The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20171295 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plan_20180711fires July 10, 2018 Andrea Hughes Regulatory Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587 Ms. Hughes: 302 Jefferson St., Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Corporate Headquarters 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 650 Houston, TX 77006 Main: 713.520.5400 RES is pleased to submit the Scout Draft Mitigation Plan. The attached plan includes minor modifications from the Prospectus to incorporate suggestions from the IRT site visit in October 2017, and addition of a reach post JD site visit. In total the Draft Mitigation Plan presents 3,093 warm stream credits (versus 2,467 in the Prospectus). These modifications are based on an IRT site visit with Kim Browning, Mac Haupt, Andrea Leslie, and Olivia Munzer on October 17, 2017, a JD site visit with Steve Kichefksi and Bryan Roden, subsequent regulatory guidance, and changes from design inputs. The alterations are detailed below: • All streams in the project have been verified by the USACE and accurately mapped. • Reach CH1 was added post IRT site visit with input from the IRT. Restoration is the treatment at the tie-in and Enhancement II for the rest of the reach. • Reach CH2 was added post JD site visit and the treatment is Enhancement II. • The easement boundary has been altered slightly based on restoration reach alignment. • The non-standard buffer width guidance was utilized for the Site. We look forward to discussing this project with you in more detail as your review progresses. Thank you, A � Cara Conder, Project Manager cc: North Carolina IRT DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN Scout Mitigation Site Davie County, North Carolina USACE Action ID SAW -2017-01505 Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101 Prepared by: fires Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 919-209-1052 July 2018 "This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following: • Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14). " EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Scout Mitigation Site (the "Project") is located in Davie County, North Carolina, approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run. Water quality stressors currently affecting the Project include previous livestock production, agricultural production, and lack of riparian buffer. The Project presents 3,144 linear feet (LF) of stream restoration and enhancement generating 3,093 Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) along Hauser Creek and two unnamed tributaries. The Project is located in the Yadkin River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03040101, Target Local Watershed (TLW) 03040101160010, and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) subbasin 03-07-02. The current State classification for Hauser Creek is Water Supply IV (WS -IV). WS -IV waters are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS -I, 11 or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses (NCDWQ, 2011). Consisting of agricultural fields and wooded areas, the Project's total easement area is approximately 13.22 acres within the overall drainage area of 810 acres. The Project is between two separate portions of the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Mockingbird 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 Mockingbird Site has a total easement area that is approximately 27 acres and presents 8,998 linear feet of stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Additionally, the Mockingbird Site connects to the upstream end of the DMS Hauser Creek Mitigation Site. All sites combined total 49.3 acres and 14,605 LF of stream that will be protected in perpetuity. 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 to 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 installed for vertical stability and to improve habitat, where necessary. Buffer improvements will filter runoff from the surrounding pasture lands, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. 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. Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S). 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. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be finalized prior to site transfer to the responsible party. Scout Mitigation Plan ii July 2018 Table of Contents 1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Components................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Outcomes.................................................................................................................... 1 2 WATERSHED APPROACH......................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Site Selection..........................................................................................................................2 3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................................. 4 3.1 Watershed Summary Information.......................................................................................... 4 DrainageArea and Land Use......................................................................................................... 4 Surface Water Classification.......................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Landscape Characteristics...................................................................................................... 4 ExistingVegetation........................................................................................................................ 5 ExistingWetlands........................................................................................................................... 5 Geology.......................................................................................................................................... 6 SoilSurvey..................................................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Land Use — Historic, Current, and Future.............................................................................. 7 3.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints............................................................ 8 Property, Boundary, and Utilities................................................................................................... 8 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass .................................... 8 Environmental Screening and Documentation............................................................................... 8 Threatened and Endangered Species.............................................................................................. 8 CulturalResources.......................................................................................................................... 9 3.5 Reach Summary Information................................................................................................. 9 ChannelClassification..................................................................................................................10 Discharge......................................................................................................................................10 ExistingChannel Morphology.....................................................................................................10 Channel Stability Assessment......................................................................................................10 BankfullVerification....................................................................................................................12 3.6 Site Photographs................................................................................................................... 13 4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL....................................................................................... 14 4.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements............................................................ 15 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................................15 Hydraulic......................................................................................................................................15 Geomorphology............................................................................................................................15 Physiochemical.............................................................................................................................16 Biology.........................................................................................................................................16 5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................ 17 6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN..................................................................................................... 19 6.1 Reference Stream.................................................................................................................. 19 Reference Watershed Characterization........................................................................................19 ReferenceDischarge.....................................................................................................................19 Reference Channel Morphology...................................................................................................19 Reference Channel Stability Assessment..................................................................................... 20 Reference Bankfull Verification...................................................................................................20 Reference Riparian Vegetation..................................................................................................... 20 6.2 Design Parameters................................................................................................................ 20 Stream Restoration Approach....................................................................................................... 20 DesignDischarge.......................................................................................................................... 22 DataAnalysis............................................................................................................................... 24 6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan............................................................................................... 27 Scout Mitigation Plan iii July 2018 PlantCommunity Restoration...................................................................................................... 27 On -Site Invasive Species Management........................................................................................28 Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information................................................................................4 SoilRestoration............................................................................................................................ 28 6.4 Mitigation Summary............................................................................................................. 29 6.5 Determination of Credits...................................................................................................... 30 6.6 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths.......................................................... 30 7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS................................................................................................ 32 7.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................... 32 BankfullEvents............................................................................................................................ 32 CrossSections.............................................................................................................................. 32 DigitalImage Stations.................................................................................................................. 32 7.2 Vegetation Success Criteria.................................................................................................. 32 8 MONITORING PLAN................................................................................................................. 33 8.1 As -Built Survey.................................................................................................................... 33 8.2 Visual Monitoring................................................................................................................ 33 8.3 Hydrology Events................................................................................................................. 33 8.4 Cross Sections...................................................................................................................... 33 8.5 Vegetative Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 33 8.6 Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................34 Table 20. Financial Assurances............................................................................................................41 9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN......................................................................................... 36 10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN..................................................................................... 37 11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE............................................................................................... 38 11.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits.................................................................................. 38 11.2 Subsequent Credit Releases.................................................................................................. 38 12 MAINTENANCE PLAN............................................................................................................. 40 13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES...................................................................................................... 41 14 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 42 List of Tables Table 1. Scout Project Components Summary....................................................................................... l Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information..............................................................................3 Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information................................................................................4 Table 4. Scout Vegetation Plot Summary.............................................................................................. 5 Table5. Mapped Soil Series...................................................................................................................7 Table6. Regulatory Considerations....................................................................................................... 9 Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics.......................................................................10 Table 8. Channel Stability Assessment Results.................................................................................... I I Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements..................................................................................18 Table 10. Scaling Factors for Sizing Planform Design Parameters...................................................... 23 Table11. Peak Flow Comparison........................................................................................................ 25 Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses......................................................26 Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities............................................................. 26 Table14. Proposed Plant List...............................................................................................................28 Table15. Mitigation Credits................................................................................................................. 30 Table 16. Stream Mitigation Credit Adjustments for Non-standard Buffer Widths ............................ 31 Table 17. Monitoring Requirements..................................................................................................... 35 Table 18. Stream Credit Release Schedule........................................................................................... 39 Table19. Maintenance Plan................................................................................................................. 40 Table 20. Financial Assurances............................................................................................................41 Scout Mitigation Plan iv July 2018 List of Charts Chart 1. Stream Functions Framework.................................................................................................14 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 —Conceptual Plan Map Figure I I a — Ideal Buffer Width Map Figure l lb — Actual Buffer Width Map Appendices Appendix A - Plan Sheets Appendix B - Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Information Appendix C - Site Protection Instrument Appendix D - DWR Stream Identification Forms Appendix E - USACE District Assessment Forms Appendix F - Wetland JD Forms and Maps Appendix G - Invasive Species Plan Appendix H - Regulatory Agency Scoping Letters Scout Mitigation Plan v July 2018 I PROJECT INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Components The Scout Mitigation Site (the "Project") is located within a rural watershed in Davie County, approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run. The Project lies within the Yadkin River Basin, North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub - basin 03-07-02 and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14 -digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03040101160010 (Figure 1). The Project proposes to restore 2,686 linear feet (LF) of stream, enhance 458 LF of stream, and provide water quality benefit for 810 acres of drainage area. The Project is in the Southern Outer Piedmont Level IV ecoregion. The Project area is comprised of a single easement located along Hauser Creek and two unnamed tributaries, totaling 2,801 existing LF, which eventually drain into the Yadkin River. The stream mitigation components are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 10. The Project is between the 27 -acre Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Mockingbird Site (Figure 1). The Project is accessible from Spillman Road, through the Project parcel. Coordinates for the Project are as follows: 36.030798, - 80.516312. 1.2 Project Outcomes The streams proposed for restoration have been historically impacted by livestock production, agricultural practices, and a lack of riparian buffer. Proposed improvements to the Project will meet the river basin needs expressed in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) as well as ecological improvements to riparian corridor within the easement. Through stream restoration and enhancement, the Project presents 3,144 LF of proposed stream, generating 3,093 Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) (Table 1). Table 1. Scout Project Components Summary Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Mitigation Ratio Warm Base SMUs Restoration 2,686 1 2,686 Enhancement II 458 2.5 183 Total 3,144 2,869 Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment 224 Total Adiusted SMUs 3,093 Scout Mitigation Plan 1 July 2018 2 WATERSHED APPROACH The DMS 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 03040101160010, Turner and Hauser Creeks TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity for 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 HQ W, OR W, and WSW designated waters and those containing large numbers of rare and endangered species (Natural Heritage Element Occurrences); 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 (A CSP) 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; S. Improved management of stormwater runoff (including the implementation of stormwater BMP projects), especially in urban and suburban areas contributing to downstream degradation of stream habitat and impairment of water quality; and 6. Implementation of agricultural BMPs in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform to streams from active farming operations. 2.1 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, water supply watershed (WSW) designated waters will be protected in perpetuity (RBRP Goal 2). Continuation of the project and easement area on DMS' Hauser Creek and Mockingbird Sites will provide additional protection to Hauser Creek (RBRP Goal 3). Collaborative efforts have been made with local and willing landowners to implement new stream and wetland restoration and enhancement projects within the Turner and Hauser Creeks TLW (03040101160010) (RBRP Goal 4). Establishing riparian buffers, instream structures, and increasing bedform diversity will help address RBRP Goal 1, but achievement will not be quantified. Scout Mitigation Plan 2 July 2018 The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes portions of the following parcels (Table 2 & Figure 3). Once finalized, a copy of the land protection instruments will be included in Appendix C. The Wilmington District Conservation Easement model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instrument. Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information Landowner Pin or Tax Parcel ID County Deed Book & Page Number Protected Acreage Stream Reach Nancy Sparks 5853144949 Davie 0179/0006 3.12 HC3 Miller Environmental Banc & 5853135817 Davie 1065/0058 10.101 HC3, CH1, Exchange, LLC CH2 Scout Mitigation Plan 3 July 2018 3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Watershed Summary Information Drainage Area and Land Use The Project area is comprised of Hauser Creek and two unnamed tributaries that flow south to north, and eventually drain into the Yadkin River. The total drainage area for the Project is 810 acres (1.26 mi2). Primary land use within the rural watershed consists of approximately 49% agriculture, 39% forest, and 8% residential. Impervious area covers approximately two percent of the total watershed (Table 3 & Figure 4). Historic and current land -use within the immediate Project area have allowed cattle access to the streams, but currently there are no cattle in the Project area. 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 45b -Southern Outer Piedmont River Basin Yadkin USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03040101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 03040101160010 DWR Sub -basin 03-07-02 Project Drainage Area (acres) 810 Percent Impervious Area 2% Surface Water Classification Hauser Creek has been classified as a Class C and Water Supply -IV classification (WS -IV) (NCDWQ 2011). Waters classified as WSW are water supply watersheds and these classifications protect the water supplies. Water Supply IV (WS -IV) provide water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS -I, I1, or III classification is not feasible and are generally located in moderately to highly developed watersheds or protected areas. 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). 3.2 Landscape Characteristics The Project is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont Level IV ecoregion, which is characterized by lower elevations, less relief, and less precipitation than Southern Inner Piedmont, mostly irregular plains rather than the plains with hills of Southern Inner Piedmont and Northern Inner Piedmont. Pine (mostly loblolly and shortleaf) dominates on old field sites and pine plantations, while mixed oak forest is found in less heavily altered areas. Gneiss, schist, and granite are typical rock types, covered with deep saprolite and mostly red, clayey subsoils. Kanhapludults are common soils, such as the Cecil, Appling, and Madison series. Some areas within this region have more alkaline soils, such as the Iredell series, formed over diabase, diorite, or gabbro, and may be associated with areas once known as blackjack oak prairies. Scout Mitigation Plan 4 July 2018 Existing Vegetation Vegetation around the unbuffered reach of Hauser Creek is primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation and scattered trees. In general, these riparian zones are disturbed due to regular land management activities. On April 3, 2018 two 100 meter squared plots were surveyed along the floodplain of Hauser Creek to categorize the existing vegetation community. Forested riparian areas along the majority of Hauser creek and its tributaries have been historically cattle -grazed and lack a well-developed understory and shrub strata. For this reason, representative plots were surveyed along reach HC3 at the downstream end in open canopy and the upstream end near wetland WD (Appendix B). A survey protocol can be found in 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). The natural community for Plot 2 was categorized by surrounding canopy species because none were found within the plot. Shrub species and herbaceous species were also identified and the percent cover was estimated. Table 4. Scout Vegetation Plot Summary Plot Basal Area Avg. DBH (cm) Trees per Acre Total Tree Species Natural Community .w.2 iu_. 33.0 25.5 40.5 9 Disturbed Piedmont Alluvial Forest Disturbed Piedmont Alluvial Forest AVG 16.5 12.8 20.3 4.5 Dominant canopy species observed included boxelder (Acer negundo), tulip -poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black walnut (Juglans nigra), sugarberry (Celtic laevigata), honey locust (Gleditisia triacanthos), eastern red cedar (Jumperus virginiana), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Sub -canopy species included musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), black elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus). Herbaceous species included common rush (Juncus effusus), sedge (Carex spp.), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), common blue violet (Viola sororia), onion grass (Allium vineale), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), and Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum). Invasive species were also found throughout, including multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Non-native species included dandelion (Taraxacum spp.), burdock (Arctium spp.), wavy bitter -cress (Cardamine flexuosa), purple deadnettle (Lamium purpureum), and mock strawberry (Duchesnea indica). Existing Wetlands A wetland delineation was performed on October 3, 2017. Wetland boundaries were delineated using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Soils were characterized and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (USDA-NRCS 2010). Within the boundaries of the proposed Project, one jurisdictional wetland is present at the top left bank of HC3 (Appendix F & Figure 5), and is labeled WD (Wetland D). WD is approximately 0.75 acres in size, and a portion of the wetland is present within the easement boundary and connects with the stream channel. Vegetation within the wetland area is predominantly green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), winged elm (Ulmus alata), eastern red cedar, blackberry, multiflora rose, common rush, broom sedge (Carex scoparia), Scout Mitigation Plan 5 July 2018 tearthumb (Persicaria sagittata), dogfennel, Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica), and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea). Outside of the easement and wetland areas, cattle were historically managed and now it is agricultural land. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE on October 27, 2017 and a final PJD was received on March 26', 2018 (Appendix F). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not depict any potential wetland areas within the Project (Figure 6). Geology According to geology data from the North Carolina Geologic Survey, published in 1985, the Project is within geologic map unit PzZm, occurring in the Charlotte and Milton Belts. PzZm is associated with intrusive types of rocks, metagabbro, metadiorate, and mafic plutonic -volcanic complexes, formed during the Paleozoic era. Soil Survey The existing soil information from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) shows the property is located within the Gaston-Mocksville-Mecklenburg soil association. This association is made of gently sloping to steep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a clayey or loamy subsoil with a low or moderate shrink -swell potential. They formed in material weathered from mafic and intermediate crystalline rocks on uplands. They are found on broad to narrow ridges and side slopes in the northeastern, central, and southwestern parts of the county. The Davie County Soil Survey shows two mapping units across the Project. Map units include six soil series (Figure 7). The soil series found on the Project are described below and summarized in Table 5. Project soils are mapped by the NRCS as Codorus loam, Jackland loam, Mocksville sandy loam, Rasalo fine sandy loam, and Tomlin clay loam on the low-lying depressions and floodplains at the Project. The surrounding upland soils are mapped as Tomlin clay loam and Rasalo fine sandy loam. Codorus loam. This is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on floodplains in the Piedmont. They formed in recently deposited alluvial materials derived from upland soils, and generally occur on slopes between zero to two percent. Runoff is low and permeability is moderately high to high. Major uses are in cultivation or pasture land. Codorus loam occurs in 92.7% of the easement. Jackland loam. This is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on floodplains in the Piedmont. They formed from residuum weathered from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or gneiss and generally occur on slopes between two to six percent. Runoff is very high and permeability is very slow. Major uses are woodland and some pasture land. Jackland loam occurs in 0.7% of the easement on the eastern bank. Mocksville sandy loam. This is a very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on upland regions of the Piedmont. They formed in residuum from intermediate or mafic metamorphic or igneous rock, and generally occur on slopes between two and 60 percent. Runoff is low to high and permeability is moderate. Major uses are woodland. Mocksville sandy loam occurs in 2.5% of the project easement. Rasalo fine sandy loam. This is a very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on mesic Piedmont uplands. They formed in hornblende gneiss, gabbro, or other mafic crystalline rock, and generally occur on slopes between two to 15 percent. Runoff is slow and permeability is moderately slow to slow. Major Scout Mitigation Plan 6 July 2018 uses are mixed hardwood and pine forest. Rasalo fine sandy loam occurs in 0.5% of the easement on the western bank. Tomlin clay loam. This is a very deep, well -drained soil that occurs on forested uplands of the Piedmont. They formed in residuum from intermingled felsic or intermediate, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rock such as amphibolite, granodiorite, biotite schist, or biotite gneiss, and generally occur on slopes between two to 50 percent. Runoff is very low to high and permeability is moderate. Major uses include cultivated crops, pasture, and forest. Tomlin clay loam occurs in 3.6% of sloped segments along the easement. Table 5. Mapped Soil Series Map Unit Map Unit Name Percent Drainage Hydrologic Landscape Symbol Hydric Class Soil Group Setting CoA Codorus loam, 0-2% 5% Somewhat B/D Floodplains slopes Poor AB Jackland loam, 1-6% 0% Somewhat C/D Floodplains slopes poor MsC Mocksville sandy 0% Well B Hillslopes on loam, 8-15% slopes ridges MsD Mocksville sandy 0% Well B Hillslopes on loam, 15-45% slopes ridges RaC Rasalo fine sandy 0% Well C Hillslopes on loam, 8-15% slopes ridges ToC2 Tomlin clay loam, 8- 0/o o Well W B Hillslopes on 15% slopes ridges 3.3 Land Use — Historic, Current, and Future Historic aerial imagery indicates that the subject Project and adjacent DMS Mockingbird Site has been used extensively for agricultural purposes, and that the location of the streams has not changed in over 50 years (Figure 8). The agricultural footprint shows minimal change over this time. The area remains in an agricultural community with some neighboring forested property. Several watershed characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. Soil structure and surface texture have been altered from intensive agricultural operations. The Project and adjacent Mockingbird Site is currently still in agricultural use, mainly pasture or cropland. Cattle historically had full access to the project reaches, and these reaches remain heavily impacted. The tributaries to Hauser Creek have sparse canopy cover. Outside the Project area is also still in agricultural use and remains partially forested. The future land use for the Project, adjacent Mockingbird Site, and downstream Hauser Creek Mitigation Site will include 49.3 acres of conservation easement that will be protected in perpetuity. The combined conservation easements will have 14,605 linear feet of high functioning streams, a minimum 50 -foot riparian buffer, and will exclude livestock with fencing or livestock removal. Outside the Project, the area will likely remain in agricultural use. Scout Mitigation Plan 7 July 2018 3.4 Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints Property, Boundary, and Utilities The restoration of Hauser Creek will primarily be Priority I restoration. The downstream end of the Hauser Creek restoration must tie-in with the contracted DMS full delivery Mockingbird Site. No overhead or underground easements conflict with the proposed Project. No General Aviation or Commercial airports are located within five miles of the proposed Project. The Project is located within five miles of two privately owned and operated airstrips. One privately owned public -use air transport facility (Sugar Valley Airport) is located approximately four miles south of the Project. While existing mature trees are generally not threatened, a tree survey will be conducted to design the mitigation measures and access to minimize impacts to significant specimen trees. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, the Project includes a mapped FEMA 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE, one percent annual chance of flooding) (Figure 9). The design and permitting of the mitigation work will include coordination with the Davie County Floodplain Administrator and permitting a FEMA No -Rise Certification or CLOMR/LOMR. Construction access is not constrained throughout the Project area. 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 5842 (map number 3710584200L), effective date 05/18/2009. Environmental Screening and Documentation To ensure that the Project meets environmental screening, scoping letters were sent to the regulatory agencies of the IRT (Appendix H). 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 one endangered species for Davie County, North Carolina: Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The database also lists the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as a threatened species. 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. In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was consulted to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species are mapped within one mile of the Project. Results from NHP indicated that there are no known occurrences of protected species within a one -mile radius of the Project area. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts to federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. Informal USFWS consultation for Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) may be required if the proposed mitigation project will impact trees. A letter from the USFWS dated January 30, 2018 indicated that no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife are expected as part of the project. Documentation is included in Appendix H. Incidental take of the NLEB is exempt, but the USFWS encourages to avoid tree cutting from May 15 — August 15 if possible. 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 Scout Mitigation Plan 8 July 2018 Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on January 4, 2018 requesting review and comment of possible issues with respect to fish and wildlife resources on the Project. A response was received on January 12, 2018 and NCWRC indicated that there are no records for any listed aquatic species in the vicinity. Cultural Resources A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or archeological resources on the proposed Project properties. There are no anticipated impacts from Project activities to state surveyed properties as there are none in the proposed Project vicinity. A letter was sent to SHPO on July 7, 2017 with the prospectus. The letter described the Project and requested a review and comment of potential cultural resources occurring within the vicinity of the Project. SHPO responded on November 7, 2017 stating that there will be no effect on historic resources. Another letter was sent on January 4, 2018 and SHPO responded that this was already covered in the prospectus submittal (Appendix H). Table 6. Regulatory Considerations Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes No Appendix H Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes No Appendix H Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix H National Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix H Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) /Coastal Area Management Act CAMA No N/A N/A FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes No Appendix H Magnuson -Stevens Act - Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A 3.5 Reach Summary Information The Project area is comprised of a contiguous easement area along Hauser Creek (HC3) and two unnamed tributaries, CHI and CH2 (Figure 5). Hauser Creek is a FEMA Limited Detailed Studied Stream and is subject to all applicable floodplain development permit requirements. Results of the preliminary data collection are presented in Table 7. In general, all or portions of Reaches HC3, CHI, and CH2 do not function to their full potential (see Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets found in Appendix E). Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from agricultural land use, water diversion, and existing impoundments. Most portions of the streams do not access their floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to agricultural operations. In most cases, the riparian buffer is in poor condition where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs. Habitat along the majority 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. Scout Mitigation Plan 9 July 2018 Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics IABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing conditions data and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present) Channel Classification The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the NCDWR Stream Identification Form version 4.11 (Appendix D) and are E -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 (Appendix F). 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 Reach HC3 Reach HC3 is a section of Hauser Creek that connects to the upstream end of the contracted DMS Mockingbird Site. The channel flows in a northerly direction towards Spillman Road through cleared pasture with little to no vegetated buffer along the majority of the reach. The reach is 2,484 linear feet. The reach has been straightened and moved from its original location along the valley floor, restricting access to the floodplain and therefore causing downcutting and over -widening. The drainage area for this reach is approximately 1.26 square miles (810 acres). Reach CH1 CHI has a drainage area of 0.07 square miles (43 acres), and flows east through a cultivated field to a confluence with HC3. The reach is 249 linear feet and has an average slope of 0.031 ft/ft. This E -type channel has an average bankfull cross-sectional area of 2.9 square feet with a width of 4.7 feet and a depth of 0.6 feet. The riparian buffer has a narrow strip of small hardwood and invasive vegetation with a larger culvert at the easement boundary. Reach CH2 CH2 has a drainage area of 0.24 square miles (156 acres), and flows northeast from an impoundment and through a cultivated field to a confluence with HC3. The riparian buffer is almost non-existent with invasive species throughout. The reach begins at the culvert and crossing. The reach is 68 linear feet and has an average slope of 0.0167ft/ft Channel Stability Assessment A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (CSA) provided in "Assessing Stream Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions" by Johnson (2006) was used to assess channel stability for the Project's existing channels. This method may be rapidly applied on a variety of stream types in different physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials. Scout Mitigation Plan 10 July 2018 Drainage ABKF 1 Width Mean Width:Depth Reach Area (ac) (ft) (ft) Depth (ft) Ratio Sinuosity Slope (ft/ft) HC3 810 26.5 11.3 2.3 5.2 1.05 0.0041 CHI 43 2.9 4.7 0.6 7.6 1.05 0.0310 CH2 156 8.2 6.5 1.3 5.2 0.99 0.0167 IABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing conditions data and NC Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present) Channel Classification The streams have been classified as intermittent and perennial streams using the NCDWR Stream Identification Form version 4.11 (Appendix D) and are E -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 (Appendix F). 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 Reach HC3 Reach HC3 is a section of Hauser Creek that connects to the upstream end of the contracted DMS Mockingbird Site. The channel flows in a northerly direction towards Spillman Road through cleared pasture with little to no vegetated buffer along the majority of the reach. The reach is 2,484 linear feet. The reach has been straightened and moved from its original location along the valley floor, restricting access to the floodplain and therefore causing downcutting and over -widening. The drainage area for this reach is approximately 1.26 square miles (810 acres). Reach CH1 CHI has a drainage area of 0.07 square miles (43 acres), and flows east through a cultivated field to a confluence with HC3. The reach is 249 linear feet and has an average slope of 0.031 ft/ft. This E -type channel has an average bankfull cross-sectional area of 2.9 square feet with a width of 4.7 feet and a depth of 0.6 feet. The riparian buffer has a narrow strip of small hardwood and invasive vegetation with a larger culvert at the easement boundary. Reach CH2 CH2 has a drainage area of 0.24 square miles (156 acres), and flows northeast from an impoundment and through a cultivated field to a confluence with HC3. The riparian buffer is almost non-existent with invasive species throughout. The reach begins at the culvert and crossing. The reach is 68 linear feet and has an average slope of 0.0167ft/ft Channel Stability Assessment A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (CSA) provided in "Assessing Stream Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions" by Johnson (2006) was used to assess channel stability for the Project's existing channels. This method may be rapidly applied on a variety of stream types in different physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials. Scout Mitigation Plan 10 July 2018 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. All three Project stream reaches received "Fair" ratings. Most Project streams were observed to have relatively high bank angles and many were found to be actively eroding. All of the channels have been impacted by farming practices or livestock production, and most are slightly entrenched. These characteristics are reflected in the higher channel assessment scores for average bank angle and bank vegetation/protection. Most reaches also scored poorly for watershed characteristics since the surrounding land use is dominated by agriculture activities. Table 8. Channel Stability Assessment Results HC3 CH1 CH2 UT to Grassy Creek (Reference Reach) 1 Watershed characteristics 8 7 8 7 2 Flow habit 9 8 9 2 3 Channel pattern 3 7 7 2 4 Entrenchment/channel confinement 11 7 6 2 5 Bed material 9 8 7 3 6 Bar development 6 2 3 5 7 Obstructions/debris jams 5 7 5 2 8 Bank soil texture and coherence 10 9 9 3 9 Average bank angle 11 9 8 5 10 Bank vegetation/protection 10 11 10 2 11 Bank cutting 10 8 7 2 12 Mass wasting/bank failure 9 7 5 2 13 Upstream distance to bridge NA NA NA NA Score 101 90 84 37 Rating* Fair Fair Fair Good * Excellent (0 < Score <= 36), Good (36 < Score <= 72), Fair (72 < Score <= 108), Poor (108 < Score — 144) Scout Mitigation Plan 11 July 2018 Bankfull Verification Bankfull is difficult and often impossible to accurately identify on actively maintained channels and agricultural ditches. The usual and preferred indicators rarely exist, and other factors may be taken into consideration in order to approximate a bankfull stage. Other factors that may be used are wrack lines, vegetation lines, scour lines, or top of a bankfull bench; however, complete confidence should not be placed on these indicators. Along the proposed restoration reach, the channel is generally entrenched and actively maintained, which means bankfull indicators were very limited or non-existent. Therefore, bankfull stage was estimated by using Piedmont Regional Curves and other hydrologic analyses, existing cross-sections, and in-house spreadsheets to estimate bankfull area and bankfull discharge. Scout Mitigation Plan 12 July 2018 16 City Phatnarnnhs Scout Mitigation Plan 13 July 2018 Wetland D, where it includes buffer and pasture. Looking downstream along Reach HC3, above CH2 confluence. 04/03/2018 04/03/2018 J'. ~on Looking upstream along Reach CH2. Looking upstream at failed culvert CHI. 04/03/2018 04/03/2018 Looking upstream on Reach HC3. Right bank buffer at downstream end of project. 04/03/2018 04/03/2018 Scout Mitigation Plan 13 July 2018 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. Stream Functions Pyramid A Guide for Assessing & Restoring Stream Functions > OVERVIEW Chart 1. Stream Functions Framework wdarman&1isawm ehanmrpm PAStreamMethania Fischenich (2006) found that the most critical functions include those that address hydrodynamic processes, sediment transport processes, stream stability and riparian buffer restoration. By addressing these fundamental functions and processes, a restored stream and riparian system are capable of supporting more dependent functions that typically require time to establish, such as diverse biological communities, chemical and nutrient processes, diverse habitats and improved water and soil quality. The objectives of this Project will address the most critical functional objectives that will allow for a more restored stream and riparian 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 more objective and flexible approach to quantify the expected ecological benefits of a mitigation Scout Mitigation Plan 14 July 2018 design. Additionally, a fanctional-based approach broadens the reach -scale goals of a restoration project by contextualizing the functional uplift to the watershed scale. The proposed Project will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Yadkin River Basin by applying an ecosystem restoration approach. The restoration approach at the reach scale of this Project will have the greatest effect on the hydraulic and geomorphology function of the system but will benefit the upper-level functions (physiochemical and biology) over time and in combination with other Projects within the watershed. Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function -Based Framework, are outlined in Table 9. 4.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements Hydrology According to the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework, hydrology is defined as the transport of water from the watershed to the channel. Therefore, this project does not intend to make significant improvements to the already functioning hydrology. Mainly, land use within the Project's catchment area will not be altered outside of the easement area, meaning hydrologic parameters such as reach runoff, flow duration, and discharge will continue to be determined by existing watershed characteristics occurring beyond the boundaries of the Project. Although hydrology will not be majorly affected by the project, restoration design and activities will account for poor watershed conditions and will provide considerable functional uplift through the following functional tiers of the Pyramid. 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. In reaches that currently function -at -risk or not -functioning, sediment transport will be improved by designing channels that transport sediment to an appropriate place to settle, such as 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 I reaches. The restoration reaches will also be designed to accumulate woody debris by having defined shallow riffles where cobble catches and holds woody 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 50 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 on improvements to these parameters, the restored channels will achieve dynamic equilibrium and provide maximum geomorphic functional uplift. Scout Mitigation Plan 15 July 2018 Physiochemical The Pyramid Framework defines the physicochemical category as temperature and oxygen regulation and the processing of organic matter and nutrients. Although this project would support the overarching goal in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Priorities to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas, it is difficult to measure nutrient and sediment reduction at this project level because they can be affected by so many variables. However, several restoration actions are known to help reduce nutrients and sediment, even though they may not be measurable at the project level. These activities include filtering of runoff through buffer areas, the conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers, and improved denitrification and nutrient uptake through buffer zones. Additional benefits may also come from functional uplift of the lower level stream functions (hydraulics and geomorphology), which will reduce sediment and nutrients in the system through bank stabilization and reforesting. Temperature regulation will also be improved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas. Oxygen regulation will occur through two actions: first, the temperature of the water directly impacts the amount of gas held by the water. Therefore, through planting the buffer to shade the channel, the temperature is decreased and dissolved oxygen is increased. Second, the log structures placed in the stream create mixing zones where oxygen dissolves much faster into the water than oxygen diffusion in calm conditions. The processing of organic matter will be improved once healthy riffles are shallow enough to catch twigs and branches that then retain leaves. Many of these physiochemical benefits occur slowly over time and are dependent on multiple variables within the stream ecosystem. Therefore, it is not practical or feasible to directly measure these parameters within the monitoring time -frame of this project. With that said, it is logical to use existing riparian buffer and visual performance standards to demonstrate the positive correlation between geomorphic parameters and physicochemical parameters. For example, as riparian buffer trees grow, as represented in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that canopy cover is actively shading the stream channel and reducing water temperature. This is not a substitute for direct physicochemical monitoring, but it is a useful tool to help project the long-term benefits of the Project in terms of its functional uplift. Biology The highest category of the Pyramid is biology and is defined as the biodiversity and life histories of aquatic and terrestrial life, specifically referring to animals. As mentioned for the physiochemical stream function, it will be difficult to measure the functional uplift of the biological functions at this site within the monitoring period of the project. However, since the life histories of many species likely to benefit from stream and wetland restoration are depending on all the lower -level functions, the functional uplift from the hydraulic and geomorphic levels would have a positive effect to the biology over time and in combination with other projects within the watershed is anticipated. Again, there is no substitute for direct biological monitoring, but it is important to understand the hierarchy of the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework in order to help project the long-term benefits of the Project, though only the hydraulic and geomorphology objectives will be directly measured during the seven-year monitoring period. Scout Mitigation Plan 16 July 2018 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, 3, and 4 (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 stable stream channels with appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile based on reference reach conditions; • Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced streams; • Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of varying depths to restored and enhanced streams; • Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions; • Increase forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel along the project reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community; • Treat exotic invasive species; • Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project that will exclude future livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers. Anticipated functional uplift, 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 other projects in the watershed, especially its close proximity to the DMS Mockingbird and Hauser Creek Sites, and responsible stewardship of current restoration projects, overall watershed functionality and health will improve to meet the RBRP goals. Scout Mitigation Plan 17 July 2018 Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements Scout Mitigation Plan 18 July 2018 Existing Level Function Goal Functional Parameter Rating/Projected Rating Objective Measurement Method (Reach) Channel -Forming Discharge Precipitation/Runoff Relationship 1 Hydrolosy° Transport from the to the to transport water from the watershed to Flow Duration Flood Frequency F/F Convert land -use of streams and their Percent Project drainage area converted to forest of water watershed the channel in a non-erosive manner (All Reaches) headwaters from pasture to riparian forest riparian channel Catchment Hydrology (indirect measurement) Reach Runoff Baseflow Alteration Flood Bank Connectivity NF/HF Cross sections Hydraulic to transport water in a stable non-erosive (HC3) Improve flood bank connectivity by Transport of water in the channel, on the floodplain, manner Flow Dynamics reducing bank height ratios and increase Crest and through the sediments FAR/HF entrenchment ratios gauges Groundwater/Surface water exchange (CHI, CH2) Sediment Transport As -built stream profile LWD Transport and Storage Reduce erosion rates and channel stability Channel Evolution NF/HF to reference reach conditions Cross sections Geomorphology to create a diverse bedform Lateral Stability (HC3) 3 Transport of wood and sediment to create diverse Riparian Vegetation Improve bedform diversity (pool spacing, Visual monitoring bedforms and dynamic equilibrium to achieve dynamic equilibrium Bedform Diversity FAR/HF percent riffles, etc.) Bed Material (CHI, CH2) Stream walks Channel Sinuosity Increase buffer width to 50 feet Vegetation plots Water Quality Unmeasured Objective to achieve appropriate levels for water Water Temperature NF/HF Physiochemical ° temperature, dissolved oxygen (HC3) Improve stream temperature regulation Vegetation plots 4 Temperature and oxygen regulation; processing of concentration, and other important Nutrient load through introduction of canopy (indirect measurement) organic matter and nutrients nutrients including but not limited to FAR/HF Nitrogen and Phosphorus Organic Carbon (CHI, CH2) Decrease nutrient loading through filtration of planted riparian buffer Bacteria Microbial Communities Macrophyte Communities NF/HF Unmeasured Objective Biology * to achieve functionality in levels 1-4 to (HC3) Improve aquatic habitat through the Vegetation plots Biodiversity and life histories of aquatic life support the life histories of aquatic and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities installation of habitat features, construction (indirect measurement) histories and riparian life riparian plants and animals FAR/HF of pools at varying depths, and planting the Fish Communities (CHI, CH2) riparian buffer Landscape Connectivity Not Measured (NM); Not Functioning (NF); Functioning -at -risk (FAR); Functioning (F); Highly Functioning (HF) ° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured Scout Mitigation Plan 18 July 2018 6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN 6.1 Reference Stream The restoration portion of the Project is characterized by historic 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 along an unnamed tributary (UT) to Grassy Creek in Union County, NC. This stream site is ideal in both geomorphology and size for this portion of Hauser Creek and its unnamed, first - order tributaries. Reference Watershed Characterization UT to Grassy Creek, is located within the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin in Union County. This reach is 318 feet in length, with a drainage area of 0.67 square miles (426 acres). The surrounding land use in the watershed is characterized by mostly agriculture, with mixed pines and hardwoods, and a small amount of residential. Reference Discharge Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for the reference site. Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross-sectional area were all factors considered when performing the calculations. Using a combination of Piedmont Regional Curves, in-house spreadsheet tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis; the existing discharge for UT to Grassy Creek was calculated to be approximately 50 cubic feet per second (ft3/s). See Section 6.2 for a more detailed description of the hydrologic analyses performed for this project. Reference Channel Morphology Reference reach UT to Grassy Creek is smaller than the restoration reach HC3, when comparing flow, pattern, dimension and profile, which is the reason scaling is used for the design. The scaling factor is a ratio between the design bankfull top width and the reference reach bankfull top width. The design Scout Mitigation Plan 19 July 2018 bankfull cross sectional area is adjusted to convey the determined design flow. Comparing the widths and applying the scaling factor ratio, the designed reach would then have the necessary dimensions of either a smaller or larger stream corresponding to differences in drainage area. The UT to Grassy Creek reach was typically 13.6 feet wide and 1.4 feet deep. The cross sectional area was around 18.1 square feet with a width to depth ratio around 9.8. Restoration reach HC3 is determined to convey 90 cubic feet/second (ft3/s) with 35.2 square feet of cross sectional area, resulting in 18.4 feet wide and 1.9 feet deep. The scaling factor ratio therefore is 1.2. Reference Channel Stability Assessment The UT to Grassy Creek reference reach is stable and shows no evidence of incision or erosion in the portion that was surveyed and analyzed. The stream appears to maintain its slope and has sufficient amounts of vegetation to secure its banks. Riparian buffer widths exceed 50 feet on each side. The reference reach received a "Good" rating as the channel demonstrates a stable meandering pattern and a well -vegetated riparian buffer. 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 reach, 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 The UT to Grassy Creek reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype). This community is approximately 20 to 25 years old, as evidenced by the representative DBH measurements and historical aerial photography. On April 3, 2018, two 100m2 plots were surveyed using the same protocol described in Section 3.2. Basal areas for the plots were 12.5m2/ha and 49.6m2/ha and stems per acre was 81 for both plots. Percent coverage over the channel ranges from 70-90 percent with average DBH ranging from four to 12 inches. Descriptions of the dominant species can be found in Section 6.3. 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. 6.2 Design Parameters Stream Restoration Approach Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries of the Project will be accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applies a combination of analytical and reference reach based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment activities may range from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring full restoration, natural design concepts have been applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape. Scout Mitigation Plan 20 July 2018 The Project will include Priority I Restoration and Enhancement Level Il. 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 conceptual plan view is provided in Figure 10. Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches exhibit habitat degradation as a result of historic impacts from livestock and channelization performed to promote agricultural and residential activities. Additionally, the riparian buffer is in poor condition throughout most of the Project area where much of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and active pasture or maintained field is present up to the edge of the existing channel. The Project design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including the onsite streams, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel, habitat and floodplain features were developed from analyses performed on the reference site data. Analytical design techniques were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole. Engineering analysis will be performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the reference reach based design. A combination of methods will be used to estimate bankfull flows, and flows corresponding to other significant storm events. A HEC -RAS model will then be used to simulate water surface elevations of flows generated by the hydrologic analysis. The development of the HEC model is an important component to the design; therefore, model input parameters are field verified when possible. Through this hydrologic analysis, the design discharge (typically referenced as bankfull or dominant discharge) will be determined. The subsequent design will be based on this calculated discharge. As part of the design process, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply will be performed by characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of windshield surveys, existing land use data, and historical aerial photography, followed up by ground truthing, will be analyzed to assess existing and past watershed conditions and to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment supply. Design parameters developed through the analyses of reference reach data, watershed characterizations, and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling will be confirmed using the Stable Channel Design function and/or the Sediment Transport Analysis components within HEC -RAS in conjunction with shear stress and velocity analyses. Geomorphic and habitat studies will be performed concurrently with the engineering analyses. While stream design will be verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable habitat features will be derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both in - stream and riparian habitat features will be designed. In -stream structures will be used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank 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 on-site 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 50 -foot conservation easement which will be fenced to exclude livestock as needed. Scout Mitigation Plan 21 July 2018 The Project has been broken into the following design reaches: Reach HC3 — This reach begins on the south end of the project and flows north towards the Mockingbird Mitigation Site, transitioning off site through a proposed 24 LF of 48 -inch double barrel RCP at a 40 -foot -wide conservation easement break. This is the main reach of the project and is proposed to restore 2,686 LF. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach. Restoration activities will include constructing a new channel within the natural valley with appropriate dimensions and pattern and backfilling the abandoned channel. In -stream structures such as log sills, brush toes, rock cross vanes, and log vanes will be installed for stability and to improve habitat. Habitat will further be improved through buffer plantings. Proposed buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. A hunting blind near the northern portion of the reach will be removed, as well as an existing crossing. Reach CH1— This reach is a tributary on the western side of HC3 and flows east. This reach totals 348 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. 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 CH2 — This reach is a tributary on the western side of HC3 and flows east. This reach totals 110 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. 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. Design Discharge Based upon the hydrologic analyses listed below, the design discharge was selected that fell between model results for the 1 -year and 2 -year Hydraflow Hydrographs, close to the 1.1 -year flood frequency analysis for reach HC3, and similar to the existing conditions cross section conveyance at the bankfull indicators. The selected flow for the restoration reach is 90 ft3/s for HC3. This discharge will provide frequent inundation of the adjacent floodplain. The design discharge was selected based on the following calculated bankfull discharge: • The flood frequency analysis (1.1 -year and 1.5 -year), • USGS regional regression curves, • The NC regional curve (Doll et al., 2002), and • Hydraflow Hydrographs. 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. Scout Mitigation Plan 22 July 2018 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. 1. The appropriate bankfull cross sectional area (CSA) of the 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 18.4 feet for HC3. 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 riffle CSA to pool CSA as applied to the design CSA. 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 Drainage Proposed Bankfull Design Analog Reach Scaling Reach Area (ac) CSA (ftp) Topwidth (ft) Topwidth (ft) Factor HO 810 35.2 18.4 13.6 1.35 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 one design reach by using an in-house spreadsheet. 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 Scout Mitigation Plan 23 July 2018 variability in pattern, to avoid on-site constraints, to follow the valley pattern, and to make the channel more constructible. The morphologic parameters summarized in the Appendix B were applied wherever these deviations occurred. Longitudinal Profiles The design profiles are presented in Appendix A. These profiles extend throughout the entire project for the proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the analog reach bed features that were sized with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and bankfull energy gradients were determined for each design reach based on the existing valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach. Log structures will be utilized in the design to control grade, divert flows, and provide additional habitat diversity and stability. In -Stream Structures Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve aquatic habitat. Native materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures where applicable. Additionally, rock structures will be utilized intermittently along reach HC3 to provide increased stability and habitat. Typical structures that will protect the channel bed and/or banks will include log sills 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 Frequence A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mit) which passed the Dalrymple homogeneity test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations. Regional flood frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2 -year peak discharges based Scout Mitigation Plan 24 July 2018 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 curve is comparable to half the flow predicted by the 1.1 -year flood frequency equation. The regional curve equations for NC and VA discharges: (1) Qbkj�=89.04*(DA)033 (Harman et al., 1999) (2) Qbkjm=91.62*(DA)0.71 (Doll et al., 2002) (3) Qakj= 43.895*(DA)0.9472 (Lotspeich, 2009) Where Qbkt=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mit) 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 miles squared. For this analysis, there was only concern for the 2 -year return interval. The equation for the rural Piedmont/Foothills (Hydrologic Region 1) (4) is: (4) Q2=158*(DA)0.649 (Weaver et al, 2009) Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison Drainage FFQ FFQ NC Regional NC Regional VA Regional Regional Design/ Reach Area(Ac) Regression Calculated ( ) Qi.i Q�s Curve Q (1) Curve Q (2) Curve Q (3) Eqns. Q2 (4) Q HO 810 95 154 108 106 55 184 90 Sediment Transport Analysis An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a stable sand and 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), Scout Mitigation Plan 25 July 2018 cohesiveness of bank materials, vegetative cover, and incoming sediment load. The shear stress approach compares calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature. Shear stress is the force exerted on a boundary during the resistance of motion as calculated using the following formula: (1) i = yRS i = shear stress (lb/ft') y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft') R = hydraulic radius (ft) S = average channel slope (ft/ft) Table 12. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Shear Stresses Permissible Shear Stress' Reach Proposed Shear Stress at Critical Shear Stress Coarse Bankfull Stage (lbs/ft2) (lbs/ft') Sand/Silt/Clay Gravel Vegetation (lbs/ft2) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft2) HC3 0.39 >0.54 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7 '(Fischenich, 2001) Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for the Scout 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 Allowable and Proposed Velocities Permissible Reach Manning's "n" Value Design Velocity (ft/s) Bed Material Velocity' (ft/sec) HC3 0.05 2.5 Sand to coarse gravel 1.75-6.0 '(Fischenich, 2001) Sediment Supply In addition to the stability assessment, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply was performed by characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of field reconnaissance and windshield surveys, existing land use data, and historical aerial photography were analyzed to assess existing and past watershed conditions to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment supply. As discussed in Section 3.3, the land use throughout the site has changed little since 1960. Much of the project area has been used primarily for agricultural purposes over the past 50 years. Most of the existing stream channels are unbuffered. Land use has remained relatively constant within this rural watershed, and significant land disturbing activities are not anticipated for the future. There are several areas of instability and erosion along the channels, which appear to be a result of historic cattle activity and agricultural activities occurring up to and along channel banks and not from watershed activities. It is anticipated that sediment supply from agricultural land adjacent to the project will decrease as buffers are enhanced and widened, and flow from existing agricultural ditches will be diffused before entering the proposed channel. Scout Mitigation Plan 26 July 2018 Since little deposition or degradation (scour) was observed along the restoration reach, it appears that the channel is 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. 6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan Plant Community Restoration The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration Project. The selection of plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species present in the forest surrounding the restoration Project, and what is typically native to the area. Several sources of information were used to determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project. A nearby tributary "UT to Hauser Creek" is used as a vegetation community reference due to close proximity to the Project. The reference stream is located within a disturbed Piedmont Alluvial Forest. On April 3, 2018, two 100m2 plots were surveyed using the same protocol described in Section 3.2. Basal areas for the plots were 12.5m2/ha and 49.6m2/ha and stems per acre was 81 for both plots. Dominant canopy species across the reference reach included sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip -poplar, American beech (Fagas grandifolia), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), eastern redcedar, green ash, red maple (Acer rubrum), and boxelder. Sub -canopy species included musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), and sawtooth blackberry. Herbaceous species included cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), rattlesnake fern (Botrypus virginianus), woodsorrel (Oxalis stricta), perfoliate bellwort (Uvularia perfoliata), partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), hairy Solomon's seal (Polygonatum pubescens), round leaved greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus), common blue violet (Viola sororia), downy yellow violet (Viola pubescens), bedstraw (Galium aparine), white avens (Geum canadense), rue anemone (Thalictrum thalictroides), tall hairy agrimony (Agrimonia gryposepala), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), and sedge (Carex sp.). Invasive species were also found within the vegetation survey plots and in the vicinity of the reach, including: multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle. Non-native species included Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), common chickweed (Stellaria media), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), wooly mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and onion grass. A Piedmont Alluvial Forest will be the target community along Hauser Creek and the two unnamed tributaries flowing east into Hauser Creek and will be established to include a diverse mix of species. The target community will be used for the planting areas within the Project, shown in Appendix A. The plant species list has been developed and can be found in Table 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 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 Scout Mitigation Plan 27 July 2018 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 Spacing (ft) Unit Type % of Total Species Composition Quercus nigra Water oak 9X6 Bare Root 15 Quercus phellos Willow oak 9X6 Bare Root 15 Betula nigra River birch 9X6 Bare Root 15 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 9X6 Bare Root 15 Quercus rubra Northern red oak 9X6 Bare Root 10 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 9X6 Bare Root 10 Liriodendron tulipifera Yellow poplar 9X6 Bare Root 10 Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 9X6 Bare Root 5 Nyssa sylvatica Black gum 9X6 Bare Root 5 Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species Species Common Name % of Total Species Composition Salix nigra Black willow 60 Cornus ammomum Silky dogwood 40 On -Site Invasive Species Management Treatment for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream restoration. Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology and the location of the species being treated (Appendix G). All treatment will be conducted as to maximize its effectiveness and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods will include mechanical (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical (foliar spray, cut stump, and hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds will be removed from the Project and properly disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground pesticide applicator with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) license and adhere to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide labels, and NC and Federal laws. Management records will be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment employed, type of herbicide used, application technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities used. These records will be included in all reporting documents. Soil Restoration After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before the topsoil is placed back over the Project. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over the Project during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the Project. Scout Mitigation Plan 28 July 2018 6.4 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 design presented in this report provides for the restoration of natural Piedmont sand/gravel-bed channel features and stream bed diversity to improve benthic habitat. The proposed design will allow flow that exceed the design bankfull stage to spread out over the floodplain. A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration channel. However, many segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood storage. Native woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress, provide grade control, and increase habitat diversity. Forested riparian buffers of at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the project reach. An appropriate riparian plant community (Piedmont Alluvial Forest along HC3, CH1 and CH2) 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. 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, will be replaced on site. Wetland impacts associated with restoration and enhancement efforts will only temporarily impact wetlands and will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream banks, and restored hydrology. All stream impacts will be accounted for in the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) form. Scout Mitigation Plan 29 July 2018 6.5 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 and with an approved mitigation plan addendum. This will be approved by the USACE. Table 15. Mitigation Credits *SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator", supplied to Providers in the January 2018, from the USACE. A detailed description of the methodology and calculations is described below and in Figure(s) 11. 6.6 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths Buffer measurements for additional credit were made horizontally, beginning from the edge of the wetted perimeter and extending to easement boundary. Due to the minimum required widths, additional credit was not generated until a stream is at least 50 feet inside the edge of the buffer. Table 16 describes the adjustments in stream credit based on buffer widths. Areas within the project that are being used to generate additional credit are solely being used for the generation of stream mitigation credits, and will not be used for the generation of any other credit type (i.e., the same square foot of buffer cannot be used to generate wetland credit, nutrient offset credits or state buffer credits). Scout Mitigation Plan 30 July 2018 The Scout Site Mitigation Credits Mitigation Credits Warm Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Totals 3,093 NA NA Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Stationing Existing Length (LF) Proposed Length (LF) Mitigation Ratio SMUs HC3 Restoration 0+53 to 27+39 2,484 2,686 1:1 2,686 CH1 Enhancement II 0+38 to 3+86 249 348 1: 2.5 139 CH2 Enhancement II 1+00 to 2+10 68 110 1: 2.5 44 Totals 2,801 3,144 2,869 Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment* 224 Total Adjusted SMUs 3,093 *SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator", supplied to Providers in the January 2018, from the USACE. A detailed description of the methodology and calculations is described below and in Figure(s) 11. 6.6 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths Buffer measurements for additional credit were made horizontally, beginning from the edge of the wetted perimeter and extending to easement boundary. Due to the minimum required widths, additional credit was not generated until a stream is at least 50 feet inside the edge of the buffer. Table 16 describes the adjustments in stream credit based on buffer widths. Areas within the project that are being used to generate additional credit are solely being used for the generation of stream mitigation credits, and will not be used for the generation of any other credit type (i.e., the same square foot of buffer cannot be used to generate wetland credit, nutrient offset credits or state buffer credits). Scout Mitigation Plan 30 July 2018 Table 16. Stream Mitigation Credit Adjustments for Non-standard Buffer Widths Mountain Counties Piedmont and Coastal Plain Counties Buffer Width Adjustment to Stream Credit Buffer Width Adjustment to Stream Credit Less than 15 feet -100% Less than 15 feet -100% 15 to < 20 feet -50% 15 to < 20 feet -50% 20 to < 25 feet -30% 20 to < 25 feet -40% 25 to < 30 feet -15% 25 to < 30 feet -30% 30 to < 50 feet 0% 30 to <35 feet -20% 50 to < 75 feet 9% 35 to < 40 feet -15% 75 to < 100 feet 16% 40 to < 45 feet -10% 100 to < 125 feet 22% 45 to < 50 feet -5% 125 to < 150 feet 27% 50 to < 75 feet 0% 150 feet or Greater 30% 75 to < 100 feet 7% 100 to < 125 feet 12% 125 to < 150 feet 16% 150 feet or greater 20% In order to calculate 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) and are not included in the ideal and actual buffer calculations. 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 11a and 11b). Scout Mitigation Plan 31 July 2018 7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The success criteria for the Project will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below. 7.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria Bankfull Events 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. 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. 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. 7.2 Vegetation Success Criteria Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project will follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, five-year old trees at seven feet in height at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in the monitoring table, but will not be used to demonstrate success. Scout Mitigation Plan 32 July 2018 8 MONITORING PLAN Annual monitoring data will be reported using the NCIRT 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 the USACE. Monitoring of the Project will adhere to metrics and performance standards established by the USACE's April 2003 Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the NC IRT's October 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Table 17 outlines the links between project goals, objectives, and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards within the context of functional uplift based on the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework. 8.1 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. 8.2 Visual Monitoring Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species, and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete streamwalk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record each monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital images. 8.3 Hydrology Events A crest gauges will be installed to document the occurrence of bankfull events at the downstream end of HC3 (Appendix A) in accordance with the guidelines that 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. In 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. 8.4 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 reaches (Appendix A). 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). 8.5 Vegetative Monitoring Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two percent of the planted area. There will be 10 plots within the planted area (11.54 acres) (Appendix A). Scout Mitigation Plan 33 July 2018 Plots will be a mixture of fixed and random plots, with seven 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 1 st and leaf drop. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored so that none become dominant or alter the desired community structure of the Project. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific treatment plan. 8.6 Scheduling/Reporting A baseline monitoring report and as -built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be developed within 60 days of the planting completion on the Project. The report will include all information required by IRT 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 USACE guidelines. 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 the IRT. The monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by USACE. Scout Mitigation Plan 34 July 2018 Table 17. Monitoring Requirements Level Goal Treatment Outcome Monitoring Metric Performance Standard To transport Convert land -use of Improve the ,I,a water from the Project reaches from transport of water 1 c watershed to pasture to riparian from the watershed NA NA the channel in a forest to the Project non-erosive reaches in a non - manner erosive way Reduce bank height g rove Improve flood p Crest gauges and/or Four bankfull events occurring in To transport p ratios and increase bank connectivity pressure transducers: P separate ears At least 30 days of continuous flow entrenchment ratios by reducing bank Inspected semiannually each year 4:1 '� water in a stable non- by reconstructing height ratios and Entrenchment ratio shall be no less than a � erosive manner channels to mimic increase Cross sections: Surveyed 1.4 within restored reaches reference reach entrenchment in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 conditions ratios Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2 As -built stream profile NA Reduce erosion Cross sections: Surveyed Entrenchment ratio shall be no Establish a riparian rates and channel buffer to reduce stability to in less than 1.4 within restored To create a erosion and sediment reference reach ears 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 reaches off° diverse bedfonn transport into project conditions Visual monitoring Bank height ratio shall not exceed 3 cImprove streams. Establish bedform 1.2 Visual monitoring: Identify and document significant z To achieve stable banks with diversity (pool dynamic livestakes'erosion spacing, percent Performed at least stream problem areas; i.e. equilibrium control matting, and riffles, etc. semiannually erosion, degradation, other in stream aggradation, etc. structures. Increase buffer Vegetation plots: MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre width to 50 feet Surveyed in MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall) ears 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 MY 7: 210 trees/acre 10 ft. tall To achieve Vegetation plots: MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre appropriate levels for water Improve stream Surveyed in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall) o temperature, temperature (indirect measurement) MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall) dissolved Exclude future regulation through oxygen livestock from introduction of 4 concentration, riparian areas with canopy °Decrease and other conservation Visual assessment of important easement, and plant a nutrient project area: Performed Identify and document any �y nutrients riparian buffer loading through at least semiannually issues; fix missing signs includingbut filtration of planted (indirect measurement) not limited to riparian buffer Nitrogen and Phosphorus _ To achieve Improve aquatic functionality in habitat through the * levels 1-4 to plant a riarian p installation of Visual monitoring of in- Identify and document significant a 5 o support the life buffer, install habitat features, habitat features, stream habitat features: Performed least stream problem areas; i.e. o histories of and construction of at degradation, aggradation, Qz aquatic and construct pools of pools at varying semiannually stressed or failed structures, etc. riparian plants v n depths varying p depths, and p (indirect measurement) and animals planting the riparian buffer ° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured Scout Mitigation Plan 35 July 2018 9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Upon completion of Project construction, RES will implement the post -construction monitoring protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the Project's ability to achieve performance standards is jeopardized, RES will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized RES will: 1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions. 2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary and/or required by the USAGE. 3. Obtain other permits as necessary. 4. Prepare Corrective Action Plan for review and approval by IRT. 5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan. Provide the IRT a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent and nature of the work performed. Scout Mitigation Plan 36 July 2018 10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN Upon approval of the Project by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S): Unique Places to Save (585) 472-9498 PO Box 1183 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 info@uniqueplacestosave.org UP2S will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements will be stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Alliance. Specific responsibilities include: • Monitoring of site is conducted on an annual basis. • An on-site inspection is conducted once per year. • Visits to the site are coordinated with landowner when possible. • Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible. • Signage for the easement boundary is maintained. • Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are promptly communicated to the landowner. A model conservation easement and engagement letter from UP2S are included in Appendix C. The engagement letter includes itemized annual cost accounting of long-term management, total amount of funding, and the manner in which the funding will be provided. Scout Mitigation Plan 37 July 2018 11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved mitigation plan of the site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary 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 restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of Project credits will be subject to the criteria described in Table 18. 11.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan, can be released by the IRT with written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities: a) Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE; b) Approval of the final mitigation plan; c) Mitigation site must be secured; d) Delivery of financial assurances; e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE; f) Issuance of the 404 -permit verification for construction of the site, if required. 11.2 Subsequent Credit Releases The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and IRT approval of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey. 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. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the Sponsor 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. Scout Mitigation Plan 38 July 2018 Table 18. Stream Credit Release Schedule Release Credit Release Activity Interim Total Released Milestone Release 1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria 15% 15% stated above 2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As -built Survey 15% 30% 3 First year monitoring report demonstrates 10% 40% performance standards are being met. 4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates 10% 50% performance standards are being met. 5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates 10% 60% performance standards are being met. 6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates 5% 65% performance standards are being met. (75%**) Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates o 10% 75% performance standards are beingmet. 85%** 8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates 5% 80% performance standards are being met. (90%**) 9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates 90% performance standards are being met, and project 10% (100%**) has received close-out approval. **10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met. Scout Mitigation Plan 39 July 2018 12 MAINTENANCE PLAN The Project 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: Table 19. 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 eriod. 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 control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Vegetation maintenance activities will be documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will continue through the monitoring period. Site Boundary Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs identifying the property as a mitigation site, and will include the name of the long-term steward and a contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as -needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity. Road Crossing Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements. Crossings in easement breaks are the responsibility of the landowner to maintain. Livestock Fencing Livestock fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance of fencing is the responsibility of the landowner. Beaver Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver management is needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or vegetative success, RES will trap beavers and remove impoundments as needed. All beaver management activities will be documented and included in annual monitoring reports. Beaver monitoring and management will continue through the monitoring period. Scout Mitigation Plan 40 July 2018 13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES CONFIDENTIAL The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $283,000 Construction Performance Bond to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Construction and planting costs are estimated to be at or below $283,000 based on the Engineer's construction materials estimate and recent bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion of construction and planting the Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $66,000 Monitoring Performance Bond will be provided to assure completion of seven years of monitoring and reporting, and any remedial work required during the monitoring period. The $66,000 amount includes contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be reduced by $9,423 following approval of each annual monitoring report. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be retired in total following official notice of site close-out from the IRT. Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other designee at the direction of the obligee. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the USACE receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation. The Performance Bonds will be provided by a surety listed with the U.S. Treasury and has an A.M. Best Rating of B or above. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the USACE in draft form for approval prior to execution. In the event of Sponsor default, UP2S has agreed to receive the funds and ensure the work is successfully completed. Table 20. Financial Assurances Construction Costs General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc. $27,000 Sitework $84,000 Structures (e.. ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir, etc.) $94,000 Crossings $15,000 Vegetation $56,000 Miscellaneous/Admin Fees $7,000 Total $283,000 Monitoring Costs Annual Monitoring and Reports $43,000 Maintenance and Contingency $23,000 Total $66,000 Scout Mitigation Plan 41 July 2018 14 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 htip:Hel.erdc.usace.4my.mil/elpubs/Tdf�/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. 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. 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. Scout Mitigation Plan 42 July 2018 NCDENR 2012a. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality http://portal.ncdenr.ora/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 1 id=1169848&folderld=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf, accessed February 2018. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). "Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009." North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geologic map of North Carolina: North Carolina Geological Survey, General Geologic Map, scale 1:500000. Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998). A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274 Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2, December 24, 2002. USACE. 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USACE. 2018. Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator. USACE. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 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 Davie County, North Carolina. Scout Mitigation Plan 43 July 2018 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. USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov (October 2017). 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. Scout Mitigation Plan 44 July 2018 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 —Conceptual Plan Map Figure 11 a — Ideal Buffer Width Zones Figure 11b Actual Buffer Width Zones EniFilI 4", Ha--'----[user Creek Redlield Rd Mitigation Site F A o a Dee�� Spy// Rn Catbird Mitigation o s Site 4. P4 Mockingbird Mitigation Sparks Rd I Site1-1 Mouser Creey f Triple II Tr Scout Mitigation acdkinviIIe Site a Lewisville Legend Proposed Easement Clemmons DMS Mockingbird Easement DMS Catbird Easement - DMS Hauser Creek Easement docksville Service Area - HUC 03040101 TLW - HUC 03040101160010 "c"�onwayan rN 801 Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Date: 7/6/2018 wE Drawn by: EWT Scout Mitigation Site res o Checked by: ATP 0 500 1,000 Davie County, North Carolina Feet i; a v f Triple II Tr Scout Mitigation acdkinviIIe Site a Lewisville Legend Proposed Easement Clemmons DMS Mockingbird Easement DMS Catbird Easement - DMS Hauser Creek Easement docksville Service Area - HUC 03040101 TLW - HUC 03040101160010 "c"�onwayan rN 801 Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Date: 7/6/2018 wE Drawn by: EWT Scout Mitigation Site res o Checked by: ATP 0 500 1,000 Davie County, North Carolina Feet DPA a• � 1 q . I 0 � A 081 Ket N v\ • 1 It -lam �/ � ..� �r � M � •• , , I o � � 40 %� I ► VO . \3 .`-moi/. . �:. •'sr� J �N� �_.� �. I, '' -. �. mss.. • ` ��/ ; -� .. o �q _ o r Leciend to Proposed Easement��- W a a ( •-� Drainage Areas (810ac) N Date: 7/5/2018 Figure 2 - USGS Map w E (Farmington 1967) Drawn by: EWT res 5 Scout Mitigation Site 0 1,000 2,000 Davie County, North CarolinaI inch - 2,000 feet Feet MILLER NANCY SPARKS X5853144949 CEnyr.ronmental k-Ba4 LLC 5853135817 Legend Proposed Easement CProject Parcels Parcels EMN Figure 3 - Landowner Map Scout Mitigation Site Davie County, North Carolina Date: 7/6/2018 Drawn by: EWT res 1 inch = 500 feet 0 ax � .f w ^z t ,r:• R fi Its a "fix t a n . cc �k ri Proposed R fi 3 a im Ak cc �k ri J �4 Y AK- im Ak w: � ; �?`C 1963 '.. 1982 �+� t. . 4 s �` K • t F ('fir � ti 4 � � � 4 YePOI IV�3. 1993 006 4 y, Le end Proposed Easement {' N Date: 6/29/2018 Figure 8 - Historical Aerials Map y w E g rei, Drawn by: EWT s Scout Mitigation Site 0 300 600 Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 600 feet x Feet a F Mr NN Nid Ile r7 gol �. Legend r' , Proposed Easement a - ti T X, y FEMA Zone AE OF� FEMA Regulatory Floodway - .2% Chance Annual Flood N Date: 7/5/2018 5 Figure 9 - FEMA Map y w E Panel: 3710584200L eff: 05/18/2009 Drawn by: EWT S Scout Mitigation Site 0 200 400 Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 400 feet e Feet ,, I � 4 �a a a Legend Proposed Easement - 13.22ac. Parcels Approach Restoration (1:1) Enhancement II (2.5:1) N W E S 0 150 300 Figure 10 - Conceptual Map Scout Mitigation Site Davie County, North Carolina Date: 7/9/2018 Drawn by: EWT res 1 inch = 300 feet 0 Scout Mitigation Site Credits Proposed Reach Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Type Length (LF) Ratio Base SMUs HO Restoration 2,686 1.0:1 2,686 CH1 Enhancement II 348 2.5:1 139 CH2 Enhancement II 1 110 1 2.5:1 44 Total 3,144 2,869 Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment 224 Total Adjusted SMUs 3,093 ,, I � 4 �a a a Legend Proposed Easement - 13.22ac. Parcels Approach Restoration (1:1) Enhancement II (2.5:1) N W E S 0 150 300 Figure 10 - Conceptual Map Scout Mitigation Site Davie County, North Carolina Date: 7/9/2018 Drawn by: EWT res 1 inch = 300 feet 0 Legend Proposed Easement - 13.22 Proposed Streams - 75'-100' - 158,928sgft PVI 100'-125' - 156,621sgft - 125'-150' - 157, 792sgft - 150'-200' - 160,193sgft N W E S 0 200 400 Figure 11a - Ideal Buffer Width Map Scout Mitigation Site Davie County, North Carolina Date: 7/5/2018 Drawn by: EWT res 1 inch = 400 feet 0 Legend Proposed Easement - 13.22ac. Proposed Streams - 75'-100' - 113,196sgft PVI 100'-125' - 54,554sgft - 125'-150' - 26,350sgft - 150'-200' - 16, 609sgft N W E S 0 200 400 Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark) BufferZonesl >50 to 75 feet 1 >75 to 100 feet I >100 to 125 feet 1 >125 to 150 feet Ideal Buffer (square feet) 1 158,928 1 156,621 1 157,792 1 160,193 Actual Buffer (sauarefeet) 1 113.196 1 54,554 1 26.350 1 16,609 Buffer Credit Equivalent 201 143 115 115 Percent of Ideal Buffer 71% 35% 17% 10% Credit Adjustment 143 50 19 12 Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required Buffer Credit Gain for Additional Buffer Net Change in Credit from Buffers Total Credit 2.869 0 224 224 3.093 Figure 11 b - Actual Buffer Width Map Scout Mitigation Site Davie County, North Carolina Date: 7/9/2018 Drawn by: EWT res 1 inch = 400 feet 0 Appendix A -Plan Sheets «+1L LlLLIL1 Forbwh Bethallia FlintRill� r' }'Fel H+ , Erxnn Vjtrnrla � {' VORLkl4esr r ,421 Lewi�l+lCfi ai€ST wimt�ni' kyiia im,. i t w1 PAA 5C L4kIL12G Su 1tiSIfE I L Capernium k --- --------- - --t'� Yr' in Fwmilkkum Cfern ions - I 'Benruda lour, !_7lJl7k 7. f i#h Ci'ove PROJECT LOCATION Arcadia a i01'n a :2CF' 8 I v C.1co m e �++l�xsvlllr � VICINITY MAP NTS LU J_ L SCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA YADKIN 01 RIVER BASIN: HUC 03040101 JULY 2018 RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC 302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110 RALEIGH, NC 27605 SITE MAP Sheet 1-15t Table Sheet Number Sheet Tale - COVER E I NOTES E2 INDEX SHEET E3 EXISTING CONDITIONS SC I BEACH HC3 5C2 BEACH HC3 5C3 BEACH HC3 5C4 BEACH HC3 5C5 BEACH HC3 SCG BEACH CH 5C7 BEACH CH 2 P I PLANTING PLAN MI MONITORING PLAN DI D ETA I LS D2 D ETA I LS D3 D ETA I LS D4 D ETA I LS D5 D ETA I LS DG D ETA I LS D7 D ETA I LS presi 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL 0 FULL SCALE: 1 "= 500 0 500 1000 2" = FULL SCALE 1 " = HALF SCALE I` Iii Q C, 00 F— o N Z 0 F— C) Z) z 0 f]_ z 0 O IL 0 0 Z w 0 ° LJ Q Qzo z 0 (n Lu U)LU Q J QwwED E_ OC f1 PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: LU J LL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: I . INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS DESCRIBED IN THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND NOTES. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE PHASED -IN TO THOSE AREAS OF THE PROJECT CURRENTLY BEING WORKED ON. THE CONTRACTOR MAY MODIFY OR RELOCATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR UNFORESEEN FIELD CONDITIONS SO LONG AS PROPER CONSTRUCTION IS MAINTAINED TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY AND USEFULNESS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURES. ALL DISTURBED AREAS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH AT THE END OF EACH DAY. 2. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION. 3. EXISTING WETLANDS CANNOT BE ENCROACHED UPON UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IF NOT APPROVED AS DESIGNATED IMPACT AREAS. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING MUST BE PLACED AROUND ALL EXISTING WETLANDS THAT ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND/OR ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT. 4. DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY. 5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION AND STABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE ABANDONED AT AN ELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE PROPOSED CHANNEL. G. STOCKPILE AREAS MAY BE RELOCATED UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. SILT FENCING MUST BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL STOCKPILE AREAS. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND SHALL NOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED, PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF THE TREES TO BE SAVED. ANY COMPROMISED TREES NOT USED IN CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF OFF SITE. 8. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEUCOBBLE SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS TO BE ABANDONED. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW CHANNEL SECTIONS. 9. IN -STREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS (BRUSH TOES, LOG VANES, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVAL FROM DESIGNER. 10. THE WORK TO RESHAPE THE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE PERFORMED USING EQUIPMENT WORKING FROM THE TOP OF THE EXISTING STREAM BANK, WHERE POSSIBLE. 1 1. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN THE ACTIVE CHANNEL TO PERFORM WORK IF POSSIBLE. PLATFORMS SHOULD BE USED TO CROSS CHANNEL WHERE ACCESS IS NOT POSSIBLE. 12. NO MORE CHANNEL SHALL BE DISTURBED THAN CAN BE STABILIZED BY THE END OF THE WORK DAY OR PRIOR TO RESTORING FLOW TO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL SEGMENTS. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL DEVICES ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED. A MAXIMUM OF 200 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME. 14. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS. 15, AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS BEING MAINTAINED, TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAMS AND BYPASS PUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE -WATER THE WORK AREA AS DESCRIBED IN THE DETAILS. I G. WHEN THE PROPOSED CHANNEL HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION, ALL TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL AND NORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATED SPOILS AREAS PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAM. 17. AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH ROCK STRUCTURES, BOULDER TOE STABILIZATION, AND LOG TOE STABILIZATION ARE CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS, TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS AND BYPASS PUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE -WATER THE WORK AREA, EXCEPT AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE NORMAL FLOW CAN BE DIVERTED AROUND THE WORK AREA WITH THE USE OF AN EXISTING CHANNEL. WHEN THE TOE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO RESTRAIN EROSION ALL TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL AND NORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATED SPOILS AREA PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY COFFER DAM. 18. MATERIAL THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE STREAM WILL BE RE -DEPOSITED OUTSIDE OF THE ACTIVE CHANNEL AND ITS FLOODPLAIN. 19. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF ALL DISTURBED GRASSED AREAS AT THE TOP OF THE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEEDING AND MULCHING SPECIFICATION AS SHOWN ON PLANS. 20. RE -FERTILIZE AND RE -SEED DISTURBED AREAS IF NECESSARY. 2 1 . TEMPORARY AND/OR PERMANENT IMPACTS TO EXISTING WETLANDS SHALL BE AVOIDED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL EXISTING WETLANDS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND/OR ADJACENT TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. STREAM CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE: I . CONDUCT PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING INCLUDING OWNER, ENGINEER, ASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS, NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL, AND OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES. CONTACT NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL AT 919-79 1-4200. 2. OBTAIN EROSION CONTROL PERMIT FROM NCDENR - LAND QUALITY SECTION AND ALL OTHER APPROVALS NECESSARY TO BEGIN AND COMPLETE THE PROJECT. 3. CONTRACTOR IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL APPROPRIATE PARTIES AND ASSURING THAT UTILITIES ARE LOCATED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. CALL NC ONE -CALL (PREVIOUSLY ULOCO) AT I -800-G32-4949 FOR UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES 48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 4. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, STABILIZED GRAVEL ENTRANCE/EXIT AND ROUTES OF INGRESS AND EGRESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND DETAILS. MAINTAIN EXISTING DRIVEWAY OVERTOPPING ELEVATION / PROFILE. 5. PREPARE STAGING AND STOCKPILING AREAS IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS OR AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ANY EXCESS SPOIL FROM STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE USED TO CONSTRUCT CHANNEL PLUGS AS SHOWN ON PLANS. G. INSTALL PUMP AROUND APPARATUS AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AT UPSTREAM END OF PROJECT. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES, MOVE PUMP AROUND OPERATION DOWNSTREAM. (SEE DETAILS ON SHEET D 1) 7. INSTALL SILT FENCE, TEMPORARY CROSSINGS AND ALL OTHER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON PLANS. 8. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION. 9. ROUGH GRADING OF CHANNEL SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES. 10. INSTALL STRUCTURES AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DETAILS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING, OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES. 1 1. UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS. 12. FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER. 13. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM AT THE END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL. 14. DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY. 15. INSTALL LIVE STAKE, BARE ROOT, AND CONTAINERIZED PLANTINGS AS SPECIFIED ON PLANTING PLANS. LEGEND EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR 50 PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR 42 EXISTING WETLAND EXISTING STREAM 91 ---- EXISTING TOP OF BANK — — — — TB EXISTING BOTTOM OF BANK EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY LINE —OHE PROPERTY LINE — EXISTING FENCELINE x EXISTING TREELINE PROPOSED TOP OF BANK – — — — — — — — – PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNEL — LIMITS OF PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT LCE PROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG (SEE DETAIL DWG D2) PROPOSED FILL AREA EXISTING TREE 0 BRUSH ♦ttttttttttt♦ (SEE DETAIL D2) LOG SILL (SEE DETAIL D4) LOG CROSS VANE (SEE DETAIL D5) DOUBLE LOG DROP _ (SEE DETAIL D4) ROCK CROSS VANE (SEE DETAIL D5) ROCK A -VANE (SEE DETAIL D5) =413= LOG VANE /�/� (SEE DETAIL D3) CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE (SEE DETAIL DG) DRY DETENTION BASIN (SEE DETAIL D2) LOG SILL (PROFILE) LOG CROSS VANE O (PROFILE) V DOUBLE LOG DROP (PROFILE) ROCK CROSS VANE/A-VANE (PROFILE) Presl 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL SCALE: AS SHOWN Iii Q C, 00 � O o J � Z O H Z) Z O z O O IL 0 O 0 w m o� w LO Q Q z Z o o O (n LLJ U)LU Q J W Q > w J w LL] U) Q z Z J O Q m Q Z U O Q U) 0 O LTJ ~ z O > Z Z LU ::) O U Lu Cn L LJ w J Z U O p z LU U � ° U)cr 0- 0 PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: E1 w J_ LL 10 res, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL 0 FULL SCALE: 1 "= 200 0 200 400 2" = FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE w 00 C) o N � O O J D_ � O z O I— U z O z O o LL C it O z w w LO Q Q z o z O (n c Q J W oc Q > W J W LL] Q Z z J O Q m � Q Z O � 1 w Q w � O = U) z X > z z Q w D O� O w U w w F- a z F- U Z) Q Z 0< O cr PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: E2 LU J L MOCKINGE31RD FIGATION SITE ACH HC3 I\Lr-\l-/l I k_/I I L presi 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL 0 FULL SCALE: 1"=300 0 300 600 2" =FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE w Q 00 0 0 N F- 0 0 0- O Z 0 I— U Z) Z O z O O IL 0 o L1J 0 ° L1J Q a zo Z o O (n LLJ U)LU Q J ED a w w Q 7 Z J Y O z m Q z U z _O O = �_ Q Z � O O Z U > O Q Z z LU O Cn w U)U J LU z D F- U Q z LU U o Q Ir cr 0- o PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: E3 l / I z Il I WAYNE WEBB \ — DB 742, �PG 328 _ - -- f f — REACH HC3 — — STB — — / RESTORATION , / STA 0+53 TO 27+39 Y X � S34 +°O— — 0, cz V- co r m 0 w a w J_ LL 735 730 725 720 715 n 9D] 00 I7A, S33 i \ o \ k 00 \i — / — — — -- 5+50 cc --— T- Ct — y EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE --- �� ABANDONED AND BACKFILLED CC E SEE DETAIL D2 LC � � A 937 SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3' 735 730 725 720 715 )0 REACH HC3 5TA 0+53 TO STA 27+39 3.P G.1' CL TYPICAL RIFFLE CRO55 SECTION CL TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CR055 SECTION CL TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CRO55 SECTION 1 0 res' 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL FULL SCALE: 1 "=30 0 30 60 2 FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE 6i Q 00 C) o N � 0 O C) z 0 z 0 z 0 O Lt_ C it0 C) z w w LL Q Q z o z 0 (n c Q J W o� Q > w J w Q — c/)Z J Y O z m Q CU z O = M Q 2 O _ Z U > W Q Z w ::) O U) U W w f- w F- z F— U Q Z O C Q c PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: sci cz co r m 0 w a w J U - V----------------- 937 _ i 93 _ REACH HC3 rB — — — TB RESTORATION 7 91 SX00 �-TR T 5+50 LCE AGE 735 730 725 720 715 39 STA 0+53 TO 27+39 2 e OO \ -X- \ \ -0 \� TR — 540 -- —= — — V_Y Y y , ,\ N _ Q \ O —,-- i LCA 3+50Ak ~ S41 \ LCE \ REACH CH2 __- --- XN SCE EX15TING CHANNEL TO 5E ABANDONED AND BACKFILLED SEE DETAIL 5HT D2 LCE 112(07 Z)Sao 3+00 ------ 91 � S43 - 544 A- 00 �o LCE 0 0 + N zU J Ui LCE SCALE: HOR I "=30'; VERT I "=3' 735 730 725 720 715 REACH HC3 5TA 0+53 TO STA 27+39 3.1' G.1' CL TYPICAL RIFFLE CR055 SECTION TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CR055 SECTION 159.0 CL TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CR055 SECTION res 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL FULL SCALE: 1 "=30 0 30 60 2" FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE w Q00 p o N � O O J D_ � O z 0 U z O z O o ILL 0- 0 z w m o� w LO Q Q z o z O (n Q CLU J W o� Q > w J w Q — c/)Z J Y O z m Q CU z O = M Q � 2 O _ Z U > W Q Z w =) O W U) U w f— w z F- U Q Z O (/)C Q c CL p PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: SC2 cz co 3: U) -Ar - - -------- _ -gl / / ` REAC�l HC3 5TA 0+53 TO STA 27+39 'A 3.1' G.I' 5AN r\f U LL STAGE — --- -----TYPICAL RIFFLECRO55 SECTION 0 72 13AN Kff U LL STAGE N.W. INV. 715.82' -SO T S.E. IN1.=716.69' 0012 gg ER U ,Z) 0 2-5 '3-0 054G 0 4 ---------- — ------ y y X E4: (3 -:91 00 TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION 7\ 0 0 14+00 A, ------ — ------ ------ y + c\j X. X LU > U X k 3.0' (n I 0 0 BANKfULL STAGE < REACH HC3 RESTORATION STA 0+53 TO27+39 i - ---1 LC 4c LC f- f - c LCE TYPICAL LffffT MEANDER CK055 SECTION ---------- LCE 735 - 735 730 - -730 EXISTING GRADE ALONG 544 STREAM CENTERLINE S46 547 549 725 - - 725 PROPOSED TOP Of DANK L 720 - 720 -0.35% U PROPOSED CHANNEL BED SLOPE 715 - 715 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 1 6+00 I 6+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 SCALE: HOR 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3' 10 res, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL FULL SCALE: 1 30 0 30 60 2" — FULL SCALE 1 HALF SCALE 6i 00 C) 04 F- 0 j C) z 0 F— C) z 0 0 0� z 0 0 LL CL m 0 C) z c/) w 00� w LL < U) 0 z z 0 Ln LU cl) 'Q. W LLI < > w —i w LL1 z z < 00 < C) z 0 = (y) < 0 z >: LU < z LL1 ::) 0 U) C) W 6i W -j F— z F— F— 0 C) < (D z w C) 0 C/) < cr PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: SC3 cz co U) r m 0 w a w J U- S104 15" CMP \ \� - -_� �\\ %moi- REACH HC3 5TA 0+53 TO STA 27+39 N.E. INV. =716. _ \ s. w. INv.=71 EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE 1111 ABANDONED AND BACKFILLED REACH CH I _ �� \ EXISTING FIFE TO BE — of REMOVED AND DISPOSED SEE DETAIL D2\_ _ 3.11 S 105 I I I I OF OFF-SITE —� / �� 5ANKFULL STAGE \ — -- CL— 91 TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION — — — — ------_ — _ --BBQ � \ k50 /j �/ \ 14.8' 3.0' BANKFULL STAGE /8 50 rv / 19+00 cn 552 _ 2i -oO �0 + ��o0 A x� 20+50 �/ �/ 22'` , 24 00 CO / S5 IS 53 \ \ 23+50 _ \ �gx \ TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION 0 S55 S56 \ 0 do / 0 REACH HC3 554_ 5 CMP —25 s RESTORATION / INV - 0' / <'c"' '.5 ss' STA 0+53 TO 27+39 - S57 I9 8' 3.0' 14.8' O 00 BAN KFULL5TAGE S49 \ \ N — zv � X 9� �G-X_ x I x L TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION .LCE -- LC �G 730 725 720 715 710 730 725 720 715 710 1 8+00 16+5 19+ 19+50 20+00 20+50 21+0 21+5 22+00 22+50 23+00 23+50 24+00 SCALE: HOK 1''=30'; VERT 1''=3' 10 res, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 551 EX15TING GRADE ALONG STREAM CENTERLINE — www.res.us PROPOSED TOP OF BANK SEAL ---------------------- 553 -------- 030 555 60 2 — FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE PROP05ED ChANNEL BED SLOPE -0. 5% ---\I Imo— I / I / I J/ ---- -------- — -- a°° C) N � 0 O 730 725 720 715 710 1 8+00 16+5 19+ 19+50 20+00 20+50 21+0 21+5 22+00 22+50 23+00 23+50 24+00 SCALE: HOK 1''=30'; VERT 1''=3' 10 res, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL FULL SCALE: 1 "=30 030 60 2 — FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE w a°° C) N � 0 O o_ o z O z O z O o LL C it O � z w w LL Q Q z o z O (n c Q J W o� Q > W J W Q 11iii— C/) J Y —.11 z m Q CU z O = M Q 2 O 2 z C) LU Q z 1121� w ::) O W U) U w f- w F- z - F- F— U Q Z O C Q c PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: SC4 0, cz V- co U) r m 0 w a w J_ LL 1pres' 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL FULL SCALE: 1 "=30 0 30 60 2" = FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE w 00 C) o N � O O J D_ � O z O I— U z O z O o LL C it O C) z w w LO Q Q z o z O (n c Q J W o� Q > w J w cr cc D_ Q 7 J Y O z m Q CU z O = M Q 2 O = z U > W Q z w ::) O W U) U w f— w F- z F— U Q z O C/)C Q c PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: SC5 cz co U) m 0 w a w J_ U - 730 725 720 715 710 Q -------------- TBS "CMP N.E. INV. 716. S.W. INV. -716. / r � � � � � 552 a r1- � ,---- - ,' may, 0 REACH CH I ENHANCEMENT II /� v STA 0+38 TO 3+(56 �Xo ��ra _ S 102 S 105 o REACH HC3 24" CMP '— � INV.=720.0 ' �XS �0/=720.4 l 5 103 S 104 — , �wGy r I I - i 550 X /�o,��,II111 SCALE: HOP, 1 "=30'; VERT 1 "=3' 730 725 720 715 710 50 REACH CH I STA 2+95 TO STA 3+ 8 6 1 .5' 1.5' BAWKFULL 5TAGE CL TYPICAL CK055 SECTION 10 res, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL FULL SCALE: 1 "=30 0 30 60 2 FULL SCALE " 1 — HALF SCALE w Q00 C) C) N H o; p �o z 0 U) z O Z O o LL C it O C) z w w LO Q Q z o z O (n c Q J W o� Q > W J W cr cc D_ Q — c/)Z J Y O z m Q U z O = Q U O = Z U > W Q Z w ::) �O W U U w f- w F- z - F- F— U Q Z O C/)C Q c � o PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: SC6 IA. TANK WfENDS REMOVED \ \TOP=72s?le REACH CH 2 \ \ \ W. roP,=725.92' ENHANCEMENT II STA 1 +00 TO 2+ 10 I I \ xo i w J_ LL i 735 730 725 720 715 76 � 5106 slo7 / /i / S4 z w w cf� Q w r I °o O + WI - Q � I U I o J EXISTING GRADE ALONG STREAM CENTERLINE PROF vol - IL I\,L- l I I VI IL IIV 1 V PROPOSED BED OF REACH HC3 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 SCALE: HOR 1 ''=30'; VERT 1 ''=3' 2+00 735 730 725 720 715 2+50 544 dv REACH C H 2 STA 1+32 TO STA 2+ 10 fi 4' CL TYPICAL CK055 SECTION 1 0 res' 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL 0 FULL SCALE: 1 "=30 0 30 60 14 211 = FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE u_i Q00 C) N � 0 O f O z O 0 z O z O o LL C it O C) z w w LO Q Q z o z O (n 2 Q J W o� Q > W J W Q L: Z J Y 0 Z m Q U z O = N Q U O > Q W Q Z W ::) O W U U w F-- W F- z F- U Q Z C Q KO cr cr CL 0 PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: SC7 PLANTING LEGEND LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT LCE EXISTING TREELINE PROPERTY LINE — — RIPARIAN PLANTING (TOTAL AREA: 1 1 .5 AC) rr J i L-1 J_ L PLANTING TABLE Permanent Riparian Seed Mix Common Name Scientific Name Percent Composition Virginia Wildrye Elymu5 virgmicu5 25% Indian Grass 5or6jha5trum nutans 25% Little Blue Stem 5chizachyrium 5coparium 10% Soft Rush Juncu5 effu5u5 10% Blackeyed 5u5an Kudbeckia hirta 10% Deertongue Dichanthelium clande5tinum 10% Common Milkweed A5clepia5 5yriaca 5% Showy Goldenrod 5olida6jo erecta 5% Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree 5peae5 Percent Common Name Scientific Name Composition Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 40% Black willow Salix nigra GO% Bare Root Planting Tree 519eae5 Common Name Scientific Name Percent Composition Water Oak Quercus nigra 15% Willow Oak Quercus phello5 15% River Birch Betula nigra 15% American Sycamore Platana5 occidentali5 15% Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 10% Green Ash Fraxinu5 penn5ylvanica 10% Yellow Poplar Linodendron tulipifera 10% Persimmon Dio5pyro5 virginiana 5% Black Gum Ny55a biflora 5% PLANTING NOTES ALL PLANTING AREAS 1 . ER0510N CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION 15 ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. 2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EK0510N CONTROL PLAN. 3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR SPRING -TOOTH CHISEL PLOW TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSS PLANTING AREAS WITH THE IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS. 4. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. 5. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LE55 THAN G" DBH SHALL BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA. G. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO G PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE GROUPED TOGETHER. 7. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE. 8. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS. 9. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3: 1. 10. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL D15TUR15ED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE. 1 1. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE. �\\ `• \ l �i n 1 \ f r\ -61 i `n \ `Lc irk LGA r J FKOPOSED MOCKI NGBRD STREAM MITIGATION SITE presi 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us r 0 FULL SCALE: 1"=200 0 200 400 2" = FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE w FKOPOSED MOCKI NGBRD STREAM MITIGATION SITE presi 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL 0 FULL SCALE: 1"=200 0 200 400 2" = FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE w Q 00 C, CD N F- 0 ; C) z O Z) z O z O O IL 0 ICE O w 0 O w Q Q cl) C) z OLu (n U) Q LIJ J ED z J Y z ��// LL m z U z O = Q Q a - _O 0 CD z z z Q z Q LU ::) J 0 a_ w U) U w LU z D F- U Q Z LU U OQ Ir cr 0— o PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: p 1 45 N m 0 w Q w J_ LL 10 res, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL 0 FULL SCALE: 1 "= 200 0 200 400 2" = FULL SCALE " 1 = HALF SCALE w 00 C) o N � O O J D_ � O z O I— U z O z O o LL C it O z w w LO Q Q z o z O (n c Q J W oc Q > W J W Q 7 J Y O z m Q z z CU Q O = Q C� c� O z z 0� > O Q z z w ::) O W U) U w f— w F- z F- U Q Z O (f)Q o= PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: m 1 c m E L m D w Q U) LU J_ L WIZEN AND WHERE TO USE IT 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 SILT FENCE 15 APPLICABLE IN AREAS: 1.25 LB./LINEAR FT. STEEL POSTS FLOW WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE 15 100 -FEET. WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS 2H: 1 V. THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS. EXTRA STRENGTH B MIDDLE LAYER BOTTOM LAYER TOP LAYER FILTER FABRIC 6 4 DO NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP.ltijTy SCALE: AS SHOWN EARTH SURFACE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: STq�Oq A A 1. USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 95% BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER, WHICH IS CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER A5 CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM D G4G I . \\ ` �J B TRENCH 0.25' DEEP SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE A \\ HEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIE ` FOR STEEL POSTS PLAN VIEW ENDS OF BAGS IN ONLY WHEN PLACED ON MINIMUM OF G MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF 0° TO 1 20°BACKFILL TRENCH WITH \ ADJACENT ROWS BUTTED EARTH SURFACE F 2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/LINEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 FEET. COMPACTED EARTH \ SLIGHTLY TOGETHER MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE FASTENING THE FABRIC. �� \ \ \ SEE NOTE LOWEST POINT SECTION 13-1513-15 p GROUND LEVEL J CONSTRUCTION: �V, 1. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS. BURY FABRIC 2. ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND \ SURFACE. (HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE OF THE USE EITHER FLAT -BOTTOM STRUCTURE.) OR V -BOTTOM TRENCH ! �VAi EARTH SURFACE -SHOWN 3. CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOID BELOW SECTION A -A JOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A SUPPORT P05T WITH 4 Z) FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST. 4. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH G FEET P05T SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE. SILT FENCE INSTALLATION NOTE: END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BE SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM HIGHER THAN THE LOWEST POINT OF FLOW CHECK. SANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OF SANDBAGS. 50 POUND TENSILE STRENGTH. SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE PLACED TO 5. EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED LINE OF Z PREVENT SCOURING. THE BOTTOM LAYER SHALL CON515T OF 3 ROWS OF BAGS, THE MIDDLE LAYER POSTS AND UP51-OPE FROM THE BARRIER. FILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC SHALL CONSIST OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND THE TOP LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF I G. PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND 51DE OF THE TRENCH. ROW OF BAGS. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED SANDBAG SHALL BE 7. BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH COMPACTION COMPACTED COMPACTED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FTX 0.5 FTX I .5 FT. OF THE BACKFILL 15 CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE. EARTH N EARTH N 8. DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES. O 0 O RUQ RUN p SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKE MAINTENANCE: _ _ III z- z III NTS INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS O Q IMMEDIATELY. N N SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IT PROMPTLY. w ' FILTER 0 REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND TO FABRIC 4 FILTER FABRIC REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT. NOTES: REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND STABILIZE FLAT -BOTTOM TRENCII DETAIL V -SHAPED TRENCH DETAIL I . EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND/OR ISOLATED SECTIONS OF IT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED. Q zLu CHANNEL. 2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM J W FLOW. Q Lu Lu 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN 2i Ir ONE WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE w ECONTRACTOR TEMPORARY SILT EEN CE G�pPO COARSE AGGREGATE - 4. THE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING PUMP SIZE U) Q �� STONE SIZE = 2 3 PUMP 5A5E FLOW. z NTS 5. DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON -ERODIBLE MATERIALS SUCH AS SANDBAGS. i o O O o SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION: z J I . INSTALL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS A RIP RAP AT THE O OCJO�COO DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA. QO 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY m PIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREA 2" x I " OR 2" x 2" MINIMUM 9" EROSION O O O O TO THE STABILIZED OUTFALL. WOODEN STAKE STRAW WATTLE NOTE: 3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR EXISTINGCONTROL OR COIR WATTLE/LOG EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOGS/WATTLES MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF STREAM DIVERSION. GRADE SILT FENCE. O O O O 4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING PUMPING Ste, APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND H05E \ SLOPE o FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THI5 WATER WILL AL50 BE PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLA55 A RIP U) 5 RAP. EXCAVTEANY v��/��\��\��\�\ EROSION CONTROL WATTLE WHENDEWAERINDGAREA,DLDLEWATER DIRTYWATERRE REMOVTHEOALOFCTORIMPERVIOUSDAKE.SHALL ��/� z 5��\ MUST BE PUMPED THROUGH A 51LT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, LU NTS AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE H05E/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE INSTALL WATTLE IN 3" TO FIRST. 5" TRENCH Q G. ONCE THE WORKING AREA 15 COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP AND IMPERVIOUS LU PURPOSE: DIKES AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH. 7. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE LEAVING A ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING IMPERVIOUS DIKE. w U CONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD. INSTALLATION NOTES: Q U) KEY -IN MATTING PE FIG. I OR FIG. 2 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: 2.0' FLOW SITE PREPARATION MIN. I . CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL AND i I I Q PROPERLY GRADE IT. I . GRADE AND COMPACT AREA. LU O 2. PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL, AND SMOOTH IT. INTAKE H05E 2. REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS 50 THAT MATTING WILL - 1 _ 1 3. PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET. CLA55 A HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL. - - - - 4. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO STONE 3. PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE. 0- U) �� SEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE. PUMP AROUND 4. TEST 501L5 FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT 501L TEST RESULTS TO THE PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 ENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH AS LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE 501L IF NEEDED. CSC KEY IN AND/OR PUMP AFM STAKE MATTING MAINTENANCE: DRAWN: SEEDING TRS JUST ABOVE WORK AFM CHANNEL TOE MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. DE -WATERING AREA I . SEE PLANTING SHEETS FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRE551NG WITH 2 -INCH STONE. AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE PUMP 2. APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING. USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ANK SPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS. IMPERVIOUS I . SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FOR DIKE INFORMATIONARE TO RECEIVE REGACENT AREADIRECTION IMPERVIOUS DIKE )MATTING. MATS 2. OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS 3" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 12" ADD 3" (IN TO IF LOW) ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAM SOIL PILE MAT. TRENCH APPROX. 8" WIDE X 8" DEEP TRENCH APPROX. SOIL PILE 8" WIDE x 8" DEEP FROM TRENCH TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 3. EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER. FROM TRENCH FLOW NTS 4. LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT. 5. ANCHOR MAT U51NG BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PIN5. G. CUT 8" x 8" TRENCH ALONG TOP OF BANK FOR MAT TERMINATION AS SHOWN IN FIGURES I - ��\�/\�/,�/ FLOW DISCHARGE H05E FLOW \ \\��\ CLA55 A 2. EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK. 7. PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OVERLAP. SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, AND �� T / / \/\/ //�//�/ -� /\/\/\\ �\/\/\ �\/\/ GENERAL NOTES: B # 5 WASHED STONE I CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION CONTROL STONE COMPACT SOIL. \/�%\T%\�/ \//\//�\ /� \\/\� . MANUAL. Q NOTE: HOSE SHOULD BE 8. STAPLE AT 12" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP. //�//�//\\//\\//�\//� 9. STREAM BANK MATTING TO BE INSTALLED FROM TOE OF BANKTO A MINIMUM OF 2.0' \\\\\j\\\\ �i�\�%\ j\\j//�j� \�\\\� \\\/ / 2. ROCK DAM KIPRAP SHALL BE 50/50 MIX OF CLA55 I AND II. SILT 3. PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS B RIP KEPT OUTSIDE OF WORK BAG AREA / // /�, \\� \ \\ 1 ROW OF STAPLES OR LOCATION PAST TOP OF BANK. SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TERMINATION AT TOP OF BANK. \ `/ \� jj//i/ \.�� STAKES, MIN. OF 24" RAP ROCK APRON 5 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE OF ROCK 10. IF MORE THAN ROLL 15 REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWN / / / I ROW OF STAPLES OR O.0 DAM. A A TO THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'. \\% STAKES, MIN. OF 24" o O.0 STEP I STA IZED CL LASS AOUTIFALL STONE FILTER FABRIC STEP I I .5' THICK CLASS ROCK APRON I ROW OF STAPLES ORB I ROW OF STAPLES OR B STAKES, MIN. OF 18" FLOW O.0 STAKES, MIN. OF 12" O.0 5 PLAN SPILLWAY CREST DISCHARGE HOSE GROUND \ FLOW W (SPILLWAY) PMIN F MIN. �i/3 STREAM WIDTH STABILIZED \ \ \\ \\ T CLA55 AND II RIP WASH OSTONE OUTFALL CLASS A 15' TO 20' %\/%\�� RAP c STONE /��%A� \ \\ \\'\\\/i ��\�j' ovvL 2' MIN . BELOW SOIL FILLED \\% I .5' THICK CLASS LOWEST BANK N a FLOW EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE FROM SOIL PILE, COMPACT WITH FOOT ��\ \\/ /� \ SOIL FILLED B ROCK APRON o` LEVEL FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: \//\, \/�/' FROM SOIL PILE, STEP 2 COMPACT WITH FOOT • 100 % COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO A STEP 2 - CLA55 I AND II FILTER FABRIC HIGH STRENGTH MATRIX. CUTOFF TRENCH RIP RAP FILTER FABRIC 8" OF CLA55 A • THICKNESS - 0.35 IN. MINIMUM. FILTER FABRIC SECTION A -A STONE • SHEAR STRESS - 5 LB5/5QFT FIGURE I FIGURE 2 SECTION B -B EXISTING • FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED I G FT/ EC CHANNEL • WEIGHT - 29 OZ15Y SILT BAG PROFILE • OPEN AREA - 38%a • SLOPES - UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 1: 1 COIR MATTING TEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAM PUMP AROUND DEWATERING DETAIL NTS NTS NTS presi 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL SCALE: AS SHOWN W Q 00 o N O O J Z O U Z) Z O z O O IL o� O Q Z w ' 0 L LO Q Q zLu Z O -QLI) Lu U) Lu J W Q Lu Lu 2i Ir w U) Q z i z J QO m Z U _O U) O J _ Q z LU 0 Q z LU D O w U Q U) w w H Z U � Q (D LU O O Q Ir cr 0- U) 0 PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: D1 c m E LL m D w Q U) LU J_ LL presi X Y 110 NOTES: Main: 919.829.9909 IR FIBER I . LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, 5-8 FEET LONG, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, AND A B CMATTING 0.75" TO 2" www.res.us HARDWOOD. Z 2. CABLE ANCHORS SHOULD BE PLACED I' TO 3' FROM EACH END OF LOG. REBAR (5/8" MINIMUM DIAMETER SCALE: AS SHOWN FLAT TOP END o 3' MIN. LENGTH TYPICAL) MAY BE USED A5 A SUBSTITUTION FOR CABLE ANCHORS PER DIRECTION OF W 1? ENGINEER. 3. IF REBAR 15 USED, PRE -DRILL HOLES WITH 5/8" DRILL BIT. . O LATERAL BUD n DETAIL o LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE LONG ENOUGH TO REACH BELOW THE GROUNDWATER L TABLE. (GENERALLY, A LENGTH OF 2 TO 3 C) 0 FEET IS SUFFICIENT.) ADDITIONALLY, THE A W A' STAKES SHOULD HAVE A DIAMETER IN T SIDE BRANCH THE RANGE OF 0.75 TO 2 INCHES. BANKFULL ELEVATION REMOVED AT SLIGHT ANGLE z 114 TO 1/3 OF LOG DIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSED WATER TABLE PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING Z O EVEN MIX OF NCDOT CLASS I Z POOL ELEV: D OUTLET ELEV: E PLAN VIEW lI PROPOSED BED AND CLASS 2 RIPRAP 30 DEEP COIR FIBER 45 DEGREE MATTING FLOW TAPERED BUTT END I iA�A\� 4 U) %/ \\ /\i / \\\• MINIMUM OF 2/3 OF LOG DIAMETER BEDDED BELOW EXI5TI NG CHANNEL INVERT J Z iTi \\\ii�\%�\i�\i\\\\%�\i\\� 10" MINIMUM LOG DIAMETER (TYP.) O INSTALL CABLE ANCHOR A5 SHOWN. DRILL (OR SAW CUT) UNDISTURBED SOIL PILOT HOLE THROUGH LOG 1/3 TO 1/4 OF THE WAY DOWN MIN. 50 THAT ANCHOR CABLE 15 NOT EXPOSED. NOTE: SECTION A -A' 6" STONE ON I' O BASINS WILL BE SIZED BASED ON GEOTETEXTILE FABRIC O CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA 0- TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE. LOG TOE PROTECTION TYPICAL DRY DISSIPATER BASIN O NTS Q NTS NOTE: I . ACCEPTABLE SPECIES INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW (5ALIX NIGRA), SILKY WILLOW (5ALIX 5EKICEA) AND 51LKY DOGWOOD (CORNUS AMMOMUM). w 2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED IN AN AREA EXTENDING 3 FEET OUT FROM TOP OF BANK TO JUST BELOW BANKFULL. 3. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE SPACED 3 FEET APART, ALTERNATE SPACING. BANKFULL ELEVATION BACKFILL AREA BETWEEN BANK AND COIR FIBER ROLL \\/ w (APPLY PERMANENT SEED MIX COIR MATING) LO LIVE AKE �\%\ \\� � , \ EXISTING BANK zo NT5 /\\/ 1 /4 TO 1 /3 OF LOG p DIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSED PLANTED COIR FIBER ROLL O (n PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING J W F� LO NORMAL WATER LEVEL PLANTED COIR FIBER ROLL LU PROPOSED BED \ WOOD LL] STAKES 0.5' TO 1.25' U) Q \\/ \\i\i\� \\�\ \i � DENSE COIR MATTING Z DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD ( KOLANKA BioD-Mat®90 OR EQUIVALENT) J C PLANTING BA USING THE KBR O MINIMUM OF 1/2 TO 2/3 OF LOG DIAMETER BEDDED BELOW WOOD STAKE ~ /� WOOD \\� \i CHANNEL INVERT m KEY IN UPSTREAM PLAN VIEW 2 STAKES END OF ROLL APPROX 12" LOG DIAMETER (TYP.) Z NOTES: 2-4 FT INTO BANK SECTION VIEW I . DESIGNER TO MARK LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF — NOTES: _O SILLS IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. — I . INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL. TOP OF STAKE SHOULD 2. INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH 51DE OF ROLL. — NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL. 2. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (DEPTH APPROX 112 TO 2/3 OF LOG DIAM) FOR TOP OF STAKE SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL. U) PLACEMENT OF ROLL. 3. COIR LOGS SHALL BE 10 FT LONG AND HAVE A DIAMETER OF 12 IN. 3. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (APPROX tin DEEP) FOR PLACEMENT OF ROLL. 1. INSERT 2. REMOVE 3. INSERT PLANTING BAR A5 PLANTING BAR PLANTING BAR 2 SHOWN AND PULL AND PLACE INCHES TOWARD _ HANDLE TOWARD SEEDING AT PLANTER FROM Z PLANTER. CORRECT DEPTH. SEEDING. COIR LOG (TOE PROTECTION) LU NTS VEGETATED SILL DEFLECTOR NT5 0 NEW CHANNEL TO BE CONSTRUCTED 0 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q z 4. PULL HANDLE OF 5. PUSH G. LEAVE LU D BAR TOWARD HANDLE COMPACTION �O MIN. 25' PLANTER, FIRMING FORWARD HOLE OPEN. 501L AT BOTTOM. FFIIRMIINP SOIL WATER OLD CHANNEL TO BE �� i— CHANNEL PLUG w MAX. 75' DIVERTED OR ABANDONED U)U Q TOP OF BANK w H PLAN VIEW EXISTING CHANNEL �j\/ / j\\ \ j \\� BOTTOM \/ / / / / /\\ / /\j \ /\/\\j PLANTING NOTES: I NOTES: BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED G PLANTING BAG FT. TO 1 0 FT. ON CENTER, L T\\\/\%� N / \ \\\ \/ / / \\/\; \/\\,\\/\\\/\,\/\\/\i/\� \\\/\/\/\\, \\ \�\\/ \\,\j\\\\/\/\/\\/ \/\/\\\\�\/\\ \\/ \��! Q DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALL BE KEPT IN A M015T CANVAS BAG OR RANDOM SPACING, AVERAGING 8 FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY WO c SIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT THE U ROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING. 6.80 PLANTS PER ACRE. UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL 1 MINIMUM COMPACTED BACKFILL (12" TO 16" LIFTS) KBC PLANTING BAR PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE .5' BANKFULL ELEVATION 0- (f WITH A TRIANGULAR CR055 SECTION, AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4 L L S PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 INCHES WIDE AND I INCH THICK AT 30' o N CSC CENTER. NEW CHANNEL BANK SHALL AFM ROOT PRUNING FINISHED GRADE BE TREATED A5 SPECIFIED NOTES: ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT COMPACTED BACKFILL IN PLANS 1. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL TO BANKFULL ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE. PRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NO OOT5 EXTEND ORE THAN O (12" LIFTS) I 2. CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 12" TO 18" LIFT5, N INCH BELOW HE ROOT COLLAR. 3. IF CHANNEL CANNOT BE COMPLETELY FILLED TO TOP OF BANK, FILL TO TOP OF ® BANK FOR 25OUT OF EVERY 100' SEGMENT. PROPOSED CHANNEL INVERT CHANNEL BACKEILL BARE ROOT PLANTING IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL (PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER) TYPICAL SECTION LOG TOE OR COIR LOG NTS NTS CHANNEL PLUG NTS presi 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL SCALE: AS SHOWN W Q00 C) 0 N O o J Z O Z) U) Z O 0Y z O O IL 0- m m O Q Z w o w LO Q Q zo Z O (n LLJ U)LU Q J W Q LU LU LL] U) Q Z Z J O Q m Q Z U _O U) O J _ Q Z LU 0 Q z LU D �O w U)U Q w w H Z U Q Z_ WO c U 0- (f 0 PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: D2 LU J_ LL presi 3' MAXIMUM STREAM CHANNEL BANK HEIGHT 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 I Fax: 919.829.9913 110 www.res.us i �" I� I� + SURFACE FLOW DIVERSION M f SEAL O / ° 00 / ,&° °°oo ° o ° ROOT WAD ° Y — _ °oo ° 001i0 0° o° g° 0110° ° —_ �(AS Q00 BOULDER C) 0 DIRECTED BY ENGINEER) INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAIL � N SEE DWG D I O o EXCAVATE /GRADE UPPER BANK STONE APPROACH / SECTION: 2:1 MIN., 5:1 ROOT WAD BOULDER MAX. SLOPE ON ROAD O (AS DIRECTED BY INSTALL LIVE STAKES (SEE PLANTING PLAN) CLASS A STONE OVER FILTER FABRIC FOOTER LOG EXISTING CHANNEL BANK Z) � \ \ \\\\�/%\� SURFACE FLOW//\\/�//�//// \\\�/%//\�/%\�/%�/%�//\�/%///\ DIVERSION PLAN VIEW - TRENCHING METHOD PLAN VIEW - DRIVE POINT METHOD z O TIE TO EXISTING GRADE \\ \\\\%/ 2.5' ± MIN SLOPE 2.5H: I V\\/ `�\\\\\\ (DESIGNER TO MARK IN FIELD EXISTING 5TREAMBANK \\\ z PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION) W O O IL IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER m m ENTIRE ETWEEN O Q S M I D OCTOBER TO MID MARCH, PROTECT BANK DRIVE POINT METHOD: SOD MATS WITH BRUSH LAYER. SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE "DRIVING" IT INTO w _ _ — CLASS A STONE — — — ' TOP OF BANK THE BANK. ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE STREAM FLOW 0 FLOOD PLAIN MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90 -DEGREE ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATER FILTER FABRIC AWAY FROM THE BANK. A TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED EXISTING_ w LO Q BANKFULL STAGE ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED CHANNEL BED NOTES: Z BOULDER BY THE ROOT WAD. THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 3'X 3'X 2'. NOTES: 5' to 10' O —QLI) 1 . CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW. J W (A5 DIRECTED — =III— _— I —I I - I . TREES NOT INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE BENCH 2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS. Lu BY ENGINEER) — —III=� 77 BASEFLOW —III—III—III— I-III—III—III-I TRENCHING METHOD: PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN 3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF 5TKEAMBANK5. DO NOT EXCAVATE = — —III=I I Y�I — I I—III—III—III—III— If IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE BANK NEEDS ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS. CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE 51DE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE. 1-___ = 1= — =1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD SHOULD BE USED. THIS 2. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLING 4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW. METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION COIR MATTING. 5. GRADE SLOPES TO A MINIMUM OF 2:1 SLOPE, MAXIMUM 24" MIN. DIAMETER FOOTER LOG > 12" DIAMETER OF THE ROOT WAD. IN THIS CASE, A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED G. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT J BOULDER MINIMUM OF 1/2 OF DIAMETER UNDERNEATH THE ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE O ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL. 7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, G TO 9 INCHES THICK, LINED WITH ]0- 1 5 FEET LONG INSTALLED BELOW STREAM BED BANK AND WELL BELOW THE STKEAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES. m > 10" DIAMETER 8. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT. Z U 9. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (8' MIN.) TO ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL. CRASS SECTION VIEW 10, CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO U) EQUIPMENT UTILIZED. O J — 1 1. TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE. Q TYPICAL BANK GRADING NTs R W D FORD CROSSING z LU D NTs N T5 w TOE OF BANK NOTES: Q U) w w H I . LOG VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE OR MORE LOGS HELD IN PLACE BY EITHER BALLAST BOULDERS, DUCKBILL INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAIL ANCHORS, OR REBAR. LOGS SHALL BE OF A LENGTH AND DIAMETER SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER AND BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT z \ SEE DWG D I HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED. THE LENGTH SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE LOG IS BURIED INTO THE SOIL OF THE STREAM Q z NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE O� STREAM BANK BANK (ON ONE END) AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT -SIDED BALLAST BOULDERS MIN 20' O FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II) 4v l'2 �'IDTh SHALL BE OF SIZE 2'X 2'X I .5' OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. 2 THE VANE 5hALL INTERCEPT THE ELEVATION RHEIGHT ES BLISHED AT THErLBETWEEN /DE. AN ION CONTROL POINT MAY BEA EFT OR RIGHTSTREAMBANK/VANE INTERCEPTPO NT. THE VANE . COMPACTED SOIL LIVE STAKES TOP OF BANK INTERCEPT LOCATION MAY BE OTHERWISE DESCRIBED BY ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BANKFULL STAGE OR BY THE LENGTH AND SLOPE 0- U) LIVE CUTTINGS OF THE VANE ARM. BANKFULL IS NOT NECESSARILY THE TOP OF THE STREAM BANK SLOPE. PROJECT NUMBER: / / 20° TO 30° � BALLAST BOULDER OR DUCK BILL ANCHORS 3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THE VANE. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGE5 SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED A5 \\� \ SMALL BRANCHES / / \/�� _ _ _ _ — — AND BRUSH \ // �� NOTES: / NEEDED. 1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH \ 0 / _ j\\ j\ I . OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE LARGER BRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN. I 4. LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS: A STREAM BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE HEADER (AND FOOTER IF SPECIFIED) CHECKED: 1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH I / LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING G IN TO 18 IN OF THE COARSE AGGREGATE I OGS -EXCAVATE B. PLACE FOOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM IS MEASURED ALONG THE VANE ARM \\�/ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ ��\ // // // // // // 2. LACE SMRGER ALL RHBRANCHES OND BKU5H OVER THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) AND BACKFILL ( I " TO 5") ° WHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE THE STREAM BANK AND PROFILE. \\ ' ��\ COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO BANKFULL A C. INSTALL HEADER LOG OF THE VANE ARM ON TOP OF AND SLIGHTLY FORWARD OR BACK FROM THE FOOTER LOG. \/\/\ i // /, //\/�\ LOCK IN PLACE. 3. ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES A INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW D. NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO THE HEADER LOG U51NG A GALVANIZED NAIL WITH A PLASTIC CAP. THE SIZE AND GAGE OF NAIL AND NAIL SPACING SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. SMALL LOGS AND/OR \\ \\ \\ MIN 5.0' / / (SALIX NIGRA) AND SILKY WILLOW (SALIX 5ERICEA). WILLOW CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW E. PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE. LARGE BRANCHES WITH A BETTER ROOTING. ° LOG VANE F. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND LOGS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE LOGS ARE FILLED. G. BACKFILL REMAINDER OF VANE WITH PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL. MIN DIAMETER OF 4". SECTION A -A 4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED ° SOIL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER. O 5. IF ANY EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAM BANK/VANE INTERCEPT POINT THE 5. INSTALL I TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE ° MATTING EDGES SHALL BE NEATLY SECURED AROUND THE LOGS. CUTTINGS LAYER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER. ° LEFT OR RIGHT VANE POOL ° I ARM BANK INTERCEPT I CONTROL POINT I A FVp�N BANKFULL BALLAST BOULDER COIR MATTING OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS LEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK INTERCEPT CONTROL POINT PLAN VIEW FLOW > `7 O �/� 3% TO 7% — ` BANKFULL STREAM BANK �\ ` 1� z ` — FLO W CHANNEL TOP OF BANK � //� COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL (I " TO 5")\j\ \ POOL HEADER LOG FOOTER LOG TOE OF BANK FOOTER LOG HEADER LOG STREAM BED \/\\//\/ IN POOL PROFILE VIEW CHANNELOf AOK A NO BRO ( EN ONCDOTTY LE E1 I) VARIES\\ LOG VANE TYPICAL PLAN VIEW O'TO WIDTH \ . BRUSh TOE NT5 NTs SECTION A -A presi 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL SCALE: AS SHOWN W Q00 C) 0 � N O o z O Z) z O z O O IL 0- m m O Q z w ' 0 w LO Q Q zo Z O —QLI) LLJ U) Lu J W Q Lu ED 1-___ z i z J O Q m Z U _O U) O J — Q z LU 0 Q z LU D O w U Q U) w w H z \ W Q z O O Q 0- U) PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: D3 a2 I E LL m D w Q U) MINIML DIAMETER I Ln BANKFULL LIMITS OF PROPOSED CHANNEL PLAN VIEW COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL (2" TO G") O� A BANKFULL i i HIGH —Low LOG BURIED IN B BANK MIN 5FT POINT REFERENCED IN STRUCTURE TABLE I A' PLAN VIEW NOTES: O REBAR (1 /2" MINIMUM DIAMETER 3' MIN. LENGTH EXISTING DITCH LOG SILL EXISTING GRADE TYPICAL) SHOULD BE PLACED PTO 3' FROM END OF BANK EXISTING DITCH (SEE DETAIL) LOG. ADDITIONAL REBAR TO BE PLACED AT G' LOG STRUCTURE TOP OF BANK OFFSETS. LAST REBAR SHOULD BE PLACED I' TO 3' PROPOSED CONSERVATION D (SEE DETAIL) _ PROPOSED GRADE FROM END OF LOG. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BE EASEMENT LIMITS USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR REBAR, 2 PER LOG. --)PLAIN FLOODPLAIN SILL NTS LOW POINT REFERENCED IN STRUCTURE TABLE COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL (2" TO G") FOOTER LOG HEADER LOG LOG BURIED IN BANK MIN 5FT MIN 5FT MIN 51FT SECTIONAL VIEW A - A' PROFILE B -B' HEADER LOG INVERT ELEVATION COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL (2" TO G") 'Of UUWN51 REAM LOG MIN 5.0' 4' TO 8' O PROPOSED//��//��/ FILL DITCH SUCH THAT // THE DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION TIES INTO O OF ING/�� GRADING �/� EXISTING GRADE OF THE o B j\�� /� B FLOODPLAIN Fax: 919.829.9913 (L GRADE AREA SUCH THAT MAX SLOPE BELOW LOG LU IV �� STRUCTURE IS 1 % HEADER LOG INVERT ELEVATION J a� ill' MAX DEPTH /2 OF LOG DIAMETER D fJ VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO 40') PLAN VIEW MAX ALLOWABLE DROP OF 0.5 FT COARSE AGGREGATE ( FOOTER (0) ) ° BACKFILL (2" TO G") LOG ° 11N 3. —NON -WOVEN ' GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II) PROFILE A -A' MIN SFT nnini ccr DOUBLE LOG DROP PROFILE C -C' OVERLAP OF UPSTREAM LOG NOTES: 1 . LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED. 2. LOG DIMENSIONS: MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18' 3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" IOD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5' ALONG THE LOG CHANNEL BC--" OF COARSE BAC NON -Vv GEOTEXTILE F, (NCDOT T ROOTW/ BRU` CHANNEL TOP OF BANK 0.5%SLOPE TIE-IN TO (MAX) — EXISTING EXI5TING��'��// L FLOODPLAIN DITCH INVERT ELEVATION CONSTRUCT FLOW FILL DITCH AND POOL INSTALL COIR C,Fr'Tlnl.l A A MATTING EXISTING GROUND CUT 3:1 MAX SLOPE X X INSTALL COIR MATTING PER I MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS SECTION B -B DIEEUSE FLOW STRUCTURE NTS FLOW UFlAN EL DU I I UIV OF BANK COARSE BACKFILL FILTER FABRIC ROOTWAD OR BRU5HTOE CHANNELTOP OF BANK TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 1 ) FLOW NOTES: 1. NO FLOODPLAIN GRADING IS ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FT OF THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP OF BANK. 2. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10'-20' LONG AND AT LEAST 8 INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND HARDWOOD. 3: 1 MAX SLOPE -FILL DITCH PROPOSED STREAM BED FLOW MIN. 5.0' AGGREGATE WITHTO 5"" DIAE 3 NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TACK FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II) TO LOG TYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 2) HEADER LO FOOTER LO NTS LOG SILL NT5 REBAR OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR BACKFILL WITH COARSE AGGREGATE ( I " TO 5" DIA.) POOL APPROX. 0.75TO 1 .5' DEEP HEADER LOG FOOTER LOG OVERLAP OF DOWNSTREAM LOG SECTION B -B (OPT 1) PROPOSED STREAM BANK I% TO 3% SECTION B -B (OPT 2) _R, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.) REBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.) NOTES: I . LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED. 2. LOG DIMENSIONS: MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18' NAIL FILTER FABRIC U51NG 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1 .5' ALONG THE LOG 3. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR. presi 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL SCALE: AS SHOWN W Q 00 C) 0 F— N O o J Z O Z) z O z O O IL z LUcr LU LO Q Q z o Z O (n LLJ U) Q LU J W Q Lu ED 2i Ir Cc 0- W � 7Q Z Z J QO m Q Z U _O U) Q z G > w 0 Q Z Nw w U Q � W w z F— U Q Z_ LU O c U Cc 0- (n 0 PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: D4 c m E L m 0 w Q U) LU J_ L LINE POST BARBED OR ELECTRIC WIRE I G' MAX. LINE POST 4" TO G" WOVEN WIRE GROUND LINE WOVEN WIRE WITri ONE BARB DETAIL LINE POST WOVEN WIRE: ASTM CLASS 3 GALVANIZED. TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE. INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN. 12 112 GAUGE. NOTES: I . LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 4 IN. DIAM. OR 4 IN, SQUARE. 2. LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U, OR Y SHAPED, WITH ANCHOR PLATES. 3. MIN. WEIGHT 1.3 LBS./FT. (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BE DRIVEN A MINIMUM OF 16' DEEP AND MUST BE AT LEAST 5.5 FT IN LENGTH 4. SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIES SUCH AS RED CEDAR, BLACK LOCUST OR OSAGE-ORANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, OR NON -DURABLE WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS./CUBIC FOOT CCA, OR EQUIVALENT NON -CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED PINE. CLASS B RIP RAF WOVEN WIRE FENCE (NRCS DETAIL 3(52A) NTS I 15ER MAT INSTALLED �ALLEL I FILTER I ;ARRIAGE BOLT TIMBER MAT (-IYF) !`�IADGF A/`/`DF/`ATF NOTES: I . 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'. G. WHEN REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE PIPE MATERIAL AND COVER MEET H-20 LOADING REQUIREMENTS. presi 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, INC 27605 CULVERT 1.01 UNLESS NOTED INSTALL CLAY PLUG 2 FEET FLOW LOG OR ROCK SILL TIMBER MAT INSTALLED Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us OTHERWISE BY ENGINEER BELOW CULVERT INVERT SET TOP OF SILL I FT. PERPENDICULAR SCALE: AS SHOWN ABOVE CULVERT INVERT SECTION VIEW Q00 PLAN VIEW NOTES: C) MIN I . TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARY COARSE AGGREGATE N O o CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDY J ARES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND TO CROSS THE d Z MIN 3' CARRIAGE BOLT TIMBER MAT STREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS. O' U U V V v O O O O O v O v gv O O v V O O O O O O" O L O O O O O O O (TYP) INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR 2. THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN FLOW IS O - O O O O EARTH FILL COVERED BY O !7 O O ^ O O n O C O CLASS B RIP RAP TIMBER MAT TOP OF BANK INSTALLED PARALLEL LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF THE CHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING THE O C LARGE ANGULAR ROCK • O C C APPROACHES OR CROSSING. > CC)) ) C O C O O// 0 0 0 0 I L z O O 3. THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CROSS THE O C 0- O O \\ \\\\\\\\\\\ / A�/ �y �/ �/ �/ �/ �� // // // // // \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\� \//\//\\\\\\ m m STREAM OR CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE TIMBER MAT EXTENDS PAST THE TOP OF BANK ON O < O O Q Z O O O w EACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A SUP f ICI ENT DISTANCE TO SUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USING THE < 0 O O CROSSING. � � O LO Q Q zo Z O LLJ U)Lu Lu J W Q > W J W �O FILTER FABRIC \\\ 4. STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER O O OOO O O O O O O C O OOOO O O C TOE OF BANK C �0,_\0r�0n0n0 0C) n0 Or\O- D C) n_ O O�O�O�O�O�O�O� (TYP) APPROXIMATE BASE FLOW THE STREAM BANKS. TIMBER MAT STREAM APPROACHES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHS i Z J WATER SURFACE ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS. 10' MIN. Q 10' MIN. m 5. STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALL 7 Q BE CONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVER U SECTION VIEW FILTER FABRIC. STREAM CHANNEL G. ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BE LOG OR ROCK SILL COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE CROSSING TOP OF BANK SET TOP OF SILL I IT. O J IS REMOVED. _ ABOVE CULVERT INVERT Q z PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING PLAN VIEW LU NT5 TIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSING NT5 z LU presi 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, INC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL SCALE: AS SHOWN W Q00 C) 0 N O o J Z O U Z) VJ Z O// I L z O O IL 0- m m O Q Z w 0 w LO Q Q zo Z O (n LLJ U)Lu Lu J W Q > W J W LL] Z i Z J O Q m Q Z U _O U) O J _ Q z F__ LU 0 Q z LU D �O w U)U w w H Z U Q Z LU O O Q 0- U) PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: D5 c m E LL m 0 w Q U) LU J_ U_ BF LOG BURIED IN SECTION A -A' NOTES: STREAM BED ELEVATION CT BACKFILL MATERIAL OF COARSE AGGREGATE #5 STONE) I . LOGS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS AS FOLLOWS: MIN DIAM = 10" MIN LENGTH = 30' 2. ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, AND LIMBS SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH. 3. FOOTER LOGS/BOULDERS ARE LOGS/BOULDER PLACED TO PROVIDE A FOUNDATION AND SCOUR PROTECTION FOR THE HEADER LOGS/BOULDERS. 4. HEADER LOGS/BOULDERS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS/BOULDERS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 5. HEADER LOGS ARE THE TOP MOST LOGS USED IN EACH LOG STRUCTURE. ALL HEADER LOGS CAN BE SEEN PROTRUDING FROM THE WATER SURFACE DURING EXTREMELY LOW FLOWS. G. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTING LOGS WHERE SCOUR POOLS ARE ANTICIPATED TO FORM AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL. 7. SILL LOGS SHALL BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO THE BANKFULL FLOW DIRECTION. 8. THE FOOTER LOGS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE SILL LOG TO THE END OF THE HEADER LOG TOWARD THE BANK. 9. HOOK BOULDERS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE HEADER LOG TO BEYOND BANKFULL WIDTH. 10. SET INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS. 1 1. HEADER LOG SHALL TIE INTO THE STREAM BANK AT A MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 4 DMAX (MEASURED AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE) BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION AND A MINIMUM ELEVATION OF z DMAX (MEASURE AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE) BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 12. CUTTING OF THE SILL LOG ROOTWAD BAY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT THE ROOTWAD FROM PROTRUDING ABOVE THE BANKFULL ELEVATION. 13. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN I INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING LOGS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH LIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE. 14. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN I INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING BOULDERS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES. 15. ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE LOGS AND/OR BOULDERS, NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN IN PLANVIEW AND IN SECTION B -B'. PLACE SELECT BACKFILL FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG AND BOULDER HOOK. I G. BACKFILL STRUCTURE WITH SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL AS SHOWN SHOWN IN PLANVIEW AND IN SECTION B -B'. 17. SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT OF THE MATERIAL IS KEPT TO A MINIMUM. 18. NAIL NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE USING 3" 1 OD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL AS SHOWN IN THE GEOTEXTILE PLACEMENT AND SELECT BACKFILL DETAIL. LOG J -HOOK NTS FLOW NON -WOVE GEOTEXTILE `ABR (NCDOT TYPE SILL LOG OR ROOT WAD LIVE STAKES (TYP.) SOIL BACKFILL SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II) BANKFULL IIEW o HEADER LOG SMALL POOL, TYP LARGE COBBLE/SMALL BOULDERS, TYP 4.0' CHANNEL 4.0' _ TYP _ BOTTOM WIDTH TYP TOP OF BANK STREAMBED FOOTER LOG 4.0' (TYP) t5V I I VM W1 L) I h 14.0' (TYP) RIFFLE MATERIAL TOP OF BANK PROPOSED TOE OF BANK o o z \GLIDE _ O / A RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL MIX OF #5/#57 STONE, SURGE S5TONE AND NATIVE UBSTRATE MATERIAL LU LOGS/WOODY DEBRIS SMALL POOL RIF GRADE CONTROL ROCK LARGE COBBLE/ CROSS SECTION A -A' 50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND SMALL BOULDERS B RIPRAP RIFFLE MATERIAL RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL LOGS/WOODY MIX OF #5/#57 STONE, DEBRIS z SURGE STONE AND NATIVE o _ R N o SUBSTRATE MATERIAL 41 4 TOP OF BANK MIN VARIES MIN END RIFFLE CONTROL PIOINT� Ff PROPOSED TOP OF BANK TOE OI PLAN VIEW FLOW ► FLOW END tIFFLE CONTROL POINT THALWEG _ THALWEG LOGS/WOODY GRADE CONTROL ROCK CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE DEBRIS 50/50 B RPRAPX OF CLASS A AND PROFILE NTS BANKFULL DITCH TOP C BAI` COMPACTED `ILL— DITCH BO OF BANK EXISTING MIN GROUND 5.0' � /v\ �VAi;AAj/\ COMPACTED FILL WOODY DEBRIS FILL (LOGS, BRANCHES, AND BRUSH) COMPACTED WITH SOIL TO PROPOSED GRADE. MIN I' // A TYPICAL PLAN VIEW PROPOSED GROUND DOWN VALLEY LENGTH VARIES (TYP I O' TO 20') EXISTING DITCH INVERT COMPACTED FILL NOTES: I . 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 BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.21 . 3. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B RIPRAP. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES. 4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND WOOD. THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF #5 / #57 STONE, SURGE STONE AND NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE -USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. OTHERWISE ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, "RIVER -TYPE" ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS 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 UPSTREAM POOL -GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT "DROP" (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAM RUN -POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS. G. 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) OF THE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOT BE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE. /7-\7777 ,�\\' WOODY DEBRIS FILL (LOGS, BRANCHES, AND BRUSH) COMPACTED WITH SOIL TO PROPOSED GRADE. EXISTING DITCH INVERT PROFILE VIEW BRUSH BED SILL NTS PROPOSED GROUND 12" MIN DIAM. HARDWOOD LOG; MIN LENGTH = 20' W/. NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (TYP.) Presl 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL SCALE: AS SHOWN ui Q00 C) 0 � N O o J Z O H Z) Z O z O O IL 0- it m O 0 Z w 0 w LO Q Q zo z OU) —QLI) LLJ Lu J W Q > W J Lu LL] U) Q Z Z J O Q m Z U _O U) O J _ Q z LU C � 0 Q Z LU D �O w U � � w w H Z U Q Z_ LU O c U 0- U) 0 PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: D6 E L m 0 Uj Q U) LJ J L Presl 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Main: 919.829.9909 Fax: 919.829.9913 www.res.us SEAL SCALE: AS SHOWN Iii Q 00 C) 0 N O o J z O U Z) z O z O O IL 0- m it O Q z L1J 0 o L1J Q Q zo z OU) -QLI) LLJ Lu J W Q > W J W LL] vJ Q Z Z J O Q m � Q Z U _O ~ ~ U) O _ Q �-- z 2i > w 0 2 Q Z LU 0 O w U Q � w w F-- z F- U Q Z_ LU O 0 U 0- U o PROJECT NUMBER: 0381 PROJECT MANAGER: CSC DESIGNED: AFM DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: AFM SHEET NUMBER: D7 Appendix B — Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information v 4 �, " t VP2El T i gk A, IL " . w—A—E Existing Vegetation Survey Plot Locations Scout Mitigation Site 0 175 350 Davie County, North Carolina Legend Vegetation Plots Streams Proposed Easement ® Wetlands Date: 5/21/2018 Drawn by: EWT res =s v - o o e G f \ � a � 1r� �' fi tt �. � !a � �e�� •� �1`�,. ate„ !\ p\ va V5 � uiN N_ V7 cu N T N 0 n N Z v < mLn o C ii W N MctS F- U ct ct CIO ct CN CC y V C u� LA +y L7 H m LA N v • � 6 G V) H i o c. a• 9 �+ cu z + a v M 0 C N N O CD t � Q S e a s ♦ r C i C � c � h a Z m ert C v o E a V u u ai F- O ❑ CL = us Y m ]G z i!S 7 O� 4-- o ° 3 o = ti. � cd twc o u �n o m ma' "' u a j s cu L N �. .,y + ,.._b ) i \ 0 LL LL Ln O Q -O Cry 2 S 3> j3 J ? , lll(JJJ �3.+ � 3` wJ 7 � a L 0 w N_ fB � cQ1 C n II as = � E u p N O LU II � O � ~ II tt ct c � ? LucC ^ c O 1 N z LA E Ln N Ln N I E C T C3 V-1 N U! `n o ai z z Y a E O O J JO Q C - n 'v 0 M m ; cmc^ rCs O c , L/) Ln SZE E cC L a. 7a o v `nlid E c03 Ln o U a tw I� v IA C O ..� u- � a i r.fir 41 gipCA, Protocol for Existing Conditions Vegetation Surveying Plot Selection and Setun Survey multiple plots on-site, which together are representative of all ecotypes present within the easement boundaries. Each plot is a 5m X 20m belt transect, positioned parallel to the channel in the floodplain or adjacent upland. Take a GPS point at the origin and set the bounds with 5m as the "x-axis" and 20m as the "y-axis." Set the plot with the y-axis as the side parallel to the stream channel. Record the y-axis azimuth to allow for future resampling. Conclude selection and set-up with a representative photo of the plot taken from the origin. Data Collection Identify each plant in the plot to the species level. Sort and measure tree species by height class and diameter at breast height (DBH). Count seedlings <54in (137cm) in height into height categories 0-9cm, 10-50cm, 51-100cm, or 101-137cm. Count saplings >54in (137cm) in height into DBH categories 0-lcm, 1-2.5cm, 2.5-5cm, or 5-12.7cm. Measure the DBH of all trees >5in (12.7cm) DBH. Shrubs, vines, and herbaceous taxa receive an estimation of their percent cover over the substrate within the plot. If the personnel are unable to identify to the species level, collect voucher photos and/or specimen(s) for later identification. Record these on the data sheet as UNK-1, UNK-2, etc. Data Processing Begin processing collected data by identifying the unknown species observed from voucher photos and specimen(s) collected. When species present are sufficiently identified, use the dominant canopy species assemblages and ecological region to identify a habitat type from Schafale (2012). Calculate both basal area and stems per acre for each plot surveyed using the formulas below. These metrics help to inform the existing conditions of the canopy on-site and inform the development of the project's planting plan. Basal Area Formula: Basal area of each tree (m2) = 0.00007854 X (DBHcm)2 Basal area of plot (m2/ha) = (sum of basal areas for all trees in plot) X 100 •100 is to scale up from our 0.01ha plot to lha Stems per Acre Formula: Stems/Acre = (# of stems)/0.02471 y Q d E L a m V _O 0 s Q L- 0 O C jO U O N M @ Om U a m m 7 7 N N Z 2 U U C co O O U U Z Z O LO O N O n 0 W O M O N LA t-? O !XO 7 M N N r- n ILo V ON M N N 6 N (1) O 00 M N N LO 00 C Im 'y M („) p N r Ln M O O @ i.? O (000 Co LO O00 M M W a) 2 W 0 0 0 N N 0 0 V W Q C m O O N M rI'l � M O A N °I 0) LO N N � � M M � O j N lf N N X m X m 2 LOO N W O M N w O M co LO N W O N l0 N N (0 O > (NO (0 0 O O) (0 OO N (0 O p W U O M (? O O O C C M N O n co O LO n n x A M M N 0 O M W N N 2 co O N M N U M' O L V U O -p C N N O O W m N rnn(OOMLO (O�OO E O_ N V O O LO O h c�i O r O 00 O N OU� V N M m N 6 ON A A R (XO IL 7 U O O h M O 7 V M O LO M m @ N (� p N M m lX0 OO V O N O LO N O N M 7 N N N C p Co N LOO N 0 0 O O w m N M h h N N 1O N N co O LO c N t Y 0) p 7 0 011� 0 7 CO XU� MM Cl)LO o V X O O M N 7 m O) L) a N N (° 0 LOd) 0 7 r 7 O 0: 0) @ I T N (p O r- V 10 N (O O 00 L7 LO > 00 0 N r CO N 00 X M C. 0 O O � W O (O C0 O O N V( C2 7. W M � V N W r W 00 N� A � (G (7 � Oj O M C O 'L h LO O of W' A N V NE U U U m L L L 0) 7 L_ O E E E L d L_ L LL _ L L L? m m d m 01 O N U m 01 N U I-- -O C t C C0 O V° O d co L C 76, C C C C U C C C O) 0) a a t t m L a` > ❑ ❑ E (p +' m m E 01 O ❑❑❑ LO 00 N j 7 i6 -5 'o >> N J 01 N J J 0) m J� m J 0 (n J O 0 rn T O m U y U N- N (0 C O LL C m m m X m m a W ❑ L 0) C L O U S y - U N m U j@ m m �_ C m O� 0_ 0 0 i .d+ N C U m CMU U C C❑❑❑ U LL N E 'O N C 0) C O U 'O a (� a _� �' m `m m C N (� m 0) N (/i m m N O C m ❑ C N "0 0) m a° i> L co 7 L ❑ ❑ Z 7>> N S 0 W LL L a 01 C O R U co U O U U N o U m O m `0 0 _O ° IL a' c cc U U a 0 � OO - - C m R 07 a O d U C) C) O Z Z N y d w Li D OmLI d d Q O N M @ Om U a m m 7 7 N N Z 2 U U C co O O U U Z Z Scout Reach HC3 DA (ac) 810 DA (sqmi) 1.27 Ex.Conds XSs — QBKF 87 FFQ Analysis Q1.1 95 Q1.5 154 Q2 196 Q10 454 Piedmont Regional Curves NC-QBKF (1) 108 NC-QBKF (2) 106 VA-QBKF 55 SCS (Hydraflow Hydrographs with 6 hour duration and a PSF of 484) Ql 79 Q2 144 Q5 274 Q10 395 Q25 578 SCS (Hydraflow Express with 24 hour duration and a PSF of 484) Ql 295 Q2 474 Q5 775 Q10 1029 Q25 1397 USGS RR Eqns (Region 1) Q2(1996 EQNS) 169 Q2(2001 EQNS) 159 Q2 184 Q5 342 Q10 460 Q25 619 Q50 761 Recommended Design Flows = Qbnkfull 90 — QBKF / FFQ Q1.1 0.912 Hydraflow Avg 111 FFQ Ql.l 0.94 RC 0.85 0 0 N LO 0 0 Q 0 0 U- ao N X � — y � Y m M U 2 m H X p o a t V Q Id Q' c 'o �I L 1 O O N O O U� O O O O O O U� O OO G7 O O LO 0) CO (14) O O O 00 UOIjena13 O U? 00 00 O O 00 W O U? 00 00 O O 00 CO O U� O 00 G R L r.+ N C 3 0 0 O V LO M o a 0 Q 0 0 Lr) LL N O O a_ N M Cl) X — y � Y 0 CO N m M U 2 H X D ° �- a s V ca a I d Q' a c 'o C7 0 1 O LO In O O O LO'tM O O O LO O m m O O O m O M O (4) O N O uol;ena13 O m O N O O m O O O m O O m O O O m m O 0 M O M N Q N O a- 0 O O LL M N � - M cn X y � V Y CO m M U 2 H X p' o LO a � Q s m Id a c 'o o � LO O O O M O O O O O O O r O co O) O O LO O (4) O V O uol;ena13 O O M N O O O O K t r •`r w fC r N i 3 0 ca a� L Q LO N O N a) a` a) 0 a 0 0 _ U- N N Y Cl) v x m N ❑ i U Q U CL v C) I R a� a 0 (7 O O O OLq OU) O In T C") co N N rn rn rn(11) UOIIBA013 C L N C 3 0 ri d L Ch Q LO N O N 5D a` N O d O O _ LL O � — M y w C V Y x ca m N ❑ i = Q U � o I v R a� a 0 (7 Lo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I-- O DC7 V co N O O O') O') O') O') m0' 07 m 00 (11) uORBA013 "-AL. ..........�e u C L N C 3 0 ri d L Ch Q LO N O N 5D a` N O d O O _ LL O � — M y w C V Y x ca m N ❑ i = Q U � o I v R a� a 0 (7 Lo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I-- O DC7 V co N O O O') O') O') O') m0' 07 m 00 (11) uORBA013 0 v LO M C) a ° O Q O N LL T M X y � Y o m CV _ U H X o a t m m a LOa Id c 'o C7 0 1 O O O O O O O O Il- O LO V O O O O O O O O O O O co O (11) UOIJen313 O O O O NO O O O O O N A 00 C1 l— �c l— M V1 O\ 00 kn 0000 L CQ F G� 4 L� L^ i. � Az t— 00 r 00 N r-- a1 r, oo t� cC w en U� o7 d, M r, kn z � w V L u C A .fir .11 O a u c. L C i ^O N r in r 00 a e I� u v V _ 13J V `s p bE L �L 'o $� .�If. u Ln" {Ep T q d L V r^ OiB '1 v w'N au�i mo ti'm� a`" n=fpmp nm > {gyp d c32 "wE gi w'�ygn O EFIR Fc - a E N 9 C n A 9_ d a �qq nq a w O 8 9 $ a o W J g O 8 z jj N N p'12 0 m - O F6 C .'S oo E m whyy 'p8 E9 Ey`dE 2, ^ 9�m 9 E $ a ma mbti2 e t ,8&T 2N q-'aam "ww qwy m g�S E di4� cEc� _Bq E EN�ow =8ffiy;w 2EkiE '^xp i a 5 o V m 2 g E '� d �' T �y g c` 2 $'8 a PL E o m$ 9y� d o it d o E E w E $ w$ o m$ ti w o m E p @ o E$ E@ y 2 c $ Wi E ggE-� � c a L'' Cgd, '$Qg ggyyg�� w w c.wtl 'F `gyp m m 35; E9 o g F E J 5 E u E E$ L S Sy 1.2 c g E m rv$ ZEE y o- � 1p E E a' V y 3 t o mo. m&Ew ggE�� ME -8,mr 9 0 V C k a Eo< w g y C d yw E' n w 5 Gy N 2. _T C d N V 3 .q @ E a g m.E a a d N g> E g w¢ E &$' V 4C. o> N o`w `o ti gcy- aca.R �c 'R .c jd�- ki m Tn- �i 83m E 0 3 w$ o m a b@d$$ gg 92 E u E$$ i$ g O m �E m v w $ O L c _ $ E v $ E g E p Y' E E V3L^S a yq h i m0 a .sign Y If d yn p y� Na u E E P F E c 2 16 m z a 3 E $ mao u LL U W W 2 d ?i p Et 1 „I de w y T j W$ E ffi E o ma m g g m E E m g w g a o c o ERE s� °$Eamy Nag` 3� �g$;FdF�y`a �g'na Edomi g'�gai • m > 5 E �� Sy5 b'�w5 La E' w 0oc Bg t00m%$ E c ;c noE °E 21E EEW 9muc E Ka E 3 B c ° E E L" c o ._ � Q o $ g.c� w dE E '�'o yy 4 4 'n 3 E Y."u n�9c Sg ffi g«p@p8p g� E a S =' m {�� d E m 9 A `� � �d8 X008 °3.E wmiy�� Em C C •� 10 m d d 8 y 8�s a 2 $ o E o a E ffi i c� a £¢aa.E Bim`6 o g w c s a 22 wEI.'s o WB22 n E 3 � ffi g .P E o 'anw m ''gffig u EN g W .�affi E SSa $ 1 he m5 E cm w'w >^ E o B78 S H y E E '. m8Ey, dc._aE �i d — OZ.tam o. U m E E 3 3 «m a` « d a 8 `w s Z m 5 q C m c c t m d of C6 „I cAI m E 8 y n m yti m -,j m E �nm >N @ C _ gSI q G o ms E m s. °mom°.Wffi rocN ' `� mN >..mcnmc `'mc `m EBp'°�i.E1° ¢ E a�✓_9�>. &L`. 2.Ea ¢E'S .'F ¢a @'d cg Egg '$'ffii 2 °c $ $ 3�mN J'v.4� 3 n Uo3mE`o_': TSB wEs �'i ¢mm� gffiYiSi c .tc S Y'ci5ama �m�o >.�n mrvm�'�o m�mc=c daAE ii m'-° y ao.`o dlls 8 no ° 5 m o` k Q.� m .2 .� 11 x '�p g 5 $ w v g C m e c H .ffi a ffim.E ��3 m E y m k y 5 3 0 y m Elf mv u E n ^ o u g E m go E� PRO 2 25, m2 i g k m d v p 8 9 m$ y u a w i n= g A£ a 11 3 i E m> m c U q 1 g c` g N O 'c s o v .s r' m m ffi E d g E @ m w.v p g fri $ B->' �.a mm go °Em mwt� kgkw gV �qq�55 g* y S.8 ud $ a°@ u v EEry $ = z 3g $ER E m Em�d Ov� E m. m��gNE m kg�Is nmg a }�nnE v m� Emnp k to 3 a 8' Z m i ¢ z m>O E LL E 3 m u ¢ v � c m A $ S n FYI 4 p a m m N t7 d N tL G N I` � ml m 2 'd C V 'E spp a X =go 5 O�E'� �Ep O y�p�'3 �4 Wrno oasERS °E�mm m i 3 5 y ¢ -z g 'w¢ m migo �" ig E 'gV @DiO 9$'�.9m00 u�>W•gy�y"Si�°'p�> s(ffEj m,�aym, c�E Z s a 0 .°c`W�o 20q2a 0 0 vi§a m l$ F E Yt tivoi E=��5 0= E Ntt'� zO W �'E E ^� o A.t, .E C� E g c Si F o c €$. � h o_gg 8= - a- E o V W� o c 0 B .� m E W o c F i E 3 �.P. gg N '= o E m 01 � aL x10 rt. o E E o Wa� E E .-. c E �E .4 m I Q E E w x 9 i 8 o o E E .4 & 0 3 '0 .9 u' 9 � 0 K g 1U a x'x Eyvm W0 R.m:i a '�g$@'g�iS ti$ � m'g S ana jyy n ° o$ y o W 3 E_o 3y�� y W B m E n U E x u 6 m c° E p y o E'ca`So ¢ o b 0 m m `o E3" y O K 0 > YO�L00 W E I u a i 1O t R F m T yy Q yA a ' O 3.2 y0 p y 1d 3 L f { O L g846 O EM. m v o`0V a98'10 �k E E Z P 012 0 U "x mL ai E E$ B=EgcLE 3 w a` .. a 0>$ A W'�m "Jz 0 8 o z i m �' .� m a 3 0 m E n c 8 e a ; m bq EE f C j W W 9 > W N W 2 n L J b ¢ OpQ °1 °1 yCx 6 N (7 II E S m mELp ogc E•i` c@osv m $ `-"FE �U�@ Lp °S§ "'� £o L �m8in 'i .-qac Yci m EE 9hE mB m c >� Emma4 gYgg Amo€m�E ��`°¢• o .€ @ w E ac._� '� aE+w $cuq E '•= s' 3 mmgm mE�=E Eu4 3F��.e E L m=c E'E >; 0 .4 E rt E mo a S q �.p E '" V yLL°11 1 3 a° 2O m2ga > m °gti $� c> E E 3 -m g u F E y n w FsF co co m 5= n E g N $` b k � E 2$$ i-$� N R u 9$1 pp q m v momma r LL E E B �Lq . OPO y T 8 E p F C yO C C 7 M q V r°'m f d ppq ijq wE s u°i m - `?u �$'q hid c �qN T 33@E92 12 '� F's �m a� El2$rQ .[g4q[55F �g gc w 0O1am ao: ¢v'3�a a§O u u E3$$�omc Om m v p E 8 w Ev % �tmm3 .$ •n E `n egg u. LL 2'�E H o ?� "S zU.� X2�p.2 ; •. O m m g2 o��E 2 as 90 ��'ag2 E$pW �i$ td �pp m3pp� m 12 2� i d2 q� $ i Q n 'c ^@ Ea a 2g E mm n X m p OYY6�� 3i q N t7 OO i I° 1 a d LD L) o � "� ✓ 1. .L N O •` N O N 0 C 11�// n f� N m Nd d �I yp3� !?' W m ?. U D Q. C O k T y .w L N L 0 Ca- N O� m N i o a a i$> � o L 0 3 E c �, $ N o c y a E ami a. a m o o E N w N d m c _% c° rn '' n i `o E i •�'-° c c -y as -Mo mm i o y�0 c y m o x o .4 m��'E w oymU� p�E .o v NmE �mv m v+ y c3mv0 E owm n_ N ca m > amm �R c = 3 C'cm NomOo c y L E d a m m o a`0 Z ¢ u0 a u- 'm c° 3 j N a C O m Z of C m C 'm m c d r N o `m a ° .`9 ° ° o f L o c ; N c. -0— ui E r o 3 c o is 5i p o 0 `o N 5 9 rn v c d 7 L xa m m E&-omaa °E� c w O c�a T i 6 .? Appendix C —Site Protection Instrument February 23, 2018 Cara Conder Resource Environmental Solutions 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Dear Ms. Conder, To Save This letter confirms that Resource Environmental Solutions has agreed to engage Unique Places to Save ("UP2S"), a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization located in the State of North Carolina, as the conservation easement grantee and long-term steward for the Scout ("Site") located in Davie County, North Carolina. As the conservation easement grantee and long-term steward, UP2S has agreed to and shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are enforced and maintained. Specific responsibilities include: • Monitoring of Site is conducted on an annual basis. • An on-site inspection is conducted once per year. • Visits to Site are coordinated with landowner when possible. • Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible. • Signage for the easement boundary is maintained. • Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are promptly communicated to the landowner. Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX), LLC shall act as Bank Sponsor of the Site. UP2S shall receive a stewardship endowment in the amount of $41,502.47 to ensure annual Site inspections occur and that the terms of the conservation easement are legally defended into perpetuity. As the bond obligee for the construction and monitoring phase of the Scout Site, we agree to abide by the terms of the bond agreement(s) in the event that Resource Environmental Solutions fails to perform or no longer exists. The fee for this is $2000 for construction bond and $1000 for the monitoring bond. David Harper, Executive Director Unique Places To Save 1/25/2018 Representative Signature Resource Environmental Solutions Printed Name Date PO Box 1183 , Chapel Hill, NC 27514 585-472-9498 infoQuniqueplacestosave.orq Unique Places to Save Annual Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment Scout Mitigaton Easement - CONFIDENTIAL Annual Monitoring Staff time to monitor mitigation easement, including file review, travel time, on site time, post visit report production Staff time needed to address minor violations or issues Mileage Meal Costs Insurance Accepting and Defending the Easement in Perpetuity Staff time for major violations Legal Counsel Other Incidentals Units Hours Cost/Unit Frequency Annual Cost 14 acres 7 $ 60.00 Annual $ 420.00 N/A 10 $ 600.00 Once every 10 yrs. $ 60.00 196.4 N/A $ 0.54 Annual $ 105.07 1 N/A $ 20.00 Annual $ 20.00 1 N/A $ 100.00 N/A $ 100.00 Total Annual Funding Amount $ 705.07 Capitalization Rate 3.00% Monitoring Endowment $23,502.33 N/A 50 60 N/A $ 3,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 10,000.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 5,000.00 Monitoring Endowment $ 18,000.00 Monitoring DefenseTotal and Legal Unique Places To Sage Unique Places To Save Property Monitoring Report 2017 I. PROPERTY INFORMATION • NAME OF PROPERTY: • PROPERTY ACREAGE: DATE EASEMENT GRANTED: • DATE OF ANY EASEMENT AMENDMENT(S): • OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFORMATION • GENERAL PROPERTY LOCATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (acreage, general biophysical characteristics, land/resource use): • DESCRIPTION OF AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN, FEATURES OR RESTRICTIONS (building envelopes, areas of intensive management, riparian areas, access points, historic, etc.) II. MONITORING INFORMATION DATE(S) OF INSPECTION: • GENERAL WEATHER CONDITIONS (temp, cloud cover, precip): • IF AVAILABLE, APPROXIMATE PRECIPITATION TOTAL FOR PREVIOUS YEAR: LIST ALL PERSONS ATTENDING INSPECTION: TIME SPENT ON INSPECTION: hours • WAS THE OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE CONTACTED PRIOR TO INSPECTION? Y N Unique Places I To Save Owner Manager/Representative Name(s) Address City, State, Zip Phone Email • GENERAL PROPERTY LOCATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (acreage, general biophysical characteristics, land/resource use): • DESCRIPTION OF AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN, FEATURES OR RESTRICTIONS (building envelopes, areas of intensive management, riparian areas, access points, historic, etc.) II. MONITORING INFORMATION DATE(S) OF INSPECTION: • GENERAL WEATHER CONDITIONS (temp, cloud cover, precip): • IF AVAILABLE, APPROXIMATE PRECIPITATION TOTAL FOR PREVIOUS YEAR: LIST ALL PERSONS ATTENDING INSPECTION: TIME SPENT ON INSPECTION: hours • WAS THE OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE CONTACTED PRIOR TO INSPECTION? Y N Unique Places I To Save DID THE OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE ACCOMPANY MONITOR? Y N WAS THE EASEMENT REVIEWED PRIOR TO INSPECTION? Y N WAS THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED SINCE THE LAST REPORT? Y N o IF YES: DEED FROM: DEED TO: IS THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY FOR SALE? r=011 III. MONITOR OBSERVATIONS • NATURAL AND/OR AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVED. Note any rare species. • DESCRIBE CURRENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE WITHIN THE EASEMENT: • LIST AND DESCRIBE ANY MANAGEMENT CHANGES SINCE LAST INSPECTION. Describe the activity or alteration. Note location and extent. Document with maps, photos, and/or illustrations. ♦ AGRICULTURAL/OPERATIONAL CHANGES: ♦ LAND USE CHANGES: ♦ ECOSYSTEM/SPECIES PRESERVATION: ♦ SCIENTIFIC (research, surveys, etc.): ♦ RECREATIONAL OR EDUCATIONAL: ♦ WILDLIFE OR HABITAT MANAGEMENT/RESTORATION: ♦ EXOTICS OR DISEASE CONTROL: ♦ OTHER: • LIST AND DESCRIBE ANY MAN -INDUCED ALTERATIONS SINCE LAST INSPECTION. Describe the activity or alteration. Note location and extent. Document with maps, photos, and/or illustrations. ♦ CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS, STRUCTURES OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS: ♦ EROSION OR OTHER SOIL DISTURBANCE: ♦ OHV/ORV USE: ♦ FERAL ANIMALS AND/OR EXOTIC PLANTS: ♦ TRESPASSING AND/OR BOUNDARY ENCROACHMENT: ♦ TRASH DUMPING AND/OR VANDALISM: Unique Places To Sage ♦ CONTINUAL OVERUSE: ♦ DISEASE (plant or animal): ♦ POLLUTION: ♦ DEFERRED REQUIRED MAINTENANCE: ♦ OTHER: • DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES AND/OR ACTIVITIES PERMITTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EASEMENT. Such as construction of buildings, facilities, general improvements, roads, water infrastructure. Include all reserved rights exercised since last inspection. Note location and extent and any changes and/or activities and attach maps, photos, and/or illustrations as necessary. • DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THE EASEMENT. Such as construction of buildings, facilities, general improvements, roads, water infrastructure. Note location and extent and any changes and/or activities and attach maps, photos, and/or illustrations as necessary. • NOTE ANY OBSERVED CHANGES IN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP OR CONDITION. NOTE ANY CONTACT WITH NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS. • LANDOWNER/REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS. Include any landowner/representative comments specifically related to the terms of the conservation easement and changes in land use or management. IV. SUMMARY, STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • SUMMARY. Provide a brief narrative. Information from previous reports must be incorporated if available. Include impressions of long-term trends and conditions of the site. • STATUS OF COMPLIANCE. o NO VIOLATION(S) OF EASEMENT TERMS OBSERVED o UNSURE DUE TO THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EVALUATION o SOME EVIDENCE OR ACTIVITIES WERE OBSERVED WHICH MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE EASEMENT • SUGGEST ANY ACTIONS THAT SHOULD BETAKEN ASA RESULT OF THIS SITE MONITORING VISIT: INFORMATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR 2013 MONITORING VISIT: V. MONITOR CONTACT INFORMATION NAME: TITLE: Unique Places To Sage ADDRESS: PHONE: EMAIL: SIGNATURE OF MONITOR: DATE: *This report is a record of one person's observations during one visit. It is not intended to be a statement of landowner compliance of the conservation easement. VI. DESCRIPTION OF ENCLOSURES AND ATTACHMENTS Indicate the number of the following items accompanying this report: Aerial photos Ground photos Maps and Illustrations Additional documentation Other If attachments are separated from this report, note their location: Unique Places ON I To Save VIII. PHOTODOCUMENTATION LIST Fill in the table below for all photos taken during the monitoring site visit. Also attach a map showing the location where the photo(s) were taken. UTM Northing UTM Easting Photo # Photopoint Description (meters) (meters) Unique Places I To Save Unique Pisces — TO Save Unique Places To Save Stewardship Monitoring Procedures and Guidelines Unique Places To Save (UP2Save) is dedicated to upholding and defending the conservation values of the easements it holds. An important aspect of achieving this is to conduct our stewardship monitoring practices in a professional, accurate, and efficient manner. The following procedures and guidelines will help ensure that staff will have the guidance and expertise to properly monitor UP2Save's conservation easements. UP2Save's stewardship monitoring procedures and guidelines are separated into three stages: (1) pre -monitoring due diligence; (2) monitoring of the easement property; and (3) post -monitoring due diligence. Each stage in the monitoring process is crucial in employing sound monitoring practices and creating accurate and reliable documentation. Pre -monitoring Due Diligence: Pre -monitoring due diligence includes components that prepare the monitor for the impending field work and documentation of their stewardship activities. The following procedures shall be followed prior to all conservation easement monitoring visits: 1. Contact the landowner to schedule a monitoring visit at least one to two weeks prior to the scheduled visit either by phone, email, or letter (make an effort to group monitoring visits to multiple easements in the same general area in one trip). 2. Make an effort to invite the landowner to be involved in the monitoring process. Usually having the landowner available for questions or discussion of issues before and after monitoring is fine. It is not necessary that the landowner accompany the monitor around the property unless the landowner prefers to do So. 3. If unknown, acquire any information needed to access the property (e.g. lock combinations, gate locations, road/trail locations, contact information for land managers and neighboring landowners). 4. A few days prior to the monitoring visit, make an effort to contact the landowner to confirm the monitoring date. 5. Prior to the monitoring date, review the conservation easement deed, baseline documentation report, most recent monitoring report, and any other pertinent information (e.g. landowner correspondence, older monitoring reports). 6. Create a monitoring map of the property using aerial imagery or a topo map as the base layer. Ensure that the property boundary is clearly depicted on the map as well as any building envelopes or other important boundaries or landscape features (e.g. stream buffers, forest management plots, property points of access). 7. Enter the property boundary and BDR photopoint locations (if available) into a GPS unit for field reference. 8. Inform at least two staff members of your schedule and destination(s). Have an emergency contact phone number available at the office. 9. Monitoring material that is needed on the monitoring visit includes: a. Stewardship Binder b. Monitoring map c. GPS unit (with extra batteries) d. Compass e. Camera (with extra batteries) f. Notepad 10. Prepare for your field work. Bring necessary field equipment to conduct a safe and effective monitoring visit. Field equipment should include: Required a. Sunscreen b. Extra water c. Extra clothing d. Extra food e. Extra cash f. Topo map of greater area g. First Aid/Survival Kit h. Blanket(s) i. Shovel j. Spare tire(s) k. Cell phone 1. Flares in. Bolt cutters n. Crowbar Optional a. Tent b. Sleeping bag c. Firearm(s) d. Stove e. Laptop computer f. Bear spray Approximate pre -monitoring due diligence completion time: 3 hours Monitoring of the Easement Property The field portion of the monitoring effort should be interpreted as (1) an opportunity to maintain and improve relations with landowners and/or landowner representatives; (2) a small-scale duplication effort of the baseline documentation report; (3) an opportunity to enhance, alter, or correct any deficiencies or errors in past monitoring efforts; and (4) a check on the activities within and conditions of the property under easement. The following procedures and guidelines will help ensure the efficiency, accuracy, and safety of a monitoring visit: 1. The monitor should have a clear strategy of how the property will be monitored prior to the site visit. 2. Meet with the landowner if possible prior to engaging in field work. Ask about land management activities (past, present or future), activities on adjacent lands, and any other issues related to the terms of the conservation easement. 3. Invite the landowner to accompany the monitor in the field. This is not necessary, but it is polite to ask. 4. Enact the monitoring strategy laid out prior to the visit using all tools available (e.g. GPS, compass, maps, photos). 5. Use GPS to track the monitoring route and take coordinates of photopoint locations. Use the compass to take azimuth readings at the photopoint locations (direction photo was taken). All photopoint coordinates must be taken in UTM coordinates, Zone 13. All azimuth reading must be taken using the 3 -digit method (0 to 360°) to decrease ambiguity as opposed to using quadrants. For example, recording a bearing of 192° is much clearer than 12° W of S, or S12°W. 6. Walk or drive as much of the property as possible making an effort to visit all access points, boundary lines, and property corners. Pay special attention to building envelope areas and other areas that may have more restrictive covenants (e.g. stream corridors, no - timbering zones, high quality habitat areas). 7. Duplicate the photopoint locations that are depicted in the BDR. If new photopoint locations are required; develop the new photopoint locations based upon current landscape conditions and activities. Document these new locations in the monitoring report and make notes that future monitoring efforts should follow the new photopoint format. Note: the original photopoints portrayed in the BDR must always be replicated unless the BDR is amended to not include certain photopoint locations. 8. TAKE FIELD NOTES! Do not rely on memory to complete the monitoring report. 9. Make an effort to meet with the landowner after the field visit to discuss any minor, non - violation issues or other observations made while conducting the field visit. Do not, under any circumstances, discuss potential minor or major violations to the conservation easement with the landowner. UP2Save has specific procedures to follow when addressing potential violations (see UP2Save's Conservation Easement Violations Policy). Approximate monitoring completion time: 4-16 hours depending upon driving time and size/complexity of property. Post -monitoring Due Diligence: - Post -monitoring due diligence primarily consists of developing documentation of the monitoring visit. This documentation consists of - 1 . £ 1. Filling out the monitoring report 2. Creating a monitoring map including the photopoints, access points, monitoring track, and any other points of interest. 3. Writing a letter to the landowner that summarizes the monitoring visit and also states that the landowner is in compliance with the terms of the conservation easement. If the landowner is not in compliance with the terms of the conservation easement, then staff will follow the UP2Save's Conservation Easement Violations Policy. 4. Properly duplicate the monitoring report and file all copies according to the UP2Save's Stewardship Records Management Policy. Mail the signed monitoring report and compliance letter to the landowner and any representatives listed in the baseline or that have received monitoring reports in the past. Schedule the next monitoring visit based upon observations in the field and seasonal access to the property. Approximate completion time: 3 hours RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made this day of , 201_ by and between ("Grantor") and ("Grantee"). The designation 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. RECITALS WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and being in County, North Carolina, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property"); WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not-for-profit or educational corporation, association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, the purposes or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) — (d) listed below; (a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space aspects of real property; (b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational, educational, or open -space use; (c) protecting natural resources; (d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality. WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following natural communities: add or delete as appropriate: wetlands, streams and riparian buffers. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain streams, wetlands and riparian resources and other natural values of approximately _acres, more or less, and being more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated fully herein by reference (the "Conservation Easement Area"), and prevent the use or development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition. WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the Mitigation Bank, Department of the Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW- , entitled "Agreement to Establish the Mitigation Bank in the River Basin within the State of North Carolina", entered into by and between acting as the Bank Sponsor and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The Mitigation Site has been approved by the Corps for use as a mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts authorized by DA permits. WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third -party rights of enforcement shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District ("Third -Party," to include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through the appropriate enforcement agencies of the United States, and that these rights are in addition to, and do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the Department of the Army instrument number SAW- ("Mitigation Banking Instrument"), or any permit or certification issued by the Third -Party. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and representations contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area described on Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation values thereof, as follows: ARTICLE I. DURATIONOF EASEMENT This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation Easement is an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor, Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and licensees. ARTICLE II. PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Conservation Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder: A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any introduction of non-native plants and/or animal species is prohibited. B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building, mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the Conservation Easement Area. C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes are prohibited. D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area are prohibited. E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming, cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the Conservation Easement Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan. Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for purposes of enhancing planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the Mitigation Plan is allowable once a year for no more than five consecutive years from the date on page 1 of this Conservation Easement, except where mowing will negatively impact vegetation or disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by and shall not violate any part of Item L of Article II. F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or modification to existing roads, trails or walkways. G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation Easement Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation Easement Area and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the Conservation Easement Area. H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or other materials on the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling, excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to restore natural topography or drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and enhancing streams and wetlands within the Conservation Easement Area, is allowed to perform grading, filling, and excavation associated with stream and wetland restoration and enhancement activities as described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 27. J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition, diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into, within or out of the easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited. K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or otherwise. L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to, motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited other than for temporary or occasional access by the Enter Sponsor Name, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors, assigns, and the Corps for purposes of constructing, maintaining and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and Dreservation of streams. wetlands and riaarian areas within the Conservation Easement Area.. M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Conservation Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental systems, is prohibited. ARTICLE III GRANTOR'S RESEVERED RIGHTS The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation Easement Area for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement Area, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement Area, in whole or in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement. Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its successors and assigns, including acting as the Bank Sponsor, the right to construct and perform activities related to the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation Easement Area in accordance with the approved Mitigation Plan, and the Mitigation Banking Instrument described in the Recitals of this Conservation Easement. ARTICLE IV. GRANTEE'S RIGHTS The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the Corps, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation Easement Area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, is complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement. The Grantee, Enter Sponsor Name, and its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the Corps shall also have the right to enter and go upon the Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational observations and studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do not include public access rights. ARTICLE V A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, and the Corps are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement Area that may be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. 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 of the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be 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. The costs of a breach, correction or restoration, including the Grantee's expenses, court costs, and attorneys' fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation easement. B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a subsequent breach or default. C. 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 resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees or invitees; or from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to the Conservation Easement Area resulting from such causes. ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the Property against the claims of all persons._ B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Conservation Easement Area or any portion thereof and shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps. C. Assignment. 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 pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 501 (c)(3) 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. D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The Mitigation Banking Instrument: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation Easement 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 void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect. E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor, except those incurred after the date hereof, which are expressly subject and subordinate to the Conservation Easement. 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. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights. F. Long -Term Management. If livestock operations will be maintained on the property, Grantor is responsible for all long-term management activities associated with fencing to ensure livestock do not have access to the Protected Property. These activities include the maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures, as deemed necessary by the Grantee, to ensure the aquatic resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained. G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding. H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation Easement Area is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct damages due to the taking. I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation Easement as determined at the time of the extinguishment or condemnation. J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph): To Grantor: [Name, address and fax number] To Grantee: [Name, address and fax number] To Sponsor: To the Corps: US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Regulatory Division 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's interest shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction. L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided 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 conservation purposes of this grant. M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The wetlands, scenic, resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Conservation Easement Area, and its current use and state of improvement, are described in Section of the Mitigation Plan,_prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes in the use of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with the terms of this Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the Conservation Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for the aforesaid purposes. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and year first above written. (Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form) Appendix D — DWR Stream Identification Forms NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Summary REACH HC3 CH1 CH2 A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =) 21 14 10.5 1' Continuity of channel bed and bank 2 2 2 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2 1 1 3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 2 1 1 4. Particle size of stream substrate 2 2 1 5. Active/relict floodplain 3 3 2 6. Depositional bars or benches 2 0 0 7. Recent alluvial deposits 3 2 2 8. Headcuts 0 1 0 9. Grade control 0.5 0.5 0 10. Natural valley 1.5 1.5 1.5 11. Second or greater order channel 3 0 0 B. Hydrology (Subtotal =) 8.5 6 6 12. Presence of Baseflow 3 2 2 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 0 0 14. Leaf litter 0.5 0.5 0.5 15. Sediment on plants or debris 1 0.5 0.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 1 0 0 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? 3 j 3 j 3 C. Biology (Subtotal =) 10 7 7 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 1 1 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 3 3 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1 1 1 21. Aquatic Mollusks 1 1 1 22. Fish 0 0 0 23. Crayfish 1 0.5 0.5 24. Amphibians 1 0.5 0.5 25. Algae 0 0 0 26. Wetland plants in streambed j 0 j 0 j 0 Total Points (Subtotal=) 39.5 27 23.5 NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: 3 jig Project/Site: � Co'r- 63 Latitude: Evaluator:, MAi County: _A \/14e' Longitude: Total Points: Stream is at least intermittent��. Stream Determination (circle-o"11Other 0 3 Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: if 2:19 or perennial if 2 30' 2 3 A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 0 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool sequence 0 1 2 3 4. Panicle size of stream substrate 0 1 2) 3 5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 1.5 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 12 1 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 1 1 3 8. Headcuts 0 FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 2 3 9. Grade control 0.5 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 .5 1 11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Ye = 3 Sketch: artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydrology Subtotal = 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 W 3 14. Leaf litter 1 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes 3 C. Biology Subtotal = / 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5 24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Ot r = `perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: -I I ProjectlSite: -� Afitude: Evaluator: d �/Z County: 4V) k5�' Longitude: Total Points: Stream D circle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent if? Ze> E hemer Intermitt Perennial e. Quad Name:4 A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = u ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 0 .5 1 3 3. In -channel structure, ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ri le- ool sequence 0 1 ' 2 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 1 3 5. Activeirelict floodplain 0 1 1 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 C 2 3 B. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0. 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1. 11. Second or greater order channel TO = 0 Yes = 3 Sketch: `artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = Co ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0. 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 .5 1 1.5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Ye = 3 C. Biolocly (Subtotal = ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2Cl)0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 2 3 22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 1 1,5 24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 25, Algae 0 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Othe *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date:L� Q ProjectlS te:Si� � /C I�titude: Evaluator: County: V l Longitude: Total Points: Stream De "rcle one) Other Stream is at least intermittent car if?i9or perennial if>_3t)" v Ep hemera rmitt erennial e. Quad Name: 9' A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = r> ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 s. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 C 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, -ripple-pool se uenee 0 1 2 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 5. Active/relict floodplain 0 r'" 2) 3 6. Depositional bars or benches c 0 1 1 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts %FACW 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0.5 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1. 11. Second or greater order channel No;= F' Yes = 3 Sketch: a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal =} 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 CO 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris o.5 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 .5 1 1.5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 yesc- 3 C. Biology (Subtotal= ; ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0 r'" 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed %FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Oth r W 0 "perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: Appendix E — USACE District Assessment Methods/Forms Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet Summary HC3 CH1 CH2 1 Presence of flow / persistent 4 2 3 pools in stream 2 Evidence of past human alteration 3 3 3 3 Riparian zone 1 1 1 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical 1 1 2 dischar es 5 Groundwater discharge 1 0 3 U, 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 4 3 3 t CL 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 1 2 2 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 1 0 0 9 Channel sinuosity 1 1 1 10 Sediment input 1 2 2 11 Size & diversity of channel bed 1 2 2 substrate 12 Evidence of channel incision or 0 2 2 widening 13 Presence of major bank failures 1 3 4 14 Root depth and density on banks 1 1 2 U) 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or 0 1 2 timber production 16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool 1 2 2 complexes 17 Habitat complexity 2 3 3 w r M 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 2 1 1 x 19 Substrate embeddedness 2 1 2 20 Presence of stream invertebrates 2 2 2 21 Presence of amphibians 2 1 1 0 22 Presence of fish 0 0 0 m0 23 Evidence of wildlife use 3 1 1 Total Score: 1 35 1 35 144 , ca� STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. # CHARACTERISTICS ECORkGION POINT RANGE SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain 1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = maxpoints) 0-5 0-4 0-5 2 Evidence of past human alteration extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)0-6 0 — 5 0-5 3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 f no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints) 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0 — 4 0-4 / a 5no Groundwater discharge 0 — 4 0-4 d discharge = 0; springs, se s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)0-3 f 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain y� no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints) 0-4 0-4 0-2 FJy" Entrenchment / floodplain access p" (deeply entrenched = 0; fre uent flooding = maxpoints) 0-5 0-4 0-2 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints) 0-6 0-4 0-2 9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 / extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints) 10 Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) / 11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA' 0-4 0 5 fine, homogenous = 0;1 e, diverse sizes = max points) — 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0 4 >4 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) — 0-5 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0 5 severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks =max points — 0-5 14 Root depth and density on banks no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints) 0-3 0-4 0-5 f 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timberproduMion 0-5 0-4 0-5 substantial impact =0; no evidence = max ints —' 16 Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0 — 6 F no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 Z little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints) Canopy coverage over streambed 18 no shadingvegetation = 0; continuous canopy= max points)0-5 0 —5 0-5 Z 19 Substrate embeddedness NA 0-4 0-4 Z (deeplyembedded = 0; loose structure = max 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 >4 (no evidence = 0• common, numerous s =max points) 0 21 Presence of amphibians 0— 4 0— 4 0— 4 O no evidence = 0; common, numerous s = max points) 04 O 22 N23 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous s = max points) Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints) Total Points Possible 100 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. q131, g <( /CHI STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET a # Groundwater discharge ECOREGION POINT RANGE 0- 4 0- 4 CHARACTERISTICS SCORE no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc_ = max points) - Coastal Piedmont Mountain Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 1 Presence of flow f persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max polots no flow or saturation = 0; gEqpS flow = max rots � F,la 064 2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points � 3 Riparian zone 0 - 4 0-5 0 - 4 0-2 ` no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)0-6 no wetlands = 0;1 a adjacent wetlands = max ints f 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints) 9 Channel sinuosity a 5 Groundwater discharge 0_ 3 0- 4 0- 4 no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc_ = max points) - U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 y no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max polots � F,la 064 Entrenchment/ floodplain access 0-5 0 - 4 0-2 (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding= max rots � 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0 - 4 0-2 ` no wetlands = 0;1 a adjacent wetlands = max ints 9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3 1 extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max ints 10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2 extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max ints 1 I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 2- fine, homogenous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = maxpoints) 12 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 Z (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) E- 13 Presence of major bank failures 0---5 0-5 0-5 r a severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints) r� 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 l (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throw out = maxints 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5 p substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints) / 16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 no riffles/ripples of Is = 0; well-developed = maxpoints) 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points I8 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 x no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints) 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) = 0-4 0-5 0-5 no evidence 0; common numerous types = maxpoints) 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 1 O no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints) O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous s = max points) 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 j no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)I Total Points Possible 100 100 100 5 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams /CH2 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams # CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain extensive discharges = 0, no disch es = max ints 1no Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0 — 4 0-5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max ints Uno 2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints) 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain Riparian zone 3 0-6 0 — 4 0-5 0— 4 no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer =max amts f * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 1 0-4 extensive discharges = 0, no disch es = max ints F. 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 Uno discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands etc. = maxpoints) 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0— 4 0— 4 0— 2 no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 7 Entrenchment /floodplain access00 0— 5 0— 4 0— 2 de I entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 1 (no wetlands = 0;1 a gacent wetlands = max inls 9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 J extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints) 10 ,Sediment input 0— 5 0— 4 0— 4 extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) 1 I Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5 z' fine, homo enous = 0;1 e, diverse sizes =max rots 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2 }+ dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0 — 5 0 5 severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max ints 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0 4 0-5 substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points) 16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 Z no riffleshipples or p2ols = 0; well-developed = maxpoints) 17 Habitat complexity Habitat 0 — 6 0-6 or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)0-6 Canopy coverage over streambed 18 no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints) 0-5 0-5 0-5 19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4 (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 O no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints) Q 22 Presence of ash 0-4 0-4 0-4 no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints) 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 I no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints) Total Points Possible 100 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams Appendix F —Wetland JD Forms U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Action Id. SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505 County: Davie U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Farmington NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Requestor: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services Harry Tsomides Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102 Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone Number: 828-545-7057 E-mail: harry.tsomidesAncdenr.aov Size (acres) 37.0 Nearest Town Mocksville Nearest Waterway Yadkin River River Basin Upper Pee Dee USGS HUC 03040101 Coordinates Latitude: 36.0261 Longitude: -80.5050 Location description: The review areas are located on the west side of Spillman Road. PINs: 5853144949, 05853153934, 5843932576, 5853416631, 5852594790, 5853601920, 58535114536, 5853164843, and 5853173894. Reference review area description in Jurisdictional Determination Request Package entitled "Potential Wetland or Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map" and Printed Date of 2/28/2018. Indicate Which of the Following Apply: A. Preliminary Determination ® There appear to be waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The waters including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 2/28/2018. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. ❑ There appear to be waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the waters including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters including wetlands, at the project area, which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters including wetlands, on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps. B. Approved Determination ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ❑ There are waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505 ❑ We recommend you have the waters including wetlands, on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps. ❑ The waters including wetlands, on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated MAP DATE. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon completion. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years. ❑ The waters including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on SURVEY SIGNED DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at (252) 808-2808 to determine their requirements. Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Bryan Roden -Reynolds at 704-510-1440 or bryan.roden-rynolds(& usace. army.mil. C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination form dated 03/26/2018. D. Remarks: None. E. Attention USDA Program Participants This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work. F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B. above) This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address: US Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer 60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable. **It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.** SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505 j j RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 Dlynellr els�ee by NODEN NEYN U=D.D.0 PKI.0-USA.—RODE Corps Regulatory Official: DN<=US,a261-5mment ou=DOD. ou=PKl. ou USA.m=HDDENP NO DS.BKYAN.KENN T.13fi33855)4 Date of JD: 03/26/2018 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505 The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http://corpsmapu.usace.anny.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4:0 Copy furnished: Agent: Resource Environmental Solutions Jeremy Schmid Address: 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone Number: 919-926-1473 E-mail: lschmid(a�res.us SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505 NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL 7 Applicant: North Carolina Department of File Number: SAW -2017-01469 and Date: 03/26/2018 Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services, SAW -2017-01505 Harry Tsomides Attached is: See Section below PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission A RED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission B DENIAL C LAPPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D INARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.gM.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Re"latoryProgramandPermits.aspx or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505 E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may appeal process you may contact: also contact: District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds CESAD-PDO Asheville Regulatory Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division U.S Army Corps of Engineers 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: (404) 562-5137 RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportuni to participate in all site investigations. Date: Telephone number: Signature of appellant oragent. For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to: District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Bryan Roden -Reynolds, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to: Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 Phone: (404) 562-5137 PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 03/26/2018 B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services, Harry Tsomides, 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102, Asheville, NC 28801 C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Scout and Mockingbird Sites, SAW -2017-01469 and SAW -2017-01505 D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review areas are located on the west side of Spillman Road. PINS: 5853144949, 05853153934, 5843932576, 5853416631, 5852594790, 5853601920, 58535114536, 5853164843, and 5853173894. Reference review area description in Jurisdictional Determination Request Package entitled "Potential Wetland or Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map" and Printed Date of 2/28/2018. (USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES) State: NC County: Davie City: Mocksville Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 36.0261 Longitude: -80.5050 Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Yadkin River E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: ® Field Determination. Date(s): 10/03/17 and 02/15/18 TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAYBE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION. Estimated amount of Geographic authority to Type of aquatic aquatic resources in which the aquatic resource Latitude (decimal Longitude (decimal resources (i.e., Site Number review area (acreage "may be" subject (i.e., degrees) degrees) wetland vs. non- and linear feet, if Section 404 or Section wetland waters) applicable 10/404) Scout Site (SAW -2017-01469) Wetland 36.0028026 -80.5144835 0.75 acres Wetland 404 WD Stream 36.030105 -80.516072 2,428 linear feet Non -wetland 404 HC3 Stream 36.030583 -80.517263 238 linear feet Non -wetland 404 JD1 Stream 36.029308 -80.515734 77 linear feet Non -wetland 404 JD2 Mockingbird Site (SAW -2017-01505) Wetland 36.026870 -80.504691 0.83 acres Wetland 404 WA Wetland 36.023060 -80.503075 0.08 acres Wetland 404 WB Wetland 36.020154 -80.503590 0.13 acres Wetland 404 WC Wetland 36.024412 -80.504582 0.36 acres Wetland 404 WE Wetland 36.024210 -80.504827 0.05 acres Wetland 404 WF Wetland 36.023900 -80.504506 0.23 acres Wetland 404 WG Wetland 36.025417 -80.505161 0.75 acres Wetland 404 WH Stream 36.036092 -80.516843 1,960 linear feet Non -wetland 404 HC1 Stream 36.021119 -80.503956 855 linear feet Non -wetland 404 HC2-A Stream 36.023879 -80.504621 937 linear feet Non -wetland 404 HC2-B Stream 36.025208 -80.505265 426 linear feet Non -wetland 404 HC2-C Stream 36.025872 -80.506699 455 linear feet Non -wetland 404 HC2-D Stream 36.039677 -80.517472 505 linear feet Non -wetland 404 JS1 Stream 36.034585 -80.516771 378 linear feet Non -wetland 404 NM1 Stream 36.035076 -80.518932 1,148 linear feet Non -wetland 404 NM2 Stream 36.037264 -80.516842 202 linear feet Non -wetland 404 NM3 Stream 36.037801 -80.515787 310 linear feet Non -wetland 404 NM4 Stream 36.037645 -80.516801 101 linear feet Non -wetland 404 NM5 Stream 36.021662 -80.503054 380 linear feet Non -wetland 404 TPI Stream 36.023014 -80.503143 438 linear feet Non -wetland 404 TP2 Stream 36.026046 -80.505192 489 linear feet Non -wetland 404 TP3 1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate. 2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information: SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply) Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items: ® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor: Map: Vicinity Map Dated 10/26/2017 ® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor. ® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: ❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ❑ Corps navigable waters' study: ❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic ❑ USGS NHD data. ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: USGS Map, 1:24,000 Farmington ® Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Soils Map, Davie County Dated 10/26/2017 ® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: National Wetlands Inventory Map, USFWS NWI Mapper ❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s): ❑ FEMA/FIRM maps: ❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) ® Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): Potential Wetland or Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map Dated 02/28/2018 or ❑Other (Name & Date): ❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: ❑ Other information (please specify): IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations. RO D E N Digitally signed by RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KEN N ETH.1263385574 REYNOLDS.BRYAN.K DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=RODEN ENNETH.1263385574 DateO2011803261425:58 0,0203385574 Signature and date of Regulatory staff member completing PJD 03/26/2018 Signature and date of person requesting PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is impracticable)1 1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action. o N � w SOA eullOJeO yyoN 'Rlunoo ained a °z s8 I uol l I oj 3 S 3 eB3 W ;nogg pue png6ui�aoW deW 'S'fl GL )o sJaleM pueBaM-uoN Jo puepaM lepualod w 3 .2 o p; ..moill 0 . $ to �' - • - -•' ,17ii p U N Z E t6 N w w a° a° w 4Z_ � t y' I • f� • i __yam f r. i Northern Section Legend Wetland Data Points OUpland Data Points Easement - Mockingbird F— Easement - Scout Potential Non -Wetland Waters of the US Potential Wetland Waters of the US r P- WD Southern Section H Potential Wetland or Non -Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map - Northern Section Dare: zizaizola 8 E 0 150 300 Drawn by: — ® Mockingbird and Scout Mitigation Sites W Feet Checketl by: wxwm Davie County, North Carolina S Appendix G —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 five percent 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 H —Regulatory Agency Scoping Letters Regulatory Division DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 November 15, 2017 Re: NCIRT Review of the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus: Gideon Site (SAW -2017-01462), Compass Point Site (SAW -2017-01465), Green Mesa Site (SAW -2017-01466), Twiman Site (SAW -2017-01467), and Scout Site (SAW -2017-01469). Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC Attention: Ms. Cara Conder 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dear Ms. Conder: This letter is in regard to your prospectus document for the proposed RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of the mitigation sites listed below: Corps Action ID Site Name Easement ac County Stream/Receiving Water Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W) SAW -2017-01462 Gideon 8.6 Surry Mill Creek 36.3967 -80.8584 SAW -2017-01465 Compass Point 13.73 Yadkin Yadkin River 36.2696 -80.6384 SAW -2017-01466 Green Mesa 19.96 Yadkin N. Deep Creek 36.2132 -80.7181 SAW -2017-01467 Twiman 32.06 Yadkin N. Deep Creek 36.2130 -80.6902 SAW -2017-01469 Scout 14.0 Davie Hauser Creek 36.0322 -80.5166 The Corps determined the prospectus document was complete and issued a public notice (P/N # SAW -2017-01462) on September 6, 2017. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the views of interested State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or affected by the proposed work. In addition, the Corps and members of the Interagency Review Team (IRT) conducted field reviews of the proposed mitigation sites on October 16 - 18, 2017. Attached are comments received in response to the public notice from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, and a field visit memo incorporating comments from the attending IRT members. The Corps has reviewed the information provided and considered the comments received in response to the public notice and the field site visits. We have determined that the proposed mitigation bank appears to have the potential to restore and protect aquatic resources within the Upper Yadkin 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101 of the Yadkin River Basin. Therefore, the bank sponsor may proceed with preparation of a draft Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI). We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United States. If you have questions concerning the path forward for the proposed mitigation bank, please do not hesitate to contact me at (919) 554-4884 extension 59. Sincerely,ly signed by `A, H U G H ES.A N D R EA. V V DHUGHIES.AND EA WADE.1258339165 DN: c=Us, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ADE.1258339165 Dat SA,c =HUGHE255A1NDRE1.15 11 A ADE.1258339165 Andrea Hughes Mitigation Project Manager Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished: NCIRT Distribution List 0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0 Gordon Myers, Executive Director MEMORANDUM TO: Andrea Hughes Mitigation Project Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers FROM: Andrea Leslie Habitat Conservation, NC Wildlife Resources Commission DATE: 26 October 2017 SUBJECT: Comments on RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Davie, Yadkin and Surry Counties Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the final prospectus for the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Site. NCWRC staff attended site visits with regulatory agency staff October 16-18. The prospectus proposes stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation on over 29,800 feet of stream to net over 18,000 SMUs in the Yadkin River Basin (03040101). The bank includes five sites, and general comments on each site follow: • Gideon Site. Located on a 76 -acre parcel and sandwiched between two Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) sites, this agricultural site will involve restoration, enhancement, and preservation on 4,092 ft of Mill Creek and unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Mill Creek, netting 2,664 SMUs. The site is less than a mile upstream of the Mitchell River, which serves as habitat for Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa, US Federal Species of Concern, NC Endangered). Excellent erosion and sediment control is especially important at both this site and the adjacent DMS sites to minimize impacts to this mussel. • Compass Point Site. This site is located on a 209 -acre parcel in agricultural and forestry uses. It was recently logged. The project will involve restoration and enhancement on 5,024 ft of UTs to the Yadkin River, netting 3,709 SMUs. The downstream end of the site is at the confluence with the Yadkin River, and protection and enhancement of riparian habitat at this location is especially ecologically beneficial, as it will provide a wildlife corridor that is connected to the Yadkin River. We recommend that the landowner expand the forested riparian area along the Yadkin River, as well. Two rare mussels [Creeper (Strophitus undulatus, NC Threatened) and Brook Floater] are found in the Yadkin River in the vicinity Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721 Telephone: (919) 707-0220 • Fax: (919) 707-0028 RES Yadkin 01 Mitigation Bank Page 2 October 26, 2017 Davie, Yadkin, Surry Counties of the project, and erosion and sediment control is especially important at this site to minimize impacts to these species. Green Mesa. This site is on a 273 -acre parcel in agricultural use, and project activities include restoration, enhancement, and preservation on 7,776 ft of UTs to North Deep Creek, netting 3,531 SMUs. The old dam structure downstream of the present dam may serve as bat habitat, and NCWRC biologists may perform bat surveys there in 2018. Twiman. This site is comprised of 10 parcels totaling 266 acres in agricultural use, and project activities include restoration, enhancement, and preservation on 10,477 ft of UTs to North Deep Creek, netting 5,766 SMUs. Scout. This site is on two parcels totaling 522 acres in agricultural use, and project activities include restoration on 2,467 ft of Hauser Creek, netting 2,467 SMUs. Detailed comments on the mitigation approach are captured in RES staff's October 16-18 site visit summary. NCWRC staff has reviewed this summary and has provided comments on it in a separate email. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Andrea Leslie at (828) 400-4223 or at andrea.leslie(&ncwildlife.org. ec: Travis Wilson and Oliva Munzer, NCWRC M E M O R A N D U M 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 TO: NC IRT fires Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. 919.829.9913 fax FROM: Cara Conder, Brad Breslow- RES DATE: 11/14/2017 (revised) RE: RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank IRT Site Visits Attendees: Mac Haupt (NC DWR), Kim Browning (USACE), Andrea Leslie (NCWRC), Olivia Munzer (NCWRC), Cara Conder (RES), Brad Breslow (RES), David Godley (RES) Dates: October 16, 17, and 18, 2017 Gideon Site —10/16/17 The Gideon Site is located between two disjunct portions of the recently contracted DMS Little Sebastian full delivery site. While each project could be developed independently of the other, the combined easements will result in a much larger contiguous protected corridor and high- quality aquatic habitat. WRC mentioned that there are known occurrences of the brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) in the Mitchell River, approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the project area which RES mentioned in the Prospectus. Connecting the Gideon and Little Sebastian Sites offer opportunities to create and protect habitat for the State protected species. IRT members agreed the Gideon site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below. • DWR requested that RES determine the potential wetlands on site. RES is currently delineating the site. • MC3-A: Group agreed to restoration at 1:1 ratio as originally proposed in prospectus. RES explained that cows have full access and the landowner has historically moved the channel. RES affirmed that construction sequencing would harvest native bed material when possible (e.g. cobble). The crossing will be a culvert. • JN5 — Group thought that Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio would be more appropriate approach for this reach instead of Enhancement II. Enhancement measures will include grading banks, installing grade control structures (including at the tie-in with MC3-A), planting the buffer, and cattle exclusion. • JN4 — Similar to JN5, the Group thought that Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio would be a more appropriate approach for below the crossing. Enhancement measures will include removing pipe in old channel, fixing current culvert, grading banks, installing grade control structures, planting the buffer, and cattle exclusion. Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio is the approach for above the crossing and includes cattle exclusion and light supplemental planting. • MC3-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1, but the Group agreed to change the approach to Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio because of channel condition and cattle access. Enhancement measures will include planting the buffer on the left bank and cattle exclusion. • JN6-C — RES originally proposed restoration on this reach and Group agreed to that approach. However, proposed alignment and restoration approach will need to be dictated by topographic survey data. RES is in process of data collection, including delineating slough feature. WRC suggested fencing slough area if not in alignment of proposed restoration area. Barns will likely be removed and the culvert at the driveway will be reset to improve hydrologic connection to JN6-B. WRC Comment: At the break between JN6-B & JN6-A, there is an old road that is eroding. RES agreed to stabilize this road. • JN6-B — RES originally proposed Enhancement II on this reach. DWR did not agree to 2.5:1 ratio due to buffer being intact, but does agree this reach should be part of the overall project. The consensus was Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of removing the crossing and cattle exclusion. • JN6-A — RES originally proposed preservation on this reach. Group agreed to including this top part of the reach as preservation. The JD will determine the limits. Compass Point Site —10/16/17 IRT members agreed the Compass Point site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below. • DW6: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio. WRC and DWR recommended more of an Enhancement I approach (ranging from a 1.5 to 2 ratio), which would include bank work (spot stabilization), riparian buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. • DW1-A: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio and Group agreed, with the exception being the upstream most portion that ties into DW6. Group agreed that a mix of Enhancement I and II would be best approach on the first 250 feet of DWI -A. • DW2: Group agreed to Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio as originally proposed in prospectus. RES confirmed that cows have access. Enhancement measures will include planting the riparian buffer and cattle exclusion. DWR and RES agreed to installing a stream gauge midway on the reach to monitor hydrology. • DW1-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio. Group discussed Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio with enhancement measures including a combination of bed and bank work, complete riparian buffer planting, and cattle exclusion. DWR Comment: there was some discussion of E1, however, if that ratio is proposed vs the E2, then the work needs to be justified in the mit plan. For the reach DWI -D, DWR believes while it is a benefit to have a corridor connect to the Yadkin River, however, the ratio that is appropriate would be no better than 7.5:1. USACE Comment: This will transition from restoration in DWI -A at bedrock point. Buffered on one side, some areas do need bank shaping. EII only if the banks are addressed. The existing road may cause the buffer to be pinched to less than 50' at the end of the reach. • DW1-C: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. This reach has patches of high quality bed material including cobble and bedrock. Group agreed a Priority II Restoration approach, including benching to aid in floodplain connectivity, would be the best measure. • DW1-D — RES originally proposed Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio on this reach. WRC wants to see this reach protected and included in the project. DWR and USACE recommended a 7.5:1 ratio. The approach will be cattle exclusion and installing a boulder grade control structure below the limits of restoration on DWI -C. WRC Comment: We support the protection and riparian buffer enhancement of this reach, which would protect a riparian corridor that would connect the Yadkin River to the site. Green Mesa Site —10/17/17 Overall the site has clear potential for functional uplift, but there are a few notable constraints including powerline easement and a large pond that will remain (landowner will not allow pond to be part of project). Because the pond will remain in place, RES and USACE discussed potentially retrofitting the riser structure to include a bottom pond drain to release cooler water. IRT members agreed the Green Mesa site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below. • FF4 and FFI-D: RES originally proposed restoration at a 1:1 ratio. The approach is a mix of Priority I and II restoration with potential for enhancement level I above the powerline based on bedrock in the channel. USACE said clearly justify rationale for restoration measures. • FF 1-C: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio. DWR and USACE stated if channel was left in place and enhancement II approach was taken that it was likely for no credit to be given due to powerline and lack of buffer near the road. Group discussed starting restoration immediately below Baptist Church Road and RES agreed this was best option if feasible. WRC Comment: There was discussion of raising the bed elevation to lessen the DOT culvert perch. The discussion on lower FFI-C being too close to the road also applies to upper FFI-D. Turning the channel into the field upstream of where it turns now could allow R credit for both. • FF1-C (below pond): RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, and tying into the restoration area. There is a large stone wall in this reach with a culvert that might need to be retrofitted (if possible). Group agreed the best approach is probably to leave the wall in place and credit the enhancement at 3:1. USACE Comment: I agree with your summary for both areas above and below the pond. It's recommended that SHPO review this area (and the area where the other historic wall is in the buffer in FF1-A). • FF5: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion, invasive species treatment, and supplemental planting on right bank. DWR stated there is no cattle pressure and there is decent buffer on the banks, but invasives are problematic (high density of privet). WRC would like some of the black walnut removed and those areas replanted with a more diverse mix of native hardwood vegetation. USACE and DWR suggested a ratio of 7.5:1; however, if buffer planting and easement was extended to at least 100 feet a higher ratio could be approved. • FF3-A: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion and buffer planting. During the site visit RES suggested enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio with an added measure of bank stabilization to reduce shear stress and in - channel erosion. WRC agreed to rationale for enhancement I approach, but DWR stated that there isn't much work needed on this reach and a ratio of 5:1 is likely most appropriate (see FF3-B below). DWR Comment: I had FF3A and B combined at a ratio of 7.5:1. WRC Comment: We did not agree with the E1 approach, as this reach has a stellar riparian forest; definitely agree on an E3 approach here, as light tough is needed and riparian area is too nice to justify getting heavy equipment to address channel erosion. USACE Comment: Widening the buffer and invasives control are necessary here. My notes indicate a ratio of 5-7:5:1, depending on justification of functional uplift. The historic house in the buffer should be addressed. • FF3-B: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion and light supplemental planting. IRT suggested combining FF3-A and FF3-B into one reach and having the entire crediting approach be enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio. This area might be generating wetlands that RES would not be claiming credit. RES is currently delineating the site. DWR Comment: I had FF3A and B combined at a ratio of 7.5:1. USACE Comment: Widening the buffer and invasives control are necessary here. My notes indicate a ratio of 5-7:5:1, depending on justification of functional uplift, especially considering these enter the pond. A narrative of historical farming practices would be beneficial. • FF1-B: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio and Group agreed and stated to justify the uplift in the mitigation plan. WRC Comment: There is evidence of beaver here. • FF2: RES originally proposed preservation and Group agreed to a 7.5:1 ratio with an approach of fencing where needed. DWR Comment: DWR could go with 7.5:1 on the preservation (FF2) but would like to see the reach extended above the crossing at the top and fenced out. WRC Comment: There was a discussion on preserving a little more above the fence line and whether the old road would be planted/fenced. There was a question on the location of the property line and end of preservation. USACE Comment: Channel in good condition, USACE feels preservation at 10:1 is appropriate. The discussion of 7.5:1 would be entertained if the upstream portion excluded cattle, as well. • FF 1-A: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion and buffer planting. While there might be some opportunities for bank work, the group agreed that the enhancement II approach was best based on the amount of bedrock in this reach. Twiman Site —10/17/17 IRT members agreed the Twiman site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below. • TC2-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement I at 1.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, and bank stabilization. Group agreed to this approach. • TC2-B: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. Group generally agreed with this approach, but did note there is a section of potential enhancement I below the pond. Upon further data collection/analysis, RES will determine the best approach for this section of TC2-13. WRC Comment: The group discussed establishing the break between EI and R at the bedrock nickpoint. • TC1-A: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. Group agreed to this approach. • TC3-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, invasive species treatment and spot stabilization. Group agreed to this approach with a ratio ranging from 2.5 to 3 to be justified in the mitigation plan. • TC1-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion and buffer planting. IRT suggested restoration as the approach. RES is open to examining restoration along this reach based on watershed size and design discharge. DWR Comment: these reaches should be restoration. If RES decides that restoration not feasible then the ratio for enhancement would be greater than 5:1, could be as high as 8:1. Planting outer 20 feet just does not do a lot for this system. USACE Comment: This channel is incised, poor substrate, no buffer, channelized, with an available floodplain. USACE & DWR feel restoration is appropriate. • TC4: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion and buffer planting. IRT suggested restoration as the approach. RES is open to examining restoration along this reach based on watershed size and design discharge. DWR Comment: these reaches should be restoration. If RES decides that restoration not feasible then the ratio for enhancement would be greater than 5:1, could be as high as 8:1. Planting outer 20 feet just does not do a lot for this system. USACE Comment: This channel is incised, poor substrate, no buffer, channelized, with an available floodplain. USACE & DWR feel restoration is appropriate. • TC5-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, and minor spot stabilization. IRT suggested a lower ratio of 3:1 in some areas based on existing buffer condition. RES recommends potentially splitting the reach into different treatments based on level of intervention and will justify rationale in mitigation plan. • TC7: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, invasive species treatment and spot stabilization. Group agreed to this approach with a ratio ranging from 2.5 to 3 to be justified in the mitigation plan. USACE Comment: 3:1 ratio would be more appropriate. • TC6: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion and buffer planting. This reach is in a deeply formed gully, but is currently stable with the exception of multiple headcuts at the top of the reach. DWR suggested "filling in" the reach to bring the bed up and credit as restoration with a 1:1 ratio. RES expressed concerns with filling in the gully because thee stream might lose jurisdictional status after construction with such a small watershed (roughly 20 acres). DWR Comment: Reach TC6 may not be a creditable reach. While I feel that the only beneficial treatment would be filling like a RSC approach it is likely the stream would lose flow. Planting the outer 20 feet for this reach would not be creditable enhancement either. USACE Comment: I would question whether there would be flow if the bed was raised with restoration. USACE would not release credit if the restored channel was not jurisdictional. The channel is part of the larger system, and the lower portions of this reach would benefit from cattle exclusion. I would suggest a lower EII ratio of 5-7.5:1. • TC5-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle exclusion and buffer planting. IRT agreed that this is an appropriate approach, but RES needs to clearly justify the rationale for the enhancement on this reach. DWR Comment: IRT suggested 7.5:1, would consider 5:1 if justified in mit plan. WRC Comment: RES will need to address the issue of cattle accessing land via passage under the bridge and the associated erosion. USACE Comment: USACE and DWR agreed that 7.5:1 would be more appropriate, unless 5:1 can be justified. Scout Site- 10/18/17 The Scout Site is located just upstream of the lower portion of the recently contracted DMS Mockingbird Site. While each project could be developed independently of the other, the combined easements will result in a better project and most importantly provide the opportunity to add over 2,000 linear feet of priority I restoration and limit the amount of priority II restoration on the Mockingbird Site. IRT members agreed the Scout site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below. • HC3: Group agreed that restoration at 1:1 ratio is the best approach for this reach and including it will improve the development of the Mockingbird project. USACE commented that a hunting blind within the proposed easement area will need to be removed. There is an existing crossing that will be removed as part of the design. RES also showed a tributary that was not included in the prospectus that would be eligible for potential restoration credit at the tie-in with HC3, but would more likely be Enhancement II for the rest of the reach. Memorandum to the Record October 6, 2017 Response to Public Notice and agency comments on the Prospectus to establish the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (SAW -2017-01462) in the Upper Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101, North Carolina. Andrea, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the Public Notice (SAW - 2017 -01462) for the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank) Prospectus. The bank Sponsor, Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC wishes to establish a commercial umbrella mitigation bank to generate mitigation banking credits to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources associated with Section 404 permits within the Upper Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101. The Bank consists of establishing five mitigation sites expected to provide approximately 6,373 cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and 11,764 warm SMUs by restoring, enhancing and preserving over 29,800 linear feet of stream and riparian corridor. The project is designed to address stressors identified in the watershed and provide improvements and ecological uplift to water quality, hydrologic function and both aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following comments as they pertain to RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Prospectus dated July, 2017 and the Public Notice dated September 6, 2017. Section 1.4/Page 3: The project goals stated are too broad and somewhat vague. For example, the goal: "Nutrient removal" and a few others may be better presented as "Intercept, filter, minimize and potentially eliminate nutrients (such as...), sediment and other pollutants/pathogens before entering the aquatic environment". o The goal of "Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat" is also vague and does not address any particular habitat or species of interest. Since we have cool water habitats being presented for restoration/enhancement then the goals should address the habitat types and rationale for considering them. o "Invasive species treatment" is more of an objective or action (and is stated as such in the document) to address the real goal of "Eliminate competition to native vegetation from exotic and invasive floral species". o I understand that many of the "goals" presented are at the prospectus level and not necessarily applicable to each site but without clear goals, the establishment of objectives and performance standards that relate back to the goals and functional uplift of the site becomes more challenging. • Section 3.7/Page 6: The last sentence should read: "If planted tree mortality affects 40 percent or greater of the initial planting in a stream or wetland restoration or enhancement area, then a remedial/supplemental planting plan will be implemented for the affected area(s)." This addresses "planted" vs. "volunteer" mortality and defines the starting point to consider mortality. • Section 5.1/Page 9: Be sure to continue coordinating the work at the Gideon Site with the Little Sebastian sites and ensure the Mitigation Plan is updated with relevant information about the adjacent restoration site. NCDMS' Little Sebastian site is now out on Public Notice, SAW -2017-01507, dated September 21, 2017. The Mitigation Plan should address how the Gideon Site will tie in with the adjacent restoration work so that the projects connect seamlessly and minimize disturbance to one another. • Section 5.4.7/Page 13: Be sure to identify the adjacent restoration work at the Little Sebastian site upstream and downstream of the project as a potential constraint. See comment above. • Section 5.5/Page 14: Table 6 does not match Figure 8. Be sure not to carry error forward into the Mitigation Plan for Gideon Site. • Section 5.5.1/Page 14: Second paragraph should state Enhancement Level II instead of Level I. 1 also recommend 50 -foot riparian buffers be considered for this site due to the high potential for nutrients and fecal pathogens to enter the stream from the adjacent pasture. • Section 7.1/Page 21: SMU discrepancy should be corrected to match Table 6 on page 26. • Section 7.4.2/Page 22: Information on FF -5 is missing. • Section 7.5.1/Page 26: Enhancement Level I is not being utilized at the Green Mesa Site. Level II is proposed for Reach FF3-A. • Section 8.5.1/Page 34: Priority Level I is proposed for TC3-13 only. Be sure to note pond removals in this paragraph and restoration plan in general. • Section 8.5.1/Page 35: Enhancement Level II includes TO -A also. • Section 9.1/Page 36: Recommend continuing to coordinate with NCDMS and the adjacent Mockingbird site currently out on Public Notice (SAW -2017-01505) dated September 15, 2017. The Mockingbird site is considering a Priority II approach to restoration along Hauser Creek at the terminus of the Scout Site which is considering Priority I approach on Hauser Creek (HC3). I agree that the sites can be developed independently but they should complement each other and provide for a seamless transition as one moves downstream from Scout to Mockingbird. • Section 9.4.7/Page 39: See comment above. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, comments and concerns with the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus and associated proposed sites to provide compensatory mitigation in the Upper Yadkin River watershed of North Carolina. I believe the sponsor has provided a viable plan to offset warm and cool water stream impacts that will be incurred within the proposed 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 bowers.todd@epa.gov. Best Regards, Todd Bowers Comments submitted to Andrea Hughes (SAW -PM) via email on October 6, 2017. a North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona h1. Bartos, Administrator , Governor Roy Cooper Secretary Susi H. Harm ton November 7, 2017 Daniel Ingram Resource Environmental Solutions 302 Jefferson Street, #110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Re: RES Yadkin 01 Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank, ER 17-1991 Dear Mr. Ingram: Thank you for your letter of July 7, 2017, concerning the above project. Office of Archives and History Depiny Secretary Kevin Cherry We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-earley@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced tracking number. Sincerely, in at"bJur amona M. Bartos Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Senice Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: (919) 807-6570/807-6599 From: Eric Teitsworth To: "vann.stancil(o)ncwildlife.ora" Cc: Cara Conder Subject: Project Scoping for Scout Stream Mitigation Project in Davie County Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 10:44:00 AM Attachments: NCWRC Letter Scout.Ddf Scopina USGS Scout.pdf Hello Mr. Stancil, Resource Environmental Solutions is requesting a review for fish and wildlife species at a prospective mitigation bank site in Davie County. Please see the attached letter and map for more details and feel free to contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, Eric Teitsworth Ecologist RESP res.us Mobile: 484.947.3870 fires January 4, 2018 Mr. Vann Stancil Habitat Conservation Biologist North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 215 Jerusalem Church Road Kenly, NC 27542 Subject: Project Scoping for Scout Stream Mitigation Project in Davie County. Dear Mr.Stancil, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Corporate Headquarters 5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650 Houston, TX 77006 Main: 713.520.5400 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 Scout Site (36°01'57.6"N 80°31'02.7"W) 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 2,752 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 eteitsworth@res.us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Sincerely, Eric Teitsworth Ecologist 0 res.us "p 0 750 1,500 Scout Mitigation Site ennniiiiiiia |Feet Davie County, North Carolina ~)| A From: Stancil, Vann F To: Eric Teitsworth Subject: RE: [External] Project Scoping for Scout Stream Mitigation Project in Davie County Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:34:37 AM Hey Eric, The Scout Stream Mitigation Project is located on Hauser Creek, immediately upstream of the Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site, in Davie County. The Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site is now a contracted DMS Easement. Hauser Creek is a direct tributary to the Yadkin River. According to maps of the Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site, there's an existing easement downstream of that contracted DMS Easement. There are no records for any listed aquatic species in the vicinity of this project. Regarding terrestrial species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently listed the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionolis) 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. Thanks, Vann From: Eric Teitsworth [mailto:eteitsworth@res.us] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 10:45 AM To: Stancil, Vann F <vann.stancil@ncwildlife.org> Cc: Cara Conder <cconder@res.us> Subject: [External] Project Scoping for Scout Stream Mitigation Project in Davie County CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to reoort.spamC@nc.gov. Hello Mr. Stancil, Resource Environmental Solutions is requesting a review for fish and wildlife species at a prospective mitigation bank site in Davie County. Please see the attached letter and map for more details and feel free to contact me with any further questions. Sincerely, Eric Teitsworth Ecologist RESP res.us Mobile: 484.947.3870 Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. fires January 4, 2018 Mrs. Janet Mizzi US Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville, NC 28801 Subject: Project Scoping for Scout Mitigation Site in Davie County Dear Mrs. Mizzi, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Corporate Headquarters 5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650 Houston, TX 77006 Main: 713.520.5400 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 Scout Mitigation Project (36°01'57.6"N 80°31'02.7"W). Please note that this request is in support of the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the referenced project. The proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 2,752 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 26 June 2017) lists one endangered species for Davie County, North Carolina: Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The database also lists the northern long- eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as a threatened species. No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary site evaluations. A review of the NHP database indicates that there are no known occurrences of state threatened or endangered species within a one -mile radius of the project area. 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 construction of a stream restoration 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 eteitsworth@res.us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Sincerely, Eric Teitsworth Ecologist 0 res.us "p 0 750 1,500 Scout Mitigation Site ennniiiiiiia |Feet Davie County, North Carolina ~)| A United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Asheville Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville, North Carolina 28801 January 30, 2018 Mr. Eric Teitsworth Resource Environmental Solutions 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dear Mr. Teitsworth: Subject: Scout Mitigation Site; Davie County, North Carolina Log No. 4-2-18-119 ua FTM &AVIIJAIFE "'F'uvw The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your correspondence received via email dated January 4, 2018. We submit the following comments in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act). Project Description According to your correspondence, you are seeking our scoping comments to inform a NEPA document for a proposed mitigation bank near Farmington, North Carolina. The proposed bank would entail restoration and enhancement of approximately 2,752 linear feet of Hauser Creek. 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. You indicated that no potential habitat for protected species was observed during a site reconnaissance. Additionally, the Service has no record of federally protected species or respective habitats in the project vicinity. Based on this information, we do not believe the proposed project would impact federally protected species. The Service supports responsible and sustainable stream restoration activities and we offer the following comments in the interest of protecting fish and wildlife resources: Stream Channel and Bank Restoration A natural, stable stream system is one that is able to transport a wide range of flows and associated bed load (sediment) while maintaining channel features and neither degrading (accelerating the erosion of banks and scour of the channel bed) nor aggrading (accelerating the deposition of sediment within the channel). Alterations to the dimension (cross-sectional view of the channel), pattern (the sinuosity of the channel), or profile (longitudinal slope) of the stream channel as well as changes to streambank vegetation, floodplains, hydrology, or sediment input can significantly alter this equilibrium. Accordingly, we recommend the following: Only the absolute minimum amount of work should be done within stream channels to accomplish necessary reconstruction. The amount of disturbance to in -stream and riparian areas should not exceed what can be stabilized by the end of the workday. Restoration plans should account for the constraints of the site and the opportunities to improve stream pattern, dimension, and profile with minimal disturbance. 2. All reconstruction work should follow natural channel design methodologies that are based on the bank -full, or channel -forming, stage of the stream. Bank -full stage maintains the natural channel dimensions and transports the bulk of sediment over time (Doll et al. 2003). Natural channel conditions should be identified using a reference reach (nearby stream reaches that exemplify restoration goals). Restoration design should match the pattern, dimension, and profile of the reference reach to ensure the project's success. The Service is available to assist with the identification of reference reaches. 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 2 bank -restoration design in order to stabilize soils as vegetation becomes established. Live dormant stakes (such as black willow) may be used to reestablish root structure in riparian areas. In areas where banks are severely undercut, high, and steep, whole -tree revetment or rock may be used as a stabilization treatment (small rock, gravel, sand, and dirt are not recommended due to their erosive nature), and it should not extend above the bank -full elevation (the elevation of the channel where the natural floodplain begins). Deep -rooting woody vegetation should be established along banks where any channel work is accomplished. Tree and shrub plantings should be spaced at intervals no greater than 10 feet along banks. Vegetated riparian zone widths should be as wide as practical but should extend at least 30 feet from the stream channel. 6. Adequate measures to control sediment and erosion must be implemented prior to any ground -disturbing activities in order to minimize effects on downstream aquatic resources. In North Carolina, non -cohesive and erosion -prone soils are most common in the felsic-crystalline terrains of the mountain and upper piedmont regions (Miller and Kochel 2010). Therefore, reconstruction work should be staged such that disturbed areas would be stabilized with seeding, mulch, and/or biodegradable (coir) erosion -control matting prior to the end of each workday. No erosion -control matting or blankets should contain synthetic (netting) materials. Matting should be secured in place with staples; stakes; or, wherever possible, live stakes of native trees. If rain is expected prior to temporary seed establishment, additional measures should be implemented to protect water quality along slopes and overburden stockpiles (for example, stockpiles may be covered with plastic or other geotextile material). 7. Woody debris, detritus, and other vegetative materials are the main sources of nutrients and carbon necessary for primary productivity in stream ecosystems. Removal of this material can impact the production of higher trophic levels, including fish. The Service does not recommend the removal of woody debris within the stream channel or floodplain unless it is causing a debris blockage (logjam) or will affect the ability to achieve bank stability along a specific reach of stream. Woody debris that must be removed should be chipped on the site. 8. At each restoration site, cross-sections (at intervals based on restoration reach size), longitudinal profiles, and stream -pattern plans should be measured and mapped prior to and immediately following any channel work. In addition, photographs should be taken to document the condition of the project site prior to initiating the work and upon completion of the work. However, since a project's restoration success does not necessarily equate to biological success, the ecological goals of the project should be clearly defined and assessed for improvement after construction is completed (Palmer et al. 2005). The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Mr. Byron Hamstead of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225, if you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-18-119. 3 Sincerely, - - original signed - - Janet Mizzi Field Supervisor References Doll, B.A., G.L. Grabow, K.R. Hall, J. Halley, W.A. Harman, G.D. Jennings, and D.E. Wise. 2003. Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook. North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute, North Carolina State University. 128 pp. Hall, K. 2003. Recommended Native Plant Species for Stream Restoration in North Carolina. Raleigh: North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute, North Carolina State University. Miller, J.R., and Kochel, R.C. 2010. Assessment of channel dynamics, in -stream structures and post -project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its implications to effective stream restoration. Environmental Earth Sciences, 59(8), pp. 1681-1692. Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C.N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, and D.L. Galat. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2), pp. 208-217. 4