
[
[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[d2
JN1-AJN2-BJN1-B
JN
2
-
A
J
N
3
-
A
JN3-B
Conceptual Design Map- West
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
0 300 600150Feet
L
1 in = 300 ft
Legend
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement II (5:1)
Preservation
[ [Proposed Fence
Proposed Easement
d2 Agricultural BMP
Upgrade crossing
New crossing
Upgrade crossing
Potential Agricultural BMP
Reach Mitigation Approach Length (LF) Ratio SMU
Enhancement II 1063 5:1 425
Preservation 388 10:1 155
JN1-B Restoration 567 1:1 567
Enhancement I 135 1.5:1 90
Enhancement II 297 2.5:1 119
Preservation 343 10:1 34
Enhancement I 192 1.5:1 128
Enhancement II 737 2.5:1 295
JN3-A Preservation 230 10:1 23
JN3-B Restoration 1137 1:1 1,137Total 5,081 2,973
JN1-A
JN2-A
JN2-B
[
[[[[[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
d2
BS1MC1
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Conceptual Design Map- East
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
0 300 600150Feet
L
1 in = 300 ft
Legend
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement II (5:1)
Preservation
[ [Proposed Fence
Proposed Easement (5.3 Ac. this page only)
Parcels
d2 Agricultural BMP
Rehabilitate existing
ford crossing
Upgrade crossing
Install
Agricultural BMP
Reach Mitigation Approach Length (LF) Ratio SMU
BS1 Restoration 695 1:1 695
BS1 Enhancement II 763 2.5:1 305
MC1 Enhancement I 106 1.5:1 71
MC1 Enhancement II 588 2.5:1 235
MC1 Enhancement II 389 5:1 78
MC1 Preservation 107 10:1 11Total 2,648 1,395

Vegetation Survey

Protocol for Existing Conditions Vegetation Surveying
Plot Selection and Setup
Survey multiple plots on-site, which together are representative of all ecotypes present within the
easement boundaries. Each plot is a 5m X 20m belt transect, positioned parallel to the channel in the
floodplain or adjacent upland.
Take a GPS point at the origin and set the bounds with 5m as the “x-axis” and 20m as the “y-axis.” Set
the plot with the y-axis as the side parallel to the stream channel. Record the y-axis azimuth to allow for
future resampling. Conclude selection and set-up with a representative photo of the plot taken from the
origin.

Data Collection
Identify each plant in the plot to the species level. Sort and measure tree species by height class and
diameter at breast height (DBH). Count seedlings <54in (137cm) in height into height categories 0-9cm,
10-50cm, 51-100cm, or 101-137cm. Count saplings >54in (137cm) in height into DBH categories 0-1cm,
1-2.5cm, 2.5-5cm, or 5-12.7cm. Measure the DBH of all trees ≥5in (12.7cm) DBH. Shrubs, vines, and
herbaceous taxa receive an estimation of their percent cover over the substrate within the plot. If the
personnel are unable to identify to the species level, collect voucher photos and/or specimen(s) for later
identification. Record these on the data sheet as UNK-1, UNK-2, etc.

Data Processing
Begin processing collected data by identifying the unknown species observed from voucher photos and
specimen(s) collected. When species present are sufficiently identified, use the dominant canopy species
assemblages and ecological region to identify a habitat type from Schafale (2012).
Calculate both basal area and stems per acre for each plot surveyed using the formulas below. These
metrics help to inform the existing conditions of the canopy on-site and inform the development of the
project’s planting plan.
Basal Area Formula:
Basal area of each tree (m2) = 0.00007854 X (DBHcm)2
Basal area of plot (m2/ha) = (sum of basal areas for all trees in plot) X 100
•100 is to scale up from our 0.01ha plot to 1ha
Stems per Acre Formula:
Stems/Acre = (# of stems)/0.02471
")")")")VP-1
VP-2
VP-3
VP-4
0 600300
Feet
Veg Survey
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/30/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\VegSurvey.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Proposed Gideon Site
")Vegetation Survey Plots
Checked by: CSC
Viola hastataPhytolacca americanaCardamine flexuosaRanunculus repensMockingbirdRanunculus abortivusAsteraceae FamilyBasal=71.21m^2/haStems=162 per acre
opacaHammamelis virginianaAllium vinealeErythronium americanumCardamine flexuosaPodophyllum peltatumStellaria mediaRanunculus repensAsteraceae familyVeronica persicaTrifolium repensDuchesnea indicaAnemone quinquefoliaLindera benzoinPolygonatum biflorumBasal=66.83m^2/haStems= 324 per acreUnknown grass #1: red fescue (festuca rubra)
Asteraceae familyBasal=64.8m^2/haStems=405 per acreEragrostis curvula
Stellaria mediaTrifolium repensPlantago majorRanunculus repensVeronica persicaBasal=0m^2/haStems=0 per acre
Canopy Basal Area= 51m^2/ha
Midstory Basal= 5.4m^2/ha
Canopy stems/acre= 324
Midstory stems/acre = 486E
Smitheys Creek: Reference Reach
Canopy Basal= 54m^2/ha
Midstory Basal= 3.9m^2/ha
Canopy Stems/acre= 283
Midstory Stems/acre= 769
Smitheys Creek: Reference Reach

Morphological Parameters

Little Sebastian Morphological ParametersFeatureRiffle Pool Riffle PoolRiffle PoolDrainage Area (ac)Drainage Area (mi2)NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)1DimensionBKF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)27.7 34.7 6.7 10.928.540.62.4 3.6BKF Width (ft) 17.5 18.6 7.1 9.017.925.93.2 7.7BKF Mean Depth (ft) 1.6 1.9 1.0 1.21.61.60.8 0.5BKF Max Depth (ft) 2.5 3.4 1.2 2.13.94.01.0 0.7Wetted Perimeter (ft) 19.3 21.1 8.2 11.020.129.44.1 8.0Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.4 1.7 0.8 1.01.41.40.6 0.4Width/Depth Ratio 11.1 10.6 7.4 7.511.216.54.2 16.6Floodprone Width (ft) 72.5 - >30 -60.0 42.7 5.1 9.9Entrenchment Ratio 4.3 - >4 -3.4 1.7 1.6 1.3Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.01.0 --- 2.1 4.2SubstrateDescription (D50)D16 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)PatternMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxChannel Beltwidth (ft) 35.0 85.0 20.0 30.0 - - - - - - ------Radius of Curvature (ft) 13.0 54.0 7.0 15.0 ------------Radius of Curvature Ratio 0.9 3.7 0.9 2.2 ------------Meander Wavelength (ft) 67.0 105.0 33.0 49.0 ------------Meander Width Ratio 2.4 5.9 2.9 4.3 ------------ProfileMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxRiffle Length (ft) 5.6 17.0 6.0 16.5 ------------Run Length (ft) 6.0 17.0 3.0 8.1 ------------Pool Length (ft) 4.0 16.0 3.0 6.2 ------------Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft) 26.0 68.0 8.0 31.2 ------------Additional Reach ParametersValley Length (ft)Channel Length (ft)SinuosityValley Slope (ft/ft)Channel Slope (ft/ft)Rosgen Classification 1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data 2 NC Piedmont Regional Curve equations source: Harman et al. (1999) 3 NC Piedmont Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2002)Existing0.062Reference ReachJN3 US UT to Smithey's Creek JN2B JN2C JN2D JN3ARiffle Riffle Riffle RiffleBS1JN3B921 118 17 37 38Riffle1.44 0.18 0.030.060.061.49299569991.56116.125.96.411.111.3119.4123.30.05118.627.67.112.012.3121.8125.710.29.411113-12225-287-81011-2312395-1235.28.74.914.92.43.30.40.71.83.426.10.80.61.32.10.55.58.96.116.811.422.87.18.50.40.40.61.61.91.12.02.59.89.99.837.0Gravel/CobbleGravelGravelGravelGravelGravel/Cobble3.72.72.31.312141.41.41.4116.9Sand/GravelGravel/Cobble54497.47.47.428141.57.8120995252521001002021184068898892041000230148493110911092321312150817031.131.141.251.211.251.251.141.311.43.250.0440.0440.0440.0211.22.50.0370.0390.0390.0140.0110.0550.016B4aE3E4bB4F4bE4bE3E30.049
Little Sebastian Morphological ParametersFeatureRiffle PoolRiffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle PoolDrainage Area (ac)Drainage Area (mi2)NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)1DimensionBKF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)30.6 31.326.9 36.6 45.7 60.4 54.4 72.6 2.7 4.3BKF Width (ft)17.4 18.116 16 21 20.9 23 23 4.5 5.3BKF Mean Depth (ft)1.8 1.71.7 2.3 2.2 2.9 2.4 3.2 0.6 0.8BKF Max Depth (ft)2.9 3.02.3 3.4 2.9 4.3 3.2 4.7 0.7 1.3Wetted Perimeter (ft)19.4 19.817.2 18.3 22.5 23.7 24.6 26.0 5.1 6.4Hydraulic Radius (ft)1.6 1.61.6 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.8 0.5 0.7Width/Depth Ratio10.0 10.49.5 7.0 9.7 7.2 9.7 7.3 7.4 6.5Floodprone Width (ft)50.0 --->50 >50 >50 >50 >50 >50Entrenchment Ratio2.9 --->2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >1.4 >1.4Bank Height Ratio1.0 1.01.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0SubstrateDescription (D50)D16 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)PatternMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxChannel Beltwidth (ft) - - - - - - - - - - 39 94 51 123 56 135 13 19Radius of Curvature (ft) - - - - - - - - - - 14 60 19 78 21 86 4 10Radius of Curvature Ratio - - - - - - - - - - 0.9 3.7 1 41412Meander Wavelength (ft) ---------- 74 116 97 152 106 167 21 32Meander Width Ratio ---------- 2.4 5.9 262634ProfileMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxRiffle Length (ft) ----------7 29 9 38 10 41 4 11Run Length (ft) ----------7 19 9 25 10 27 25Pool Length (ft) ----------4 18 6 23 6 25 27Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft) ---------- 29 75 38 98 41 108 5 20Additional Reach ParametersValley Length (ft)Channel Length (ft)SinuosityValley Slope (ft/ft)Channel Slope (ft/ft)Rosgen Classification 1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data 2 NC Piedmont Regional Curve equations source: Harman et al. (1999) 3 NC Piedmont Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2002)2.3305180208Existing1202001209713131422F3B3cE3B4cC31.121.121.161.07DesignMC3D JN3 MC1B MC1CBS1MC1AMC1BMC1CMC3A/B/CRiffleRiffleRiffleRiffle1915317822322532629991862191531784.965.047.65.101.562.994.960.032.912.99198.2286.8123.3285.8288.8291.2125.7194.1198.2286.8289.9292.499199.5285.88.4195.6199.5240812020029.938.667.671.223.131.034.418.71.61.72.22.12.52.12.533.537.520.424.71.91.51.62.014.216.611.713.842.460.033.050.01.61.23.21.41.01.01.7Gravel/CobbleCobble1.6Gravel/CobbleGravel/CobbleGravel/CobbleGravel/CobbleGravel/CobbleCobble/GravelCobble/Gravel--561005250-60--9750-6050-6040-50242480-12070-10080-12080-120945478478101738989111091182118212881323132310881.2554254210284849561.131.011.151.130.0090.0160.0100.0100.0550.0090.0160.0070.0090.0180.0080.0090.0090.0110.00850.00850.025-0.0350.006E3E3B4/E4E3
Little Sebastian
Reach JN2-B JN2-D JN3-B MC1-B MC1-C BS1-A BS1-C BS1-E JN3 (US)UT to Smithey's Creek
DA (ac)17 38 999 1915 2921 11 22 29 921 118
DA (sqmi)0.03 0.06 1.56 2.99 4.56 0.02 0.03 0.05 1.44 0.18
Ex. Conds XSs
~ QBKF 7-8 11-23 95-123 208 180 9-11 9-11 9-11 113-122 26-28
FFQ Analysis
Q1.1 11 18 107 153 194 9 13 15 102 33
Q1.5 17 27 173 252 321 13 19 23 165 51
Q2 23 36 220 315 399 18 26 31 210 67
Q10 43 70 516 768 994 33 50 60 492 140
Rural Piedmont Regional Curves
NC-QBKF orig 6 11 123 198 270 5 8 9 116 26
NC-QBKF rev 7 12 126 199 269 5 8 10 119 28
~ BKFCSA 1.9 3.3 29.6 45.8 60.8 1.4 2.3 2.8 28.1 7.1
VA-QBKF 1 3 67 124 185 1 2 2 62 9
USGS RR Eqns (Region 1)
Q2(1996 EQNS)12 20 196 307 411 9 14 17 185 45
Q2(2001 EQNS)11 19 185 291 392 8 13 15 174 41
Q2 15 25 211 322 423 11 18 21 200 53
Q5 30 50 390 586 764 23 36 42 371 102
Q10 42 70 524 783 1016 32 50 59 498 140
Q25 60 97 703 1043 1348 46 70 82 670 193
Q50 75 121 863 1276 1644 58 87 103 822 240
Recommended Design Flows =
Qbnkfull 8 12 120 200 240 5 8 8
Average Q1.1 & Q1.5 14 22 140 203 257 11 16 19 134 42
75% Q1.5 13 20 130 189 241 10 15 17 124 38
Reference Reach

Cross Sections of Current Conditions
& Reference Reaches

UpstreamDownstream8989.59090.59191.59292.59393.59405101520253035Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN2-AGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream9192939495969798991001010 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN2-BGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream8889909192939495969798990 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN2-CGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream90.59191.59292.59393.59494.5950 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN2-DGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream909192939495960 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach MC1-AGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream8990919293949596970 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach MC1-BGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream89909192939495960 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN3-AGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream94959697989910010110210310405101520253035Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN3-BGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream939495969798990 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN3-BGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream9697989910010110210310405101520253035Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach MC2-AGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream9596979899100101051015202530Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach MC2-AGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream878889909192939495960 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN6-AGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream8788899091929394950510 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN6-BGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream92.59393.59494.59595.59696.597051015202530Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN6-CGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream9292.59393.59494.59595.59696.59797.5051015202530Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JN6-CGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream9192939495969798991000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach MC3-BGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream86878889909192930 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach MC3-DGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream8889909192939495969705101520253035Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach BS1-CGroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Smithey’s Creek Reference Reach
Cross Section 1 - Riffle

Looking Upstream Looking Downstream

Smithey’s Creek Reference Reach
Cross Section 2 - Pool

Looking Upstream Looking Downstream

Smithey’s Creek Reference Reach
Cross Section 3 - Pool

Looking Upstream Looking at the Left Bank

Smithey’s Creek Reference Reach
Cross Section 4 - Riffle

Looking Upstream Looking Downstream

Smithey’s Creek Reference Reach
Cross Section 5 - Riffle

Looking Upstream Looking Downstream

Smithey’s Creek Reference Reach
Cross Section 6 - Pool

Looking Upstream Looking Downstream

Channel Stability Assessment

JN2-A JN2-B JN2-C JN2-D JN3-A JN3-B MC1-A MC1-B MC1-CMC3-A/B/C/DBS1-A/C/E BS1-B/D1Watershed characteristics3677479812411102Flow habit4777375564763Channel pattern2911745447110104Entrenchment/channel confinement57775843331095Bed material47786655361196Bar development591076765661187Obstructions/debris jams3797691445978Bank soil texture and coherence388746854411109Average bank angle210125797766111010Bank vegetation/protection3771179671089711Bank cutting371194746449812Mass wasting/bank failure21010657354510813Upstream distance to bridgeNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAScore 39 94 106 88 61 87 62 64 69 56 119 102RatingGood Fair Poor Fair Good Fair Good Good Fair Good Poor PoorChannel Stability Assessment Summary Table
39
94
106
JN2-D88
61
87
Stream: Mill Creek Observers: E. Teitsworth
Reach: MC1-A Project: Little Sebastian
Date: Apr 30, 2018 Drainage Area:
Weather: Sunny , Slight Breeze; 70 Stream Type : Perennial
Location: 36.3965745453333, -80.8639284751667
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and
flood plain activity
and characteristics
Stable, forested, undisturbed
watershed
Occasional minor
disturbances in the
watershed, including cattle
activity (grazing and/or
access to stream),
construction, logging, or
other minor deforestation.
Limited agricultural
activities
Frequent disturbances in the
watershed, including cattle
activity, landslides, channel
sand or gravel mining,
logging, farming, or
construction of buildings,
roads, or other
infrastructure. Urbanization
over significant portion of
watershed
Continual disturbances in the
watershed. Significant cattle
activity, landslides, channel
sand or gravel mining,
logging, farming, or
construction of buildings,
roads, or other infrastructure.
Highly urbanized or rapidly
urbanizing watershed
9
2. Flow habit Perennial stream with no flashy
behavior
Perennial stream or
ephemeral first-order
stream with slightly
increased rate of flooding
Perennial or intermittent
stream with flashy behavior
Extremely flashy; flash floods
prevalent mode of discharge;
ephemeral stream other than
first-order stream 5
3. Channel pattern Straight to meandering with low radius
of curvature; primarily suspended load
Meandering, moderate
radius of curvature; mix of
suspended and bed loads;
well-maintained engineered
channel
Meandering with some
braiding; tortuous
meandering; primarily bed
load; poorly maintained
engineered channel
Braided; primarily bed load;
engineered channel that is
maintained NA
3. Channel pattern
(revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Meandering, stable channel or straight
(step-pool system, narrow valley),
stable channel.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream
is relatively stable. Channel
has some meanders due to
previous channel
adjustment.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream
is actively adjusting
(meandering); localized
areas of instability and/or
erosion around bends.
Straightened, stable
channel.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream is
actively adjusting (laterally
and/or vertically) with few
bends. Straight, unstable
reach. 4
4. Entrenchment/
channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
banks; no sign of undercutting
infrastructure; no levees
Active flood plain
abandoned, but is currently
rebuilding; minimal channel
confinement; infrastructure
not exposed; levees are
low and set well back from
the river
Moderate confinement in
valley or channel walls;
some exposure of
infrastructure; terraces exist;
flood plain abandoned;
levees are moderate in size
and have minimal setback
from the river
Knickpoints visible
downstream; exposed water
lines or other infrastructure;
channel-width-to-top-of-
banks ration small; deeply
confined; no active flood
plain; levees are high and
along the channel edge
4
5. Bed material
Fs = approximate
portion of sand in the
bed
Assorted sized tightly packed,
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
Moderately packed with
some overlapping. Very
small amounts of material
< 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
Loose assortment with no
apparent overlap. Small to
medium amounts of material
< 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
Very loose assortment with
no packing. Large amounts
of material < 4 mm. Fs >
70% 5
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
6. Bar development For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
mature, narrow relative to stream
width at low flow, well-vegetated,
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
12, no bars are evident
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12,
bars may have vegetation
and/or be composed of
coarse gravel to cobbles,
but minimal recent growth
of bar evident by lack of
vegetation on portions of
the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y <12, no bars are
evident
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12,
bar widths tend to be wide
and composed of newly
deposited coarse sand to
small cobbles and/or may be
sparsely vegetated. Bars
forming for S > 0.02 and
w/y < 12
Bar widths are generally
greater than 1/2 the stream
width at low flow. Bars are
composed of extensive
deposits of fine particles up
to coarse gravel with little to
no vegetation. No bars for S
< 0.02 and w/y > 12
6
7. Obstructions,
including bedrock
outcrops, armor
layer, LWD jams,
grade control, bridge
bed paving,
revetments, dikes or
vanes, riprap
Rare or not present Occasional, causing cross
currents and minor bank
and bottom erosion
Moderately frequent and
occasionally unstable
obstructions, cause
noticeable erosion of the
channel. Considerable
sediment accumulation
behind obstructions
Frequent and often unstable,
causing a continual shift of
sediment and flow. Traps
are easily filled, causing
channel to migrate and/or
widen 1
8. Bank soil texture
and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material Clay loam to sandy clay
loam; minor amounts of
noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures;
layers may exist, but are
cohesive materials
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
unconsolidated mixtures of
glacial or other materials;
small layers and lenses of
noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures
Loamy sand to sand;
noncohesive material;
unconsolidated mixtures of
glacial or other materials;
layers of lenses that include
noncohesive sands and
gravels
8
9. Average bank
slope angle (where
90° is a vertical
bank)
Bank slopes < 3H:1V (18°) for
noncohesive or unconsolidated
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
both sides
Bank slopes up to 2H:1V
(27°) in noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials to
0.8:1 (50°) in clays on one
or occasionally both banks
Bank slopes to 1H:1V (45°)
in noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials to
0.6:1 (60°) in clays common
on one or both banks
Bank slopes over 45° in
noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials or
over 60° in clays common on
one or both banks 7
10. Vegetative or
engineered bank
protection
Wide band of woody vegetation with at
least 90% density and cover. Primarily
hard wood, leafy, deciduous trees with
mature, healthy, and diverse
vegetation located on the bank.
Woody vegetation oriented vertically.
In absence of vegetation, both banks
are lined or heavily armored
Medium band of woody
vegetation with 70-90%
plant density and cover. A
majority of hard wood,
leafy, deciduous trees with
maturing, diverse
vegetation located on the
bank. Wood vegetation
oriented 80-90% from
horizontal with minimal root
exposure. Partial lining or
armoring of one or both
banks
Small band of woody
vegetation with 50-70%
plant density and cover. A
majority of soft wood, piney,
coniferous trees with young
or old vegetation lacking in
diversity located on or near
the top of bank. Woody
vegetation oriented at 70-
80% from horizontal, often
with evident root exposure.
No lining of banks, but some
armoring may be in place on
one bank
Woody vegetation band may
vary depending on age and
health with less than 50%
plant density and cover.
Primarily soft wood, piney,
coniferous trees with very
young, old and dying, and/or
monostand vegetation
located off of the bank.
Woody vegetation oriented at
less than 70% from
horizontal with extensive root
exposure. No lining or
armoring of banks
6
MC1-A
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
11. Bank cutting Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bank
Some intermittently along
channel bends and at
prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise minor
portion of bank in vertical
direction
Significant and frequent on
both banks. Raw banks
comprise large portion of
bank in vertical direction.
Root mat overhangs
Almost continuous cuts on
both banks, some extending
over most of the banks.
Undercutting and sod-root
overhangs 4
12. Mass wasting or
bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
very small amounts of mass wasting.
Uniform channel width over the entire
reach
Evidence of infrequent
and/or minor mass wasting.
Mostly healed over with
vegetation. Relatively
constant channel width and
minimal scalloping of banks
Evidence of frequent and/or
significant occurrences of
mass wasting that can be
aggravated by higher flows,
which may cause
undercutting and mass
wasting of unstable banks.
Channel width quite
irregular, and scalloping of
banks is evident
Frequent and extensive
mass wasting. The potential
for bank failure, as evidenced
by tension cracks, massive
undercuttings, and bank
slumping is considerable.
Channel width is highly
irregular, and banks are
scalloped
3
13. Upstream
distance to bridge
from meander
impact point and
alignment
More than 35 m; bridge is well-aligned
with river flow
20-35 m; bridge is aligned
with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to
flow, or flow alignment is
otherwise not centered
beneath bridge
Less than 10 m; bridge is
poorly aligned with flow
NA
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width-to-depth ratio 62
Total Score
MC1-A
64
69
119
102
Buffer Calculation
Site Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor:
County:Surry
Minimum Required Buffer Width1:30
Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio
Multiplier2
Creditable Stream
Length3 Baseline Stream Credit
Restoration (1:1)1 2721 2721.00
Enhancement I (1.5:1)1.5 597 398.00
Enhancement II (2.5:1)2.5 1898 759.20
Preservation (5:1)5
Other (7.5:1)7.5 819 109.20
Other (10:1)10 661 66.10
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2 5 1372 274.40
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals 8068.00 4327.90
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)4 242040 80680 80680 80680 322720 403400 403400 403400 403400
Ideal Buffer (square feet)5 250230.6479 84672.85283 84019.98458 83734.94243 331797.5016 408983.2295 409950.989 411939.061 415259.4977
Actual Buffer (square feet)6 238423.3324 78129.8018 77249.20231 76332.83692 264770.1615 182721.5176 71359.93964 22068.53269 6840.761416
Zone Multiplier 50%20%15%15%9%7%6%5%3%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 2163.95 865.58 649.19 649.19 389.51 302.95 259.67 216.40 129.84
Percent of Ideal Buffer 95%92%92%91%80%45%17%5%2%
Credit Adjustment -102.11 -66.89 -52.31 -57.39 310.82 135.35 45.20 11.59 2.14
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required
Buffer
Credit Gain for
Additional Buffer
Net Change in
Credit from Buffers Total Credit
4327.90 -278.70 505.11 226.41 4554.31
RES
4This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
6Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non-creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
5Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non-creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet-to-credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
1Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
3Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Little Sebastian
SAW-2017-01507
100027

Appendix C – Site Protection Instrument

SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed below in Table C1. EBX (an entity of RES) has obtained a conservation
easement from the current landowners for the project area. The easement deed and survey plat will be
submitted to DMS and State Property Office (SPO) for approval and will be held by the State of North
Carolina. The easement deed will follow the NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template dated
May 5, 2017 and included in this appendix. Once recorded, the secured easement will allow EBX to proceed
with the project development and protect the mitigation assets in perpetuity. Once finalized, a copy of the
land protection instrument(s) will be included in Appendix C.
Table C1. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record PIN County Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book and
Page Numbers
Acreage
Protected
Christopher
Edward Nixon and
Gwyn Dobbins
Nixon
495600199069
Surry Conservation
Easement -- 13.56 ac
Christopher
Edward Nixon and
Gwyn Dobbins
Nixon
495600282159 Surry Conservation
Easement -- 2.45 ac
The Byron Thomas
Shaw II and Mary
Beth Shaw
Revocable Living
Trust U/T/D of
November 7, 2011
495600581103 Surry Conservation
Easement -- 9.90 ac
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 11

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
_______________ COUNTY
SPO File Number:
DMS Project Number:
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this ________day of ________________, 20__, by Landowner name goes here
, (“Grantor”), whose mailing address is Landowner address goes here , to the State of
North Carolina, (“Grantee”), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of
Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The
designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as
required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 2 of 11

protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between ( insert name and
address of full delivery contract provider ) and the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, to provide stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality Purchase and Services Contract Number __________.

WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the In-Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
Enhancement Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces
the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and

WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and

WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environmental
Quality, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and Council of State
to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 3 of 11

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in __________ Township, ___________ County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately ________
acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book _____ at Page ____
of the _________ County Registry, North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of if known,
insert name of stream, branch, river or waterway here.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.

The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:

Tracts Number ________________ containing a total of _________ acres as shown on the plats
of survey entitled “Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services, Project Name: ___________, SPO File No.__________, EEP Site No. ___________,
Property of _________________________,” dated ___________, 20__ by name of surveyor,
PLS Number __________ and recorded in the ______________ County, North Carolina Register
of Deeds at Plat Book _______ Pages __________.

See attached “Exhibit A”, Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
“Conservation Easement Area”

The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:

I. DURATION OF EASEMENT

Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor’s heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 4 of 11

II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units,
derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:

A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.

B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.

C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.

D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.

E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.

F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.

G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.

H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 5 of 11

All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.

I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.

J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.

K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.

L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.

M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple (“fee”) that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee’s right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.

N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.

O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.

The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 6 of 11

III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES

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

B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in-stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.

C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.

D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservation Easement area. Repeated failure to do so
may result in the State (Grantee) repairing or installing livestock exclusion devices (fences)
within the conservation area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the
landowner (Grantor) must provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.

E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.

IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 7 of 11

power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages
from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.

B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.

C. Acts Beyond Grantor’s Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor’s control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor’s acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.

E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.

V. MISCELLANEOUS

A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.

B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 8 of 11

obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.

C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.

D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.

E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.

F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests shall be addressed to:

Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321

and

General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 9 of 11

VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT

Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area,

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,

AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 10 of 11

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.

___________________________________ (SEAL)

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF _________________

I, _____________________________, a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that _________________________, Grantor, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the __________
day of ___________________, 20__.

________________________________________
Notary Public

My commission expires:

______________________________

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 11 of 11

Exhibit A

[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]

Appendix D – Credit Release Schedule

CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved final mitigation
plan, unless there are major discrepancies and then a mitigation plan addendum will be submitted. Under
no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary Department of the Army (DA)
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of the
mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, will determine if performance standards have
been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some
performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the
case. Monitoring may be required to be restarted or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site
fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria
described as follows in Table D1.

Table D1. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Release
Milestone
Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Release
0 Initial Allocation – see requirements below 30% 30% 1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 40%
2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met 10% 50%
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 60%

4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 65%
(75%**)
5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 75%
(85%**) 6* Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 80%
(90%**)
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met and project has
received closeout approval
10% 90%
(100%**)
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years
unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan, can be released by DMS without
prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan.
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
3) Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the DMS Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as-built
report has been produced. As-built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
4) Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve of
10% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred, in separate
years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less than
four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the
discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, DMS will submit a
request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria
required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report.

Appendix E – Financial Assurance

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

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

Appendix F – Maintenance Plan

MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will be conducted a minimum of
once per year throughout the post construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine
maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may
include the following:

F1. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of
in-stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel
may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head-cutting.
Stream maintenance activities will be documented and reported in annual
monitoring reports. Stream maintenance will continue through the
monitoring period.
Wetland N/A
Vegetation Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic
invasive plant species shall be treated by mechanical and/or chemical
methods. Any vegetation requiring herbicide application will be performed
in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations. Vegetation maintenance activities will be documented and
reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will continue
through the monitoring period.
Site Boundary Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be
marked with signs identifying the property as a mitigation site, and will
include the name of the long-term steward and a contact number. Boundaries
may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree-blazing, or other means
as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary
markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on
an as-needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance
will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
conservation easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way,
or corridor agreements. Crossings in easement breaks are the responsibility
of the landowner to maintain.
Livestock Fencing Livestock fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance
of fencing is the responsibility of the landowner.
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Beaver Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver
management is needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or
vegetative success, RES will trap beavers and remove impoundments as
needed. All beaver management activities will be documented and included
in annual monitoring reports. Beaver monitoring and management will
continue through the monitoring period.

Appendix G – DWR Stream Identification
Forms

REACH JN2 JN3
MC1-A &
MC1-B MC1-C MC3 BS1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )19.5 22 21.5 28 25 16.5
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 2 3 2 3 3 2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 3 2 2 3 3 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 3 3 3 3 3 2
4. Particle size of stream substrate 3 3 3 3 3 2
5. Active/relict floodplain 2 3 3 3 3 0
6. Depositional bars or benches 2 3 2 3 2 2
7. Recent alluvial deposits 2 2 1 3 2 2
8. Headcuts 1 0 0 2 1 2
9. Grade control 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 1 1
10. Natural valley 0.5 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel 0 0 3 3 3 0
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )8 9.5 7.5 9.5 10.5 10
12. Presence of Baseflow 2 3 3 3 3 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 0 0 0 1 1
14. Leaf litter 1 1.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1 1 0.5 1 1 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1 1 0.5 1 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?3 3 3 3 3 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = ) 8.5 7.5 4 6 8.5 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 3 0 3 3 3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 3 0 3 3 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1 1 2 0 2 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 0 1 0 0 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0
23. Crayfish 1 0 0.5 0 0 0
24. Amphibians 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
25. Algae 0 0 0 0 0 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Points (Subtotal=)36 39 33 43.5 44 32.5
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Summary
43.5
44

Appendix H – USACE District Assessment
Forms

JN2-A JN2-B JN2-C JN2-D JN3-A JN3-B MC1-A MC1-B MC1-C MC3 BS1-A/C BS1-B/D
1 Presence of flow / persistent
pools in stream 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration 5 5 5 3 2 2 4 4 0 5 5 5
3 Riparian zone 4 2 2 0 1 2 3 2 0 2 2 2
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical
discharges 4 3 2 2 3 2 0 2 0 3 0 0
5 Groundwater discharge 3 2 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 1 2 1 3 4 4 1 3 4 3 1 0
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 4 2 3 2 2 4 1 2 0 2 0 0
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0 1 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Channel sinuosity 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 1 1
10 Sediment input 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 1
11 Size & diversity of channel bed
substrate 2 3 2 2 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 2
12 Evidence of channel incision or
widening 4 1 0 2 3 1 4 2 1 2 0 1
13 Presence of major bank failures 5 4 2 2 4 1 5 2 1 3 0 1
14 Root depth and density on banks 1 2 2 1 3 2 4 2 1 2 1 2
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,
or timber production 4 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 0 2 0 1
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool
complexes 2 3 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 5 2 3
17 Habitat complexity 3 3 3 2 2 3 5 3 0 4 2 3
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 4 3 2 0 2 1 3 3 0 2 4 4
19 Substrate embeddedness 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 2 2 0 0
21 Presence of amphibians 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
22 Presence of fish 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0
23 Evidence of wildlife use 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 3 2 2 1 1
56 52 41 35 52 53 71 55 30 59 32 33PhysicalStabilityHabitatBiologyTotal Score:
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet Summary
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC
D
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: ME
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC
Site: Little Sebastian Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC
Site: Little Sebastian
Date: April 30, 2018 Evaluator: CC

Appendix I – Wetland JD Forms and Maps

Appendix J – Invasive Species Plan

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

Appendix K – Approved FHWA
Categorical Exclusion Form

Version 1.4, 8/16/05
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

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
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
Categorical Exclusion Summary

Categorical Exclusion Summary
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly
known as Superfund, created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries to clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
As a part of the ERTR and CERCLA compliance, an EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was ordered
for the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) on August 29,
2017. According to the EDR report, there were not any listed sites located within one mile of the project
site. In addition to the EDR search, a visual inspection of the Little Sebastian site was conducted to assess
the potential for the occurrence of recognized environmental conditions on the property that might not have
been revealed in the EDR report. The inspection was conducted to locate and identify any obvious use,
storage, or generation of hazardous materials. No hazardous storage containers or substances were
observed.
Overall, the EDR assessment revealed no evidence of “recognized environmental conditions” in connection
with the target property. The summary of the EDR report is included in the Appendix.
National Historical Preservation Act (Section 106)
The National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) is legislation intended to preserve historical and
archaeological sites in the United States of America. RES requested review and comment from the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archaeological and architectural resources related
to the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site on October 20th, 2017. SHPO responded on October 24, 2017 and
had no objections to the Little Sebastian Project. The correspondence SHPO can be found in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) provides
important protections and assistance for those people affected by federally funded projects. The Uniform
Act applies to the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for federally funded projects.
The Little Sebastian Mitigation Site is a full-delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of
fair market value of the property and the lack of condemnation authority was completed by RES. The
landowner was notified of fair market value and condemnation authority was listed in the option agreement.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary
of the Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or carry out are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species.
Surry County’s list of threatened and endangered species include Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), and Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) (Myotis
septentrionalis). Other than the NLEB, the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site does not support any habitat
related to any of the threatened or endangered species listed above.
During site visits performed by RES, no NLEB individuals were found to exist on the site. A completed
NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamline Consultation Form will be submitted by the Federal Highways Administration
to the USFWS. The NLEB 4(d) Rules states “that the project may affect the NLEB, but that any resulting
incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.” All correspondence with the USFWS
is included in the Appendix.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on
the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD-1006 has been completed
and submitted to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The completed form and
correspondence documenting it submittal is included in the Appendix.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of the United States was enacted to protect fish and
wildlife when federal actions result in the control or modification of a natural stream or body of water.
Since the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site includes stream restoration RES requested comment from the
North Carolina Fish and Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). The NCWRC responded on December
1, 2017 and stated that they intend to investigate Mill Creek for brook floater, a state endangered species.
If brook floaters, or another listed aquatic species is found, additional measures may be needed to protect
these species if restoration efforts are likely to impact them. All correspondence can be found in Appendix
F.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship import, or
extort and migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by the
MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute at taking.

RES requested comment on the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site from the USFWS in regard to migratory
birds on October 20th, 2017. The USFWS responded on November 20, 2017 and stated that besides the
Northern long-eared bat, there is no record of other federally protected species in the project vicinity. All
correspondence with USFWS will be included in the Appendix.

Agency Scoping Letters

October 20, 2017

Renee Gledhill-Earley
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617

Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,

The Little Sebastian Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) to
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. The proposed
project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,392 linear feet of stream.

RES requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream mitigation project on the
Little Sebastian Site (a USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation easement is
attached).

A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/; accessed October 17, 2017) was performed as part of the site due
diligence evaluation. The database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or
archeological resources on the proposed properties. In addition, the majority of the site has
historically been disturbed due to cattle grazing.

We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
any historic properties. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You
may return the comment to my attention at the address below, or via email. Please feel free to
contact me at [e-mail] with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of
site disturbance associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist

302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]

10055 Red Run Blvd.
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD
21117

412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802

100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401

5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Houston, TX
77006

1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
70508

137½ East Main St.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
25901

33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219

302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605

1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
USGS Map
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
©Date: 10/20/2017
Drawn by: JLS
Document Path: C:\Users\mdeangelo\Dropbox (RES)\@RES Projects\North Carolina\Little Sebastian\Correspondence\Resource Agency Scoping Letters\LittleSebastian_USGS.mxd

October 20, 2017

Mr. Vann Stancil
Habitat Conservation Biologist
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
215 Jerusalem Church Road
Kenly, NC 27542

Subject: Project Scoping for Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Project in Surry County.

Dear Mr.Stancil,

The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream restoration project on
the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground
disturbance are enclosed). The Little Sebastian Site has been identified by Resource Environmental
Solutions, LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts. The
proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,392 linear feet of
stream. The site is currently used for cattle grazing and the stream channels have been channelized
and impounded.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist

302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]

10055 Red Run Blvd.
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD
21117

412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802

100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401

5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Houston, TX
77006

1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
70508

137½ East Main St.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
25901

33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219

302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605

1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220

From: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 1:17 PM
To: Matthew DeAngelo
Subject: RE: [External] Mockingbird Mitigation Site

Matt,

Thanks for the opportunity to review these 3 mitigation project for issues related to fish and wildlife.

The Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site is located on Hauser Creek and its tributaries in Davie
County. Hauser Creek is a direct tributary to the Yadkin River. There’s an existing easement
downstream of this new mitigation site. There are no records for any listed aquatic species in the
vicinity of this project.

The Catbird Stream Mitigation Site appears to be located on an unnamed tributary to the Yadkin River
located east of Hauser Creek in Davie County. There are no records for any listed aquatic species in the
vicinity of this project.

The Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site is located in Surry County on Mill Creek and 3 of it’s
tributaries. Mill Creek is a tributary to the Mitchell River. While there are no records of listed aquatic
species in Mill Creek, there are records for brook floater, Alasmidonta varicosa, in the Mitchell River
upstream and downstream of the Mill Creek confluence. Brook floater is a state endangered
species. I’ve consulted with our aquatic biologists about the possibility of brook floaters in Mill
Creek. There are no records from Mill Creek, but we don’t have any records of collection efforts there
either. So brook floaters may inhabit Mill Creek, near the area proposed for restoration. Our biologist
plan to investigate Mill Creek to see if there are brook floaters present or if the habitat there is likely to
support them. If brook floaters, or another listed aquatic species is found, additional measures will be
needed to protect these species if restoration efforts are likely to impact them. While restoration
efforts are likely to improve habitat conditions in the long term in Mill Creek, and potentially improve
conditions downstream in the Mitchell River as well, there may be short term impacts to aquatic species
and habitats during restoration. Additional measures during restoration may be needed to minimize
these short term impacts.

Regarding terrestrial species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently listed the northern
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Davie & Surry
counties are within the range
(https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf) of the northern long-
eared bat and may be present or in the vicinity of the project site. As such, consultation with the USFWS
may be required. For more information, please see
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/ or
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/NLEB_RFO.html or contact the Asheville office of the USFWS to ensure
that potential issues related to this species are addressed.

Please let me know if I can assist further. Also, feel free to follow up on the results of survey efforts in
Mill Creek if you have not yet heard from me.

Thanks,
Vann

From: Matthew DeAngelo [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 12:50 PM
To: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Mockingbird Mitigation Site

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail].

Dear Mr. Stancil,

The Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
(RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. The purpose of this letter is to request, review, and
comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a
potential stream restoration project on the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property
lines and areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed along with a KMZ file). We thank you in
advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to my attention at the
address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any questions that you may
have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist

RES | res.us
Direct: 984.255.9133 | Mobile: [phone]

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]

October 20, 2017

Mrs. Janet Mizzi
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801

Subject: Project Scoping for Little Sebastian Mitigation Project in Surry County

Dear Mrs. Mizzi,

Resource Environmetal Solutions (RES) requests review and comment from the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on any possible concerns they may have with regards to the
implementation of the Little Sebastian Mitigation Project. Please not that this request is in support
fo the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the referenced project. The proposed
project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,392 linear feet of stream. The
Site is currently in agricultural use, specifically as pasture and row crops.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (accessed 17 October 2017) lists one
endangered species for Surry County, North Carolina: Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), and two threatened species: Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and
Small whorled pogonia (Istoria medeoloides). No protected species or potential habitat for
protected species was observed during preliminary site evaluations. A review of the NHP database
that there are known occurrences of the Brook floater (Alasmidonta varicose) in the Mitchell River
approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the Project area. Based on initial site investigations, no
impacts to federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Based on
initial site investigations, no impacts to federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the
proposed project.

Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the planting of a stream enhancement project
on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the conservation
easement are enclosed.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any questions
that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist

10055 Red Run Blvd.
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD
21117

412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802

100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401

5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Houston, TX
77006

1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
70508

137½ East Main St.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
25901

33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219

302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605

1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220

From: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 1:17 PM
To: Matthew DeAngelo
Subject: RE: [External] Mockingbird Mitigation Site

Matt,

Thanks for the opportunity to review these 3 mitigation project for issues related to fish and wildlife.

The Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site is located on Hauser Creek and its tributaries in Davie
County. Hauser Creek is a direct tributary to the Yadkin River. There’s an existing easement
downstream of this new mitigation site. There are no records for any listed aquatic species in the
vicinity of this project.

The Catbird Stream Mitigation Site appears to be located on an unnamed tributary to the Yadkin River
located east of Hauser Creek in Davie County. There are no records for any listed aquatic species in the
vicinity of this project.

The Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site is located in Surry County on Mill Creek and 3 of it’s
tributaries. Mill Creek is a tributary to the Mitchell River. While there are no records of listed aquatic
species in Mill Creek, there are records for brook floater, Alasmidonta varicosa, in the Mitchell River
upstream and downstream of the Mill Creek confluence. Brook floater is a state endangered
species. I’ve consulted with our aquatic biologists about the possibility of brook floaters in Mill
Creek. There are no records from Mill Creek, but we don’t have any records of collection efforts there
either. So brook floaters may inhabit Mill Creek, near the area proposed for restoration. Our biologist
plan to investigate Mill Creek to see if there are brook floaters present or if the habitat there is likely to
support them. If brook floaters, or another listed aquatic species is found, additional measures will be
needed to protect these species if restoration efforts are likely to impact them. While restoration
efforts are likely to improve habitat conditions in the long term in Mill Creek, and potentially improve
conditions downstream in the Mitchell River as well, there may be short term impacts to aquatic species
and habitats during restoration. Additional measures during restoration may be needed to minimize
these short term impacts.

Regarding terrestrial species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently listed the northern
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Davie & Surry
counties are within the range
(https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf) of the northern long-
eared bat and may be present or in the vicinity of the project site. As such, consultation with the USFWS
may be required. For more information, please see
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/ or
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/NLEB_RFO.html or contact the Asheville office of the USFWS to ensure
that potential issues related to this species are addressed.

Please let me know if I can assist further. Also, feel free to follow up on the results of survey efforts in
Mill Creek if you have not yet heard from me.

Thanks,
Vann

From: Matthew DeAngelo [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 12:50 PM
To: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Mockingbird Mitigation Site

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail].

Dear Mr. Stancil,

The Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
(RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. The purpose of this letter is to request, review, and
comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a
potential stream restoration project on the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property
lines and areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed along with a KMZ file). We thank you in
advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to my attention at the
address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any questions that you may
have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist

RES | res.us
Direct: 984.255.9133 | Mobile: [phone]

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Matthew DeAngelo
To:"Russ, W. Thomas"
Subject:RE: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site
Date:Friday, April 6, 2018 4:04:00 PM
No worries. Thank you for the extra info. And yes, our activities will be in the pasture upstream.
Starting at about 4,500 ft. upstream of the Mitchell River confluence, we will be doing Enhancement
activities such as bank stabilization, buffer plantings, and fencing out cattle. Then, about 2,000 ft.
above that is where our full-on restoration begins. Then some more Enhancement activities above
that. So, we’ll see…maybe those floaters will make their way up some day.

From: Russ, W. Thomas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 3:00 PM
To: Matthew DeAngelo <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site

Sorry for the short reply. Here is a little more: lower Mill Creek is actually in decent shape, and
where it enters Mitchell River is a good population of Brook Floaters. Is the restoration upstream in
the cattle pasture? It looked really bad there, it and the Mitchell would benefit greatly.

TR

From: Matthew DeAngelo [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Russ, W. Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Ok thanks for passing that along.
From: Russ, W. Thomas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 11:32 AM
To: Matthew DeAngelo <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site

Yes, we surveyed it last week, no mussels, have at it.
William
On Apr 5, 2018 10:29 AM, Matthew DeAngelo <[e-mail]> wrote:
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Hey Russ,

Have you thought any more about when to do an assessment of Mill Creek?

Thanks,

From: Russ, W. Thomas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 8:41 AM
To: Matthew DeAngelo <[e-mail]>
Cc: Perkins, Michael <[e-mail]>; Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site

Matt, we should be able to assess Mill Creek in mid March. When do you plan to start the project?
TR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
William T. Russ // Foothills Coordinator, Aquatic Wildlife Diversity Program
Division of Inland Fisheries

NC Wildlife Resources Commission
645-A Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, NC 28752

office: 828-803-6035
mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]

ncwildlife.org

The Wildlife Diversity Program depends on the NC Tax Check-off for Nongame and Endangered Wildlife
on line 31 of your NC income tax form. Learn more about the Wildlife Diversity Program.

Get NC Wildlife Update -- news including season dates, bag limits, legislative updates and more --
delivered to your Inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.

From: Matthew DeAngelo [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:16 PM
To: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>; Russ, W. Thomas <[e-mail]>;
Perkins, Michael <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Hello all,

I wanted to follow-up with you guys to see if you still intend to perform a survey for brook floater at
our site. We are ramping up our Mitigation Plan for the project and are interested in the status of
this species. Let me know if you have any plans in mind, and we can coordinate an effort
accordingly.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

From: Stancil, Vann F [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 3:25 PM
To: Russ, W. Thomas <[e-mail]>; Perkins, Michael
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Matthew DeAngelo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mill Creek restoration site

T.R. & Michael,

I’ve attached information on the Little Sebastian stream mitigation site on Mill Creek, Mitchell River
trib. I emailed Matt DeAngelo about the possibility of brook floaters in Mill Creek and your plans to
check it out in the near future and copied him here. He is happy to assist with that survey effort and
can help with access to Mill Creek near the mitigation site if you’d like to sample there. Just let me
know how it goes…

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

The Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions,
LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts through the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. The purpose of this letter is to request, review, and
comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with
a potential stream restoration project on the attached site (A USGS site map with approximate
property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed along with a KMZ file). We
thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to my
attention at the address listed in the attached letter or via email. Please feel free to contact me at
[e-mail] with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist
RES | res.us
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

November 20, 2017

Mr. Matt DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Dear Mr. DeAngelo:

Subject: Little Sebastian Catbird Mitigation Site; Surry County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-18-032

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence received via email dated October 20, 2017. We submit the following comments
in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).

Project Description
According to your correspondence, you are seeking our scoping comments to inform a NEPA
document for a proposed mitigation bank near Union Hill, North Carolina. The proposed bank
would entail restoration and enhancement of approximately 7,392 linear feet of Mill Creek and
its unnamed tributaries. The proposed project would be located approximately 0.8 river miles
upstream from the Mitchell River. Adjacent land use is dominated by pasture and row crops.

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
According to Service records, suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the project
area for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). However, the
final 4(d) rule (effective as of February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-eared
bat associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site,
and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June 1
– July 31). Based on the information provided, the project (which may or may not require tree
clearing) would occur at a location where any incidental take that may result from associated
activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule. Although not required, we encourage you to avoid
any associated tree clearing activities during the maternity roosting season from May 15 –
August 15 if possible.

The Service has record of no other federally protected species in the project vicinity. However,
the proposed project would occur less than one river mile upstream from a reach of the Mitchell
River with recent occurrences for the brook floater mussel (Alasmidonta varicosa). The brook
floater is a federal species of concern and is not currently afforded legal protection under the Act.
However, incorporating proactive conservation measures may help preclude the need to list this
2

species in the future. Like most freshwater mussels, this species is a sessile benthic filter-feeder
that is highly sensitive to aquatic habitat modifications. Eutrophication- and sedimentation-
mediated impacts are likely among this species’ greatest threats. Agricultural runoff may
transport toxins that impact juveniles and adults.

We offer the following comments in the interest of protecting this and other fish and wildlife
resources:

Stream Buffers
Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems. They
accomplish the following:

1. catch and filter runoff, thereby helping to prevent nonpoint-source pollutants
from reaching streams;
2. enhance the in-stream processing of both point- and nonpoint-source
pollutants;
3. act as “sponges” by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods)
and by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which
maintains stream flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and
creating logjams;
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved
organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.

Forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide
along perennial streams [or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater])
should be created and/or maintained along all aquatic areas. Within the watersheds of streams
supporting endangered aquatic species, we recommend undisturbed, forested buffers that are
naturally vegetated with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation and extend a minimum of
200 feet from the banks of all perennial streams and a minimum of 100 feet from the banks of
all intermittent streams, or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater.)
Impervious surfaces, ditches, pipes, roads, utility lines (sewer, water, gas, transmission, etc.), and
other infrastructures that require maintained, cleared rights-of-way and/or compromise the
functions and values of the forested buffers should not occur within these riparian areas.

Stream Channel and Bank Restoration
A natural, stable stream system is one that is able to transport a wide range of flows and
associated bed load (sediment) while maintaining channel features and neither degrading
(accelerating the erosion of banks and scour of the channel bed) nor aggrading (accelerating the
deposition of sediment within the channel). Alterations to the dimension (cross-sectional view of
the channel), pattern (the sinuosity of the channel), or profile (longitudinal slope) of the stream
channel as well as changes to streambank vegetation, floodplains, hydrology, or sediment input
can significantly alter this equilibrium. Accordingly, we recommend the following:

3

1. Only the absolute minimum amount of work should be done within stream channels to
accomplish necessary reconstruction. The amount of disturbance to in-stream and
riparian areas should not exceed what can be stabilized by the end of the workday.
Restoration plans should account for the constraints of the site and the opportunities to
improve stream pattern, dimension, and profile with minimal disturbance.

2. All reconstruction work should follow natural channel design methodologies that are
based on the bank-full, or channel-forming, stage of the stream. Bank-full stage
maintains the natural channel dimensions and transports the bulk of sediment over time
(Doll et al. 2003). Natural channel conditions should be identified using a reference
reach (nearby stream reaches that exemplify restoration goals). Restoration design
should match the pattern, dimension, and profile of the reference reach to ensure the
project’s success. The Service is available to assist with the identification of reference
reaches.

3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area to the
extent possible. Sandbags, cofferdams, bladder dams, or other diversion structures
should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water. These diversion structures should
be removed as soon as the work area is stable. When practical, a pump-around operation
shall be used to divert flow during construction.

4. Equipment should not be operated in the stream unless absolutely necessary. Machinery
should be operated from the banks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody
vegetation. Equipment should be: (a) washed to remove any contaminant residue prior
to project construction, (b) in good working order, and (c) checked to ensure there are no
leaks of potential contaminants (such as oil or other lubricants) prior to and during
construction.

5. Streambanks with deep-rooted woody vegetation are the most stable, and stream
restoration efforts should incorporate the use of native vegetation adapted to the site
conditions. Biodegradable erosion-control materials may be incorporated into
bank-restoration design in order to stabilize soils as vegetation becomes established.
Live dormant stakes (such as black willow) may be used to reestablish root structure in
riparian areas. In areas where banks are severely undercut, high, and steep, whole-tree
revetment or rock may be used as a stabilization treatment (small rock, gravel, sand, and
dirt are not recommended due to their erosive nature), and it should not extend above the
bank-full elevation (the elevation of the channel where the natural floodplain begins).
Deep-rooting woody vegetation should be established along banks where any channel
work is accomplished. Tree and shrub plantings should be spaced at intervals no greater
than 10 feet along banks. Vegetated riparian zone widths should be as wide as practical
but should extend at least 30 feet from the stream channel.

6. Adequate measures to control sediment and erosion must be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing activities in order to minimize effects on downstream aquatic
resources. In North Carolina, non-cohesive and erosion-prone soils are most common in
the felsic-crystalline terrains of the mountain and upper piedmont regions (Miller and
4

Kochel 2010). Therefore, reconstruction work should be staged such that disturbed areas
would be stabilized with seeding, mulch, and/or biodegradable (coir) erosion-control
matting prior to the end of each workday. No erosion-control matting or blankets should
contain synthetic (netting) materials. Matting should be secured in place with staples;
stakes; or, wherever possible, live stakes of native trees. If rain is expected prior to
temporary seed establishment, additional measures should be implemented to protect
water quality along slopes and overburden stockpiles (for example, stockpiles may be
covered with plastic or other geotextile material).

7. Woody debris, detritus, and other vegetative materials are the main sources of nutrients
and carbon necessary for primary productivity in stream ecosystems. Removal of this
material can impact the production of higher trophic levels, including fish. The Service
does not recommend the removal of woody debris within the stream channel or
floodplain unless it is causing a debris blockage (logjam) or will affect the ability to
achieve bank stability along a specific reach of stream. Woody debris that must be
removed should be chipped on the site.

8. At each restoration site, cross-sections (at intervals based on restoration reach size),
longitudinal profiles, and stream-pattern plans should be measured and mapped prior to
and immediately following any channel work. In addition, photographs should be taken
to document the condition of the project site prior to initiating the work and upon
completion of the work. However, since a project’s restoration success does not
necessarily equate to biological success, the ecological goals of the project should be
clearly defined and assessed for improvement after construction is completed (Palmer
et al. 2005).

The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225, if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-18-032.

Sincerely,

- - original signed - -

Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

5

References

Doll, B.A., G.L. Grabow, K.R. Hall, J. Halley, W.A. Harman, G.D. Jennings, and
D.E. Wise. 2003. Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute, North Carolina State University.
128 pp.

Hall, K. 2003. Recommended Native Plant Species for Stream Restoration in North
Carolina. Raleigh: North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute, North Carolina
State University.

Miller, J.R., and Kochel, R.C. 2010. Assessment of channel dynamics, in-stream
structures and post-project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its
implications to effective stream restoration. Environmental Earth Sciences, 59(8),
pp. 1681-1692.

Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr,
S. Clayton, C.N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, and D.L. Galat. 2005. Standards for
ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2),
pp. 208-217.

From:Brew, Donnie (FHWA)
To:[e-mail]
Cc:Wiesner, Paul; [e-mail]; Cara Conder; Daniel Ingram
Subject:Little Sebastian mitigation site NLEB 4(d) rule consultation
Date:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 7:40:33 AM
Attachments:Little Sebastian NLEB 4(d) rule Consultation Form 12417.pdf
Good morning Marella,

The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined
consultation framework for the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site in Surry County, NC.

Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form, including site maps.

Thank you and have a great day,

Donnie

Notifying the Service Under the Framework
Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation
Form
Federal agencies (or designated non-federal representatives) should use the Northern
Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form to notify the Service of their
project and meet the requirements of the framework.

Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form (Word document)
Information requested in the Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined
Consultation Form serves to
(1) notify the field office that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework;
(2) describe the project with sufficient detail to support the required
determination; and
(3) enable the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of
consultation for the 4(d) rule is required. This form requests the minimum
amount of information required for the Service to be able to track this
information.

Providing information in the Streamlined Consultation Form does not address section
7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.

Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017

***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***

Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra-Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance: YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone 1? ☐ ☒
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency 2 to determine if your project is near
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
☒ ☐
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum? ☐ ☒
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
hibernaculum?
☐ ☒
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
any time of year?
☐ ☒
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
☐ ☒

You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question #1 or yes to question #2 and no to
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the
BO.

Agency and Applicant3 (Name, Email, Phone No.):
Donnie Brew, [e-mail], 919-747-7017
Federal Highway Administration

Cara Conder, [e-mail], 919-209-1052
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (EBX is an entity of RES)

1 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
2 See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nhisites.html
3 If applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation.

Project Name: Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site, DMS Project #100027
Project Location (include coordinates if known):
The Project is located in Surry County, approximately 10 miles north of Elkin and seven miles west of Dobson. Six
reaches are accessible from Ed Nixon Road, and three reaches are accessible from Wild Wings Lane in Thurmond.
To access reaches JN1-A, JN1-B, JN2-A, JN2-B, JN3-A, and JN3-B from Raleigh proceed west on I-40 towards
Greensboro. Continue on I-40 West for 115 miles. Take exit 188 to merge onto US-421. Stay on US-421 for 28
miles. Take exit 265A and merge onto I-77 toward Elkin. Stay on I-77 for 10 miles and take exit 83 for US-21. Stay
on US-21 for 19 miles. Take a right onto Mountain Park Rd for approximately 5 miles (Mountain Park Road
becomes Union Hill). Turn right on Ed Nixon Road, and site will be on the left in approximately one mile. To access
reaches MC1, BS1-A, and BS1-B follow the directions above to get to I-77. Once on I-77, drive for 19.3 miles and
take exit 93 toward Dobson. Turn left on Zephyr Road for 1.5 miles, then turn right onto Kapps Mill Road for 1.7
miles. Turn left onto Devotion Road, then take the second right onto Wild Wings Lane. Continue on Wild Wings
Lane and the site will be at the end of the road. Coordinates for the site are as follows: 36.397000 N, -80.859000
W.
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Project is located in Surry County, approximately 10 miles north of Elkin
and seven miles west of Dobson (Figure 1). The Project is located in the Yadkin River Basin within Cataloging
Unit 03040101 and TLW 03040101080020. The Project area includes Mill Creek and four unnamed tributaries
(Figure 2). Water quality stressors currently affecting the Project include livestock production, agricultural
production, and lack of riparian buffer. The current State classification for Mill Creek is Class C, Trout Waters (Tr),
and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). Class C waters are protected for uses such as secondary recreation,
fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, and aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological
integrity, and agriculture. The Tr classification is intended to protect freshwaters which have conditions which shall
sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout on a year-round basis. An OSW classification
is intended to protect unique and special waters having excellent water quality and being of exceptional state or
national ecological or recreational significance.

The Project will include Priority I stream restoration and stream Enhancement II on nine stream reaches (JN1-A,
JN1-B, JN2-A, JN2-B, JN3-A, JN3-B, MC1, BS1-A, BS1-B). Restoration and enhancement activities will include
constructing an E/C type stream with appropriate dimensions and pattern, reconnecting the channel to the
floodplain, and backfilling the abandoned channel. In-stream structures such as log sills and brush toes will be
installed for vertical stability and to improve habitat. Buffer improvements will filter runoff from agricultural fields,
thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Livestock exclusion fence will be installed along the
easement boundary. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas will also provide wildlife corridors
throughout the project area.

Priority I Stream Restoration will include the following: reconstructing a C/E type stream, installing log structures
to provide vertical stability and to improve habitat features, constructing a stream with moderate sinuosity (1.05-
1.10), and using log structures to provide vertical stability and to improve bedform diversity and habitat features. A
new channel will be constructed within the natural valley to the north with appropriate dimensions and pattern. Log
structures will be used to provide vertical stability, assist in maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide
habitat features. Habitat will further be improved through buffer plantings and livestock exclusion. Restoration of
the channel will reduce sediment loads to downstream reaches by stabilizing eroding banks and improving
hydrologic function.

Enhancement II activities will include the re-establishment of a riparian buffer and live-staking the channel banks
with native vegetation. Proposed buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent
pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Livestock exclusion fencing will be installed
per current Natural Resource Conservation Service specifications.

Two agricultural BMPs are proposed for the upper end of two reaches (BS1 and JN2-A) to capture and treat
concentrated runoff prior to entering the stream channel, see Figure 2 for location.

Any tree removal due to the construction of the stream mitigation site will be limited to the area along the channel
banks. An effort will be made to conduct any tree cutting of suitable summer roosting tree species between August
1 and May 31, but will ultimately depend on the construction/contractor timeline.
The following objectives are proposed for accomplishing project goals:
a. Provide an estimated 4,653 stream mitigation units (SMUs) through Priority I restoration of approximately
2,826 linear feet (Reaches BS1-A, JN1-B, JN2-A, and JN3-B) and Enhancement II on 4,568 linear feet
(Reaches BS1-B, JN1-A, JN2-B, JN3-A, and MC1) of existing stream.
b. Restore stable channel morphology and proper sediment transport capacity.
c. Create and improve stream bed form and improve aquatic and benthic macroinvertebrate habitat.
d. Construct a floodplain bench that is accessible at the proposed bankfull channel elevation.
e. Improve channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in-stream structures and native bank
vegetation.
f. Provide approximately 15.6 acres of riparian buffer restoration by establishing a native forested and
herbaceous riparian buffer plant community with a minimum width of 30 feet from the edge of the restored
channels. This new community will be established in conjunction with the eradication of any existing exotic
or undesirable plant species.

Proposed Mitigation
Reach Restoration Level Linear Feet Mitigation Ratio Stream Mitigation
Units (SMUS)
BS1-A Restoration 695 1 : 1 695
BS1-B Enhancement II 763 2.5 : 1 305
JN1-A Enhancement II 1,324 2.5 : 1 530
JN1-B Restoration 694 1 : 1 694
JN2-A Restoration 436 1 : 1 436
JN2-B Enhancement II 925 2.5 : 1 370
JN3-A Enhancement II 366 2.5 : 1 146
JN3-B Restoration 1,001 1 : 1 1,001
MC1 Enhancement II 1,190 2.5 : 1 476
Stream Totals 7,394 4,653

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia,
NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 3 61.5
Miles
Figure 1
Watershed Map
Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
Legend
Little Sebastian Easement
TLW: 03040101080020
©Date: 11/13/2017
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: C:\Users\mengel\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\nc\Little Sebastian\MXD\ERTR\NLEB\Figure3_ForestImpactsMap.mxd1 inch = 3 miles
!C
!C
BS1JN1-A
MC1JN2-BJN
3
-B
J
N
2
-
A
JN1-B
JN
3
-A
MC1
0 600 1,200300
Feet
Figure 2
Conceptual Design Map
Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
Legend
Little Sebastian Easement
Proposed Mitigation
Crossing
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Enhancement III
Preservation
Restoration
!C Agricultural BMP
©Date: 11/13/2017
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: C:\Users\mengel\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\nc\Little Sebastian\MXD\ERTR\NLEB\Figure3_ForestImpactsMap.mxd1 inch = 600 feet
Reach ID: Mitigation Type: Reach Length: Mitigation Ratio: SMU Yield:
BS1-A Restoration 695 1.0 : 1 695
BS1-B Enhancement II 763 2.5 : 1 305
JN1-A Enhancement II 1324 2.5 : 1 530
JN1-B Restoration 694 1.0 : 1 694
JN2-A Restoration 436 1.0 : 1 436
JN2-B Enhancement II 925 2.5 : 1 370
JN3-A Enhancement II 366 2.5 : 1 146
JN3-B Restoration 1001 1.0 : 1 1001
MC1 Enhancement II 1190 2.5 : 1 476Stream Totals 7394 4653
BS1JN1-A
MC1JN2-BJN
3
-B
JN
2
-
A
JN1-B
JN
3
-A
MC1
0 600 1,200300
Feet
Figure 3
Temporary Forest Impacts Map
Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
Legend
Little Sebastian Easement
Temporary Forest Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
Crossing
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Enhancement III
Preservation
Restoration
©Date: 11/10/2017
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: C:\Users\mengel\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\nc\Little Sebastian\MXD\ERTR\NLEB\Figure3_ForestImpactsMap.mxd1 inch = 600 feet
Inset A
BS1MC1
JN
3
-B
JN1-B
JN
3
-A
BS
1
MC1
0 350 700175
Feet
Figure 3 (Inset A)
Temporary Forest Impacts Map
Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
1.0 ac of Temporary Forest Impacts
*Tree removal will be limited to theminimum amount needed alongchannel banks for construction. Nativetrees will be planted along reachesthat are for proposed restoration.
Legend
LittleSebas_Easement_Feb7
Temporary Forest Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
Crossing
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Enhancement III
Preservation
Restoration
©Date: 11/13/2017
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: C:\Users\mengel\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\nc\Little Sebastian\MXD\ERTR\NLEB\Figure3_ForestImpactsMap.mxd1 inch = 350 feet
October 20, 2017
Lee Holcomb
Natural Resources Conservation Service
220 Cooper Street
Dobson, NC 27017-8801
Subject: AD-1006 Request for the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site in Surry County
Dear Mr. Holcomb,
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) requests review and comment from the Natural
Resources Conservation Service on any possible concerns that may emerge with respect to
farmland resources including prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland associated
with the Little Sebastian stream mitigation project. This project is being developed for the
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. Please note that this request is in support
of the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) and an Environmental Resource
Technical Report for the referenced project.
The Little Sebastian Site has been identified for the purposes of providing mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts in the Yadkin River Basin. RES has been awarded the
contract to design and implement the Little Sebastian project. A requirement of the project is to
prepare and Environmental Resource Technical Document that describes resources present on the
project site.
The Project is located in the Middle Mitchell River (03040101080020), a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) in the Yadkin River Basin. The Project supports many of the Upper Yadkin
River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) goals and presents an opportunity to restore and
enhance 8,800 linear feet of warm water stream and riparian corridor. The Project will provide
numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Yadkin River Basin. These benefits are
not limited to the project area, but have more far-reaching effects throughout the Yadkin River
Basin. The Project will provide improvements to water quality, hydrologic function, and habitat.
Coordinates for the site are as follows: 36.397000 N, -80.859000 W.
An inventory of soils data was completed by RES utilizing Web Soil Survey to determine prime
farmland classifications for the project area. One soil map unit in the project area is classified as
prime farm land, making up approximately 44% of the site. One map soil unit in the project area is classified
as Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing
season, making up approximately 17% of the site. Two soil map units in the project area are classified as not
prime farmland, making up 38% of the site.
Enclosed is Form AD-1006 with Parts I and III Completed and maps of the Little Sebastian Site. We ask that
you review the site information and complete Parts II, IV, and V as required by NRCS. Please email
([e-mail]), or mail your reply to the address below.
10055 Red Run Blvd.
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD
21117
412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802
100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Houston, TX
77006
1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
70508
137½ East Main St.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
25901
33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219
302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605
1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220
2
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Megan D Engel
Field Ecologist
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attachements: Vicinity map (Figure 1), USGS topographc map (Figure 2), Conceptual Plan Maps (Figure
7A, and 7B), and AD-1006

The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture’s
Natural Resources mission.

An Equal Opportunity Provider, Employer and Lender
November 14, 2017

Megan D Engel
Field Ecologist
Res
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Dear Megan D Engel:

Thank you for your letter dated October 25, 2017, Subject: Little Sebastian
Conservation Easement, Surry County, NC. The following guidance is provided
for your information.

Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.

For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.

Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40-acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban-built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.

The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

North Carolina
State Office

4407 Bland Road
Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Voice 919-873-2171
Fax [phone]
Megan D Engel
Page 2

If you have any questions, please contact Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist at
919-873-2171 or by email: [e-mail].

Again, thank you for inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

Sincerely,

Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist

cc:
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC

October 26, 2017

Mr. William Elliott
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Dear Mr. William Elliott,

Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) is pleased to present this Request for a Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination for Little Sebastian and Gideon Stream Mitigation Sites located in Dobson, Surry County, North
Carolina. As part of this scope of work, RES is submitting this request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for a confirmation of the limits of Waters of the U.S. on the subject site.
The Little Sebastian Site was contracted through Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in response to RFP
#16-006993 for the Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101, TLW 03040101080020) to provide cool water
stream mitigation units. The adjacent Gideon Site will be developed as a stream mitigation bank site. The two
sites will be developed through separate banking instruments. Altogether, the projects provide an opportunity
to restore and enhance over 10,000 linear feet of cool water stream and riparian corridor.
The purpose of the two sites is to generate mitigation and ecological benefit in HUC 03040101 of the Yadkin
River Basin. The stream channels on the site have been classified using the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources methodology. Current stream conditions along the proposed reaches demonstrate habitat
degradation as a result of impacts from livestock and a lack of riparian buffers. The restoration approach for
this project will be a combination of restoration and enhancement. Proposed treatment activities may range
from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. The objective
of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements and ties into
the existing landscape. Within the boundaries of the proposed project, three jurisdictional wetlands are present.
The Restoration Plan for both sites is currently in development.

Attachments for Reference

- Jurisdictional Determination Request Form
- Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form
- Landowner Authorization Form
- Project Vicinity Map
- Project Location Map (with topography)

- National Wetlands Inventory Map
- Aerial Imagery
- Soils Map
- Wetland Delineation Data Sheets
- Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map

412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2nd Floor 3751 Westerre Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 137½ East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

RES respectfully requests that the Corps confirm this delineation of Waters of the U.S. on this property. I
will contact you in the coming days to arrange a site visit for this purpose. Please contact me at (919)
926-1473 if you have any additional questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Schmid, PWS
Ecologist

Attachments

412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2nd Floor 3751 Westerre Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 137½ East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

November 20, 2017
Chris & Gwyn Nixon
Jimmy & Vivian Nixon
611 Ed Nixon Road
Thurmond, NC 28683

Re: Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Project

Dear Nixon Family,

As part of the environmental documentation process in preparation for the stream mitigation
project on your property, this letter is to inform you of provisions in the Federal Highway
Administration Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended, referred to as the Uniform Act.

The Uniform Act requires that we inform you in writing that this conservation easement
transaction is voluntary and that the project is being developed by Environmental Banc &
Exchange, LLC for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). Neither EBX
nor NCDMS have the authority to acquire the property by eminent domain. In addition, EBX
believes that the agreed purchase price for the conservation easement area represents the fair
market value.

This letter is for your information, and you do not need to respond. As always, please feel free to
call me at 919-817-7378 with any questions.

Sincerely,

Daniel Ramsay
Land Representative

412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2nd Floor 3751 Westerre Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 137½ East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

November 20, 2017
Byron & Mary Shaw
227 Hawthorne Road
Elkin, NC 28621

Re: Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Project

Dear Byron and Mary,

As part of the environmental documentation process in preparation for the stream mitigation
project on your property, this letter is to inform you of provisions in the Federal Highway
Administration Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended, referred to as the Uniform Act.

The Uniform Act requires that we inform you in writing that this conservation easement
transaction is voluntary and that the project is being developed by Environmental Banc &
Exchange, LLC for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). Neither EBX
nor NCDMS have the authority to acquire the property by eminent domain. In addition, EBX
believes that the agreed purchase price for the conservation easement area represents the fair
market value.

This letter is for your information, and you do not need to respond. As always, please feel free to
call me at 919-817-7378 with any questions.

Sincerely,

Daniel Ramsay
Land Representative

From:Brew, Donnie (FHWA)
To:Wiesner, Paul
Cc:Cara Conder; Daniel Ingram; Tsomides, Harry
Subject:RE: Three (3) CE/ ERTR Reports and NLEB Consultation Forms - Resource Environmental Solutions (RES)
Date:Friday, December 08, 2017 4:44:35 PM
Attachments:image003.png
Catbird site CE signature page 12-8-17.pdf
Little Sebastian site CE signature page 12-8-17.pdf
Mockingbird site CE signature page 12-8-17.pdf
Good afternoon Paul,

FHWA has reviewed and approved the CEs associated with the 3 projects listed below.

Please see the attached approved CE signature sheets.

As you saw in previous emails, FHWA has notified USFWS of our intent to utilize the NLEB 4(d)
rule for each of these projects. Please ensure the appropriate documentation from those
earlier emails is retained in each respective project file.

Additionally, each of the CEs includes documentation that explains compliance with the
Uniform Act has been satisfied. Please ensure each project file contains documentation that
demonstrates the compliance efforts. Excerpt from the CEs –

“Notification of fair market value of the property and the lack of condemnation authority was
completed by RES. The
landowner was notified of fair market value and condemnation authority was listed in the
option agreement.”

Have a great weekend,

Donnie

Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017

***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***

From: Wiesner, Paul [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Cara Conder <[e-mail]>; Daniel Ingram <[e-mail]>; Tsomides, Harry
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Three (3) CE/ ERTR Reports and NLEB Consultation Forms - Resource Environmental
Solutions (RES)

Donnie,

At the link below, you will find three (3) CE/ ERTR reports and the associated NLEB consultation
forms for your review and approval:

https://northcarolinadeptofenvandnat.sharefile.com/d-s2a48a10079549a9a

Catbird_DMS# 100022
Mockingbird_DMS# 100021
Little Sebastian_DMS# 100027

Please let us know any comments you have and we will revise the documents accordingly.

Thanks

Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services

828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]

Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Form AD-1006
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County and State
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By
NRCS
Person Completing Form:
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
Acres Irrigated

Average Farm Size

Major Crop(s)

Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: %
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Name of Land Evaluation System Used

Name of State or Local Site Assessment System

Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

Alternative Site Rating PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
(Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106)
Maximum
Points Site A Site B Site C Site D
1. Area In Non-urban Use (15)
2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use (10)
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20)
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20)
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15)
6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15)
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10)
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (10)
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5)
10. On-Farm Investments (20)
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10)
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10)
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

Site Selected:

Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES NO
Reason For Selection:

Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)
STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM

Step 1 - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place
of form AD-1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, http://fppa.nrcs.usda.gov/lesa/.

Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the
U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator may be found at http://offices.usda.gov/scripts/ndISAPI.dll/oip_public/USA_map, or the offices can usually be
found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State
Office in each State.)

Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime,
unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days.

Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form.

Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records.

Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing
NRCS office.

Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent
with the FPPA.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
(For Federal Agency)

Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land
use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.

Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following:

1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the
conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways,
utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion.

Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS
assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).

1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor-type
project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero,
however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.

2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the
FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other
weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites
where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse
impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).

Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total
maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:

For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center.

NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD-1006 form.

Total points assigned Site A 180
Maximum points possible 200 =X 160 = 144 points for Site A

Appendix L – DMS Floodplain
Requirements Checklist

FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 1 of 4

EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist

This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of
the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with
three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.

Project Location

Name of project:

Little Sebastian
Name if stream or feature:

Mill Creek
County:

Surry County
Name of river basin:

Yadkin – Pee Dee River Basin
Is project urban or rural?

Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:

Surry County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:

4946
(map number 3710494600J, effective date August 18,
2009)
Consultant name:

Resource Environmental Solutions
Phone number:

[phone]
Address:

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 2 of 4
Design Information

The Little Sebastian Mitigation Site is located within a rural watershed in Surry County,
within the Yadkin River Basin and USGS 14-digit HUC 03040101080020. The Project
proposes to restore 2,721 linear feet (LF), enhance 4,929 LF, preserve 418 LF of stream,
and provide water quality benefit for 25.91 acres of drainage area. The Gideon Mitigation
Bank is nestled between two Project easement locations (east and west), involving Mill
Creek and three unnamed tributaries. The stream mitigation components are summarized
in the table below. The purpose of the Project is to meet water quality improvements
addressed in the River Basin Restoration Priorities and improve overall stream health.

Reach Length Mitigation Type
JN2-A 418 Preservation
JN2-B 187 Enhancement I
JN2-C 1,144 Enhancement II
JN2-D 196 Enhancement I
JN3-A 350 Enhancement II
JN3-B 1,043 Restoration
MC1-A 469 Enhancement II
MC1-B 977 Enhancement II
MC1-C 555 Restoration
MC3-A 243 Enhancement II
MC3-B 402 Enhancement II
MC3-C 214 Enhancement I
MC3-D 395 Enhancement II
BS1-A 214 Restoration
BS1-B 175 Enhancement II
BS1-C 541 Restoration
BS1-D 177 Enhancement II
BS1-E 368 Restoration

FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 3 of 4
Floodplain Information

Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?

If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:

List flood zone designation: Zone AE

Check if applies:

If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:

Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?

Land Acquisition (Check)

Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed
to the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone])

Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
0 500250
Feet
FEMA Map
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina©Date: 5/14/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 9 - FEMA Map.mxdLegend
Streams
Proposed Easement
FEMA Zone AE
Checked by: ATP