20171295 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_20181010

Action History (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Submit by Anonymous User 10/10/2018 3:12:15 PM (Message Start Event)
Approve by Montalvo, Sheri A 10/11/2018 10:55:26 AM (Initial Review- Sheri Montalvo)
The task was assigned to Montalvo, Sheri A 10/10/2018 3:12 PM

ID#* 20171295 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Mitigation Project Submittal -10/10/2018
Type of Mitigation Project:*
W Stream r Wetlands I— Buffer I— Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * f Yes r No
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Cara Conder
Project Information
Existing 20171295
(DWR) (nunbers only no dash)
I D#: *
Project Name:* Scout Mitigation Site
County:* Davie
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing 1
Version:* (nunbersonly)
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plan
File Upload: Scout_ Mitigation-Plan_Draft.pdf 21.04MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Cara Conder
Signature: *

“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).”

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN

Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID SAW-2017-01505

Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101

Prepared by:

Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1052

July 2018; revised September 2018

Scout Mitigation Plan ii September 2018

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 2,922 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, II 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 iii September 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
Drainage Area and Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4
Surface Water Classification .......................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Landscape Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 4
Existing Vegetation ........................................................................................................................ 5
Existing Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 5
Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Soil Survey ..................................................................................................................................... 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
Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................................... 9
3.5 Reach Summary Information ................................................................................................. 9
Channel Classification .................................................................................................................. 10
Discharge ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Existing Channel Morphology ..................................................................................................... 10
Channel Stability Assessment ...................................................................................................... 10
3.6 Site Photographs ................................................................................................................... 12
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ....................................................................................... 13
4.1 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements ............................................................ 14
Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Hydraulic ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Geomorphology ............................................................................................................................ 14
Physiochemical ............................................................................................................................. 15
Biology ......................................................................................................................................... 15
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................ 16
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ..................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Reference Stream.................................................................................................................. 18
Reference Watershed Characterization ........................................................................................ 18
Reference Discharge ..................................................................................................................... 18
Reference Channel Morphology ................................................................................................... 18
Reference Channel Stability Assessment ..................................................................................... 19
Reference Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................... 19
Reference Riparian Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 19
6.2 Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 19
Stream Restoration Approach ....................................................................................................... 19
Design Discharge.......................................................................................................................... 21
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 23
6.3 Vegetation and Planting Plan ............................................................................................... 26
Plant Community Restoration ...................................................................................................... 26
Scout Mitigation Plan iv September 2018

On-Site Invasive Species Management ........................................................................................ 27
Soil Restoration ............................................................................................................................ 27
6.4 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 28
6.5 Determination of Credits ...................................................................................................... 29
6.6 Credit Calculations for Non-Standard Buffer Widths .......................................................... 29
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 31
7.1 Stream Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................... 31
Bankfull Events ............................................................................................................................ 31
Cross Sections .............................................................................................................................. 31
Digital Image Stations .................................................................................................................. 31
7.2 Vegetation Success Criteria .................................................................................................. 31
8 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................. 32
8.1 As-Built Survey .................................................................................................................... 32
8.2 Visual Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 32
8.3 Hydrology Events ................................................................................................................. 32
8.4 Cross Sections ...................................................................................................................... 32
8.5 Vegetative Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 32
8.6 Scheduling/Reporting ........................................................................................................... 33
9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 35
10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................... 36
11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ............................................................................................... 37
11.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits .................................................................................. 37
11.2 Subsequent Credit Releases .................................................................................................. 37
12 MAINTENANCE PLAN ............................................................................................................. 39
13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ...................................................................................................... 40
14 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 41

List of Tables

Table 1. Scout Project Components Summary ....................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information .............................................................................. 3
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information ................................................................................ 4
Table 4. Scout Vegetation Plot Summary .............................................................................................. 5
Table 5. Mapped Soil Series ................................................................................................................... 7
Table 6. Regulatory Considerations ....................................................................................................... 9
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ....................................................................... 10
Table 8. Channel Stability Assessment Results.................................................................................... 11
Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements .................................................................................. 17
Table 10. Scaling Factors for Sizing Planform Design Parameters ...................................................... 22
Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison ........................................................................................................ 24
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses ...................................................... 25
Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities ............................................................. 25
Table 14. Proposed Plant List ............................................................................................................... 27
Table 15. Mitigation Credits................................................................................................................. 29
Table 16. Stream Mitigation Credit Adjustments for Non-standard Buffer Widths ............................ 30
Table 17. Monitoring Requirements ..................................................................................................... 34
Table 18. Stream Credit Release Schedule ........................................................................................... 38
Table 19. Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................................. 39
Table 20. Financial Assurances ............................................................................................................ 40

Scout Mitigation Plan v September 2018

List of Charts

Chart 1. Stream Functions Framework ................................................................................................. 13

List of Figures

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

Appendices

Appendix A - Plan Sheets
Appendix B - Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Information
Appendix C - Site Protection Instrument
Appendix D - 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 1 September 2018

1 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 2,922 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
Credit Loss in Required Buffer -171
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer 224
Total Adjusted SMUs 2,922

Scout Mitigation Plan 2 September 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 HQW, ORW, 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 (ACSP) and Community Conservation Assistance
Program (CCAP);

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

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

6. Implementation of agricultural BMPs in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal
coliform to streams from active farming operations.
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 3 September 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
Miller 5853144949 Davie 0179/0006 3.12 HC3
Environmental
Banc &
Exchange, LLC
5853135817 Davie 1065/0058

10.101 HC3, CH1,
CH2

Scout Mitigation Plan 4 September 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, II, 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 5 September 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
(m2/ha) Avg. DBH (cm) Trees per Acre Total Tree Species Natural Community
1 33.0 25.5 40.5 9 Disturbed Piedmont Alluvial Forest
2 0 0 0 0 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 (Celtis laevigata), honey locust (Gleditisia
triacanthos), eastern red cedar (Juniperus 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 6 September 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 26th, 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 (NRCS) 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 7 September 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
Symbol
Map Unit Name Percent
Hydric
Drainage
Class
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Landscape
Setting
CoA Codorus loam, 0-2%
slopes 5% Somewhat
Poor B/D Floodplains
JkB Jackland loam, 1-6%
slopes 0% Somewhat
poor C/D Floodplains
MsC Mocksville sandy
loam, 8-15% slopes 0% Well B Hillslopes on
ridges
MsD Mocksville sandy
loam, 15-45% slopes 0% Well B Hillslopes on
ridges
RaC Rasalo fine sandy
loam, 8-15% slopes 0% Well C Hillslopes on
ridges
ToC2 Tomlin clay loam, 8-
15% slopes 0% Well B Hillslopes on
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 8 September 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 9 September 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, CH1 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, CH1, 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 10 September 2018

Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach Drainage
Area (ac)
ABKF 1
(ft2)
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth (ft)
Width:Depth
Ratio Sinuosity Slope (ft/ft)
HC3 810 26.5 11.3 2.3 5.2 1.05 0.0041
CH1 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
1ABKF= 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
CH1 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 11 September 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 12 September 2018

3.6 Site Photographs

Looking downstream along Reach HC3, above
CH2 confluence.
04/03/2018

Wetland D, where it includes buffer and pasture.
04/03/2018

Looking upstream along Reach CH2.
04/03/2018

Looking upstream at failed culvert on CH1.
04/03/2018

Looking upstream on Reach HC3.
04/03/2018

Right bank buffer at downstream end of project.
04/03/2018

Scout Mitigation Plan 13 September 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.
Chart 1. Stream Functions Framework

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 September 2018

design. Additionally, a functional-based approach broadens the reach-scale goals of a restoration
project by contextualizing the functional uplift to the watershed scale. The 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.

A highly-functioning score means that the function is being met with little to no constraints. A
functioning score means that the measurement method is quantifying or describing one or more aspects
of a function-based parameter in a way that does support a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Functioning-at-
risk means that the measurement method is quantifying or describing one or more aspects of a function-
based parameter in a way that can support a healthy aquatic ecosystem. This can indicate the function-
based parameter is adjusting in response to changes in the reach or the watershed, and the trend may be
towards lower or higher function. A functioning-at-risk score implies that the aspect of the function-
based parameter is between functioning and not functioning (Harman et al. 2012).
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-
Scout Mitigation Plan 15 September 2018

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.
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 September 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 September 2018

Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements

Level Function Goal Functional Parameter
Existing
Rating/Projected Rating
(Reach)
Objective Measurement Method
1 Hydrology°
Transport of water from the watershed to the
channel
to transport water from the watershed to
the channel in a non-erosive manner
Channel-Forming Discharge
Precipitation/Runoff Relationship
Flow Duration
Flood Frequency
Catchment Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Baseflow Alteration
F/F
(All Reaches)
Convert land-use of streams and their
headwaters from pasture to riparian forest
Percent Project drainage area converted
to riparian forest
(indirect measurement)
2 Hydraulic
Transport of water in the channel, on the floodplain,
and through the sediments
to transport water in a stable non-erosive
manner
Flood Bank Connectivity

Flow Dynamics

Groundwater/Surface water exchange
NF/F
(HC3)

FAR/F
(CH1, CH2)
Improve flood bank connectivity by
reducing bank height ratios and increase
entrenchment ratios
Cross sections

Crest gauges

3 Geomorphology
Transport of wood and sediment to create diverse
bedforms and dynamic equilibrium
to create a diverse bedform

to achieve dynamic equilibrium
Sediment Transport
LWD Transport and Storage
Channel Evolution
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
Bedform Diversity
Bed Material
Channel Sinuosity
NF/F
(HC3)

FAR/F
(CH1, CH2)
Reduce erosion rates and channel stability
to reference reach conditions

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

Increase buffer width to 50 feet
As-built stream profile

Cross sections

Visual monitoring

Stream walks

Vegetation plots
4 Physiochemical °
Temperature and oxygen regulation; processing of
organic matter and nutrients
to achieve appropriate levels for water
temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentration, and other important
nutrients including but not limited to
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Water Quality

Water Temperature

Nutrient load

Organic Carbon

Bacteria
NF/F
(HC3)

FAR/F
(CH1, CH2)
Unmeasured Objective

Improve stream temperature regulation
through introduction of canopy

Decrease nutrient loading through filtration
of planted riparian buffer
Vegetation plots
(indirect measurement)
5 Biology *
Biodiversity and life histories of aquatic life
histories and riparian life
to achieve functionality in levels 1-4 to
support the life histories of aquatic and
riparian plants and animals
Microbial Communities

Macrophyte Communities

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities

Fish Communities

Landscape Connectivity
NF/F
(HC3)

FAR/F
(CH1, CH2)
Unmeasured Objective

Improve aquatic habitat through the
installation of habitat features, construction
of pools at varying depths, and planting the
riparian buffer
Vegetation plots
(indirect measurement)
Not Measured (NM); Not Functioning (NF); Functioning-at-risk (FAR); Functioning (F); Highly Functioning (HF)
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured
Scout Mitigation Plan 18 September 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 September 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 September 2018

The Project will include Priority I Restoration and Enhancement Level II. 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 concept
design map 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 September 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 September 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
Reach Drainage
Area (ac)
Proposed Bankfull
CSA (ft2)
Design
Topwidth (ft)
Analog Reach
Topwidth (ft)
Scaling
Factor

HC3 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 September 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 Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mi2) which passed the Dalrymple
homogeneity test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations.
Regional flood frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2-year peak discharges based
Scout Mitigation Plan 24 September 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) Qbkf=89.04*(DA)0.73 (Harman et al., 1999)
(2) Qbkf=91.62*(DA)0.71 (Doll et al., 2002)
(3) Qbkf= 43.895*(DA)0.9472 (Lotspeich, 2009)

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

USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood-peak discharges. The
regression equations were developed from gauge data in different physiographic regions of the
Southeastern United States and are appropriate for drainage areas between one and 9000 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
Reach Drainage
Area (Ac)
FFQ
Q1.1
FFQ
Q1.5
NC Regional
Curve Q (1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
VA Regional
Curve Q (3)
Regional
Regression
Eqns. Q2 (4)
Design/
Calculated
Q
HC3 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 September 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) τ = γRS
τ = shear stress (lb/ft2)
γ = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)

Table 12. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Shear Stresses
Reach Proposed Shear Stress at
Bankfull Stage (lbs/ft2)
Critical Shear Stress
(lbs/ft2)
Permissible Shear Stress1
Sand/Silt/Clay
(lbs/ft2)
Coarse
Gravel
(lbs/ft2)
Vegetation
(lbs/ft2)
HC3 0.39 >0.54 0.03 to 0.26 0.33 to 0.67 0.7 to 1.7
1(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
Reach Manning’s “n” Value Design Velocity (ft/s) Bed Material
Permissible
Velocity1
(ft/sec)
HC3 0.05 2.5 Sand to coarse gravel 1.75 - 6.0
1(Fischenich, 2001)

Sediment Supply
In addition to the stability assessment, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply was performed by
characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of field reconnaissance and windshield surveys,
existing land use data, and historical aerial photography were analyzed to assess existing and past
watershed conditions to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment
supply. As discussed in Section 3.3, the land use throughout the site 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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
The Scout Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Warm Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland
Totals 2,922 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
Credit Lost in Required Buffer* -171
Credit Gain for Required Buffer* 224
Total Adjusted SMUs 2,922
*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 September 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 11).
Scout Mitigation Plan 31 September 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 September 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 plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version
4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data
Scout Mitigation Plan 33 September 2018

will be processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot will be
permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot
are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year.

Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be nine plots within the planted area (10.9 acres). Plots will be
a mixture of fixed and random plots, with six fixed plots and three random plots. Planted area indicates
all area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included in the
planted area. The following data will be recorded for all trees in the fixed plots: species, height, planting
date (or volunteer), and grid location. For random plots, species and height will be recorded for all
woody stems. The location (GPS coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will be identified in
the annual monitoring reports. Vegetation will be planted and plots established at least 180 days prior
to the initiation of the first year of monitoring. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between
July 1st and leaf drop. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored so that none become dominant
or alter the desired community structure of the Project. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific
treatment plan.
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 September 2018

Table 17. Monitoring Requirements
Level Goal Treatment Outcome Monitoring Metric Performance Standard
1 Hydrology To transport
water from the
watershed to
the channel in a
non-erosive
manner
Convert land-use of
Project reaches from
pasture to riparian
forest

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

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

Increase buffer
width to 50 feet
As-built stream profile NA
Cross sections: Surveyed
in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
less than 1.4 within restored
reaches
Visual monitoring Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2
Visual monitoring:
Performed at least
semiannually
Identify and document significant
stream problem areas; i.e.
erosion, degradation,
aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
4 Physiochemical ° To achieve
appropriate
levels for water
temperature,
dissolved
oxygen
concentration,
and other
important
nutrients
including but
not limited to
Nitrogen and
Phosphorus
Exclude future
livestock from
riparian areas with
conservation
easement, and plant a
riparian buffer
Improve stream
temperature
regulation through
introduction of
canopy
Decrease nutrient
loading through
filtration of planted
riparian buffer
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
(indirect measurement)
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
Visual assessment of
project area: Performed
at least semiannually
(indirect measurement)
Identify and document any
issues; fix missing signs
5 Biology * To achieve
functionality in
levels 1-4 to
support the life
histories of
aquatic and
riparian plants
and animals
Plant a riparian
buffer, install habitat
features, and
construct pools of
varying depths
Improve aquatic
habitat through the
installation of
habitat features,
construction of
pools at varying
depths, and
planting the
riparian buffer
Visual monitoring of in-
stream habitat features:
Performed at least
semiannually
(indirect measurement)
Identify and document significant
stream problem areas; i.e.
degradation, aggradation,
stressed or failed structures, etc.
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured

Scout Mitigation Plan 35 September 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 USACE.
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 September 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
[phone]
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
[e-mail]

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 September 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 September 2018

Table 18. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release
Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim
Release Total Released

1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
stated above) 15% 15%

2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey 15% 30%

3 First year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 40%

4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 50%

5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 60%
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 5% 65%
(75%**)

7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 10% 75%
(85%**)
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 5% 80%
(90%**)

9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met, and project
has received close-out approval.
10% 90%
(100%**)
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.

Scout Mitigation Plan 39 September 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 period.
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 September 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.g. 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 September 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
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf)

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

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

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

LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Scout Mitigation Plan 42 September 2018

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.

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

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

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

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 (NRCS).
1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.

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

USDA NRCS. 2007. Soil Survey of Davie County, North Carolina.

Scout Mitigation Plan 43 September 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.nrcs.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.

Figures List
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – USGS Map
Figure 3 – Landowner Map
Figure 4 – Land-use Map
Figure 5 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 6 – National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 7 – Soils Map
Figure 8 – Historical Conditions Map
Figure 9 – FEMA Map
Figure 10 – Concept Design Map
Figure 11 – Buffer Width Zones
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
©Date: 7/6/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 1_Vicinity Map_Scout.mxdChecked by: ATP
Scout MitigationSite
Legend
Proposed Easement
DMS Mockingbird Easement
DMS Catbird Easement
DMS Hauser Creek Easement
Service Area - HUC 03040101
TLW - HUC 03040101160010
Scout MitigationSite
Mockingbird MitigationSite
Catbird MitigationSite
Hauser CreekMitigation Site
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Map(Farmington 1967) Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Areas (810ac)
©Date: 7/10/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 2_USGS Map_Scout.mxd1 inch = 1,200 feet
810 ac.156 ac.
43 ac.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC5853135817
MILLER NANCY SPARKS5853144949
0 500250
Feet
Figure 3 - Landowner Map
Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcels
Parcels
©Date: 7/6/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 3_Landowner Map_Scout.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 4 - Land Use Map
Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
Land Use
Forest - 39%
Crops - 26%
Pasture - 23%
Residential - 8%
Road - 2%
Water - 1%
Urban - <1%
©Date: 7/10/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 4_Land Use Map_Scout.mxd1 inch = 1,200 feet
WDCH2CH1H
C
3
0 400200
Feet
Figure 5 - Existing Conditions Map
Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Existing Streams
Proposed Easement - 13.22ac.
Wetlands
Parcels
©Date: 7/6/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 5_Existing Conditions Map_Scout.mxd1 inch = 400 feet
PUBHh
0 400200
Feet
Figure 6 - NWI Map
Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
NWI Wetlands
©Date: 6/28/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 6_NWI Map_Scout.mxd1 inch = 400 feet
MsC
W
W
ToB2
ToC2
MsC
OkB2
CoA
CoA
CoA
OkC2
ToB2
ToC2ToC2
ToC2
RcC
OkB2 OkB2
MsC
MsD
ToB2
RaC
MsC
OkB2
OkB2
W RaB
RaB
RaC
ToC2
JkB
OkC2DkB
RaB
RaB
RaB
ToB2
0 400200
Feet
Figure 7 - Soils Map
Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
©Date: 6/28/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 7_Soils Map_Scout2.mxd1 inch = 400 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
Hydric (100%)
Predominantly Hydric (66-99%)
Partially Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
Symbol Name
CoA Codorus loam, 0-2% slopes
JkB Jackland loam, 1-6% slopes
MsC Mocksville sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
MsD Mocksville sandy loam, 15-45% slopes
RaC Rasalo fine sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
ToC2 Tomlin clay loam, 8-15% slopes
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 8 - Historical Imagery map_Scout.mxd1963
1993 2006
Legend
Proposed Easement
Figure 8 - Historical Aerials Map
Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
©Date: 6/29/2018
Drawn by: EWT
0 600300
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
1982
0 400200
Feet
Figure 9 - FEMA MapPanel: 3710584200L eff: 05/18/2009 Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
FEMA Zone AE
FEMA Regulatory Floodway
.2% Chance Annual Flood
©Date: 7/5/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 9_FEMA Map_Scout.mxd1 inch = 400 feet
CH2CH1H
C
3
0 300150
Feet
Figure 10 - Concept Design Map
Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement - 13.22ac.
Parcels
Approach
Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
©Date: 9/20/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 10_Conceptual Map_Scout.mxd1 inch = 300 feet
Checked by: CSC
Proposed Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Length (LF)Mitigation Ratio Base SMUs
HC3 Restoration 2,686 1.0:1 2,686
CH1 Enhancement II 348 2.5:1 139
CH2 Enhancement II 110 2.5:1 44
3,144 2,869
-171
224
2,922
Total
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
Total Adjusted SMUs
Credit Lost in Required Buffer
©0 300150
Feet
Date: 9/19/2018 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 11 - Non-Standard Buffers.mxdFigure 11 - Non-Standard Buffer Zones
ScoutMitigation Site
Davie County,North Carolina
1 in = 300 feet
Ideal Buffers Actual Buffers
Legend
Proposed Easement
Mockingbird Easement
Buffer Width Zones
0-15 feet
15-20 feet
20-25 feet
25-30 feet
30-35 feet
35-40 feet
40-45 feet
45-50 feet
50-75 feet
75-100 feet
100-125 feet
125-150 feet
No credit loss in minimum buffer width zones (35-40 ft, 40-45 ft, & 45-50 ft) where the Mockingbird easement occurs
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feetMax Possible Buffer (square feet)94,320 31,440 31,440 31,440 31,440 31,440 31,440 31,440 157,200 157,200 157,200 157,200Ideal Buffer (square feet)96,649 32,390 32,495 32,574 32,624 32,426 32,198 32,116 158,924 156,621 157,794 160,194Actual Buffer (square feet)93,252 30,495 30,169 29,902 29,608 29,093 28,759 28,457 113,262 54,714 26,262 16,595Zone Multiplier 50%10%10%10%5%5%5%5%7%5%4%4%Buffer Credit Equivalent 1,435 287 287 287 143 143 143 143 201 143 115 115Percent of Ideal Buffer 96%94%93%92%91%90%89%89%71%35%17%10%Credit Adjustment -50 -17 -21 -24 -13 -15 -15 -16 143 50 19 12
Total Baseline Credit
2,869
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-171
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
224
Net Change inCredit from Buffers53
Total Credit
2,922

Appendix A - Plan Sheets

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 HERE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCELCE
X
X
XX
X
X X XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX
X
X
X
X
X XXX XXX X XXX
XXXXXX XXXX
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCELCE
5001000500PROJECT LOCATIONSITE MAPFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_COVER.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usRESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110RALEIGH, NC 27605VICINITY MAPNTS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEJULY 2018YADKIN 01 RIVER BASIN: HUC 03040101DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINASCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITEAFMTRSAFMCSC0381-PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 7/6/2018Sheet List TableSheet Number Sheet Title-COVERE1NOTESE2INDEX SHEETE3EXISTING CONDITIONSSC1REACH HC3SC2REACH HC3SC3REACH HC3SC4REACH HC3SC5REACH HC3SC6REACH CH1SC7REACH CH2P1PLANTING PLANM1MONITORING PLAND1DETAILSD2DETAILSD3DETAILSD4DETAILSD5DETAILSD6DETAILSD7DETAILSREACH HC3REACH CH2REACH CH1
LEGENDTBBBOHEXEXISTING TREELINELCELIMITS OF PROPOSEDCONSERVATION EASEMENT50465042EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY LINEPROPOSED TOP OF BANKEXISTING FENCELINEEXISTING BOTTOM OF BANKEXISTING TOP OF BANKPROPOSED CONTOUR MINORPROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOREXISTING CONTOUR MINOREXISTING CONTOUR MAJOREXISTING WETLANDPROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)LOG SILL(SEE DETAIL D4)LOG SILL(PROFILE)PROPOSED FILL AREALOG CROSS VANE(SEE DETAIL D5)LOG CROSS VANE(PROFILE)DOUBLE LOG DROP(SEE DETAIL D4)PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNELEXISTING TREEEXISTING STREAMTBTBBBBBCONSTRUCTION NOTES:1. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS DESCRIBED IN THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN ANDNOTES. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE PHASED-IN TO THOSE AREAS OF THE PROJECTCURRENTLY BEING WORKED ON. THE CONTRACTOR MAY MODIFY OR RELOCATE EROSIONCONTROL MEASURES TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR UNFORESEEN FIELD CONDITIONS SO LONGAS PROPER CONSTRUCTION IS MAINTAINED TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY AND USEFULNESS OF THEPROPOSED MEASURES. ALL DISTURBED AREAS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS SHALL BE STABILIZEDWITH TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH AT THE END OF EACH DAY.2. IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAMDIRECTION.3. EXISTING WETLANDS CANNOT BE ENCROACHED UPON UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IF NOTAPPROVED AS DESIGNATED IMPACT AREAS. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING MUST BE PLACED AROUNDALL EXISTING WETLANDS THAT ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND/ORARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT.4. DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE ENDOF EACH WORKING DAY.5. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION ANDSTABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE ABANDONED AT ANELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE PROPOSED CHANNEL.6. STOCKPILE AREAS MAY BE RELOCATED UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. SILT FENCINGMUST BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL STOCKPILE AREAS.7. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND SHALLNOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED,PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF THE TREES TO BE SAVED. ANYCOMPROMISED TREES NOT USED IN CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OFOFF SITE.8. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE GRAVEL/COBBLE SUBSTRATE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CHANNELS TOBE ABANDONED. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PROPOSED BED OF SHALLOWCHANNEL SECTIONS.9. IN-STREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS (BRUSH TOES,LOG VANES, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PERAPPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.10. THE WORK TO RESHAPE THE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE PERFORMED USING EQUIPMENT WORKINGFROM THE TOP OF THE EXISTING STREAM BANK, WHERE POSSIBLE.11. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN THE ACTIVE CHANNEL TO PERFORMWORK IF POSSIBLE. PLATFORMS SHOULD BE USED TO CROSS CHANNEL WHERE ACCESS IS NOTPOSSIBLE.12. NO MORE CHANNEL SHALL BE DISTURBED THAN CAN BE STABILIZED BY THE END OF THE WORKDAY OR PRIOR TO RESTORING FLOW TO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL SEGMENTS.13. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL DEVICES ONCE CONSTRUCTION ISCOMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED. A MAXIMUM OF 200 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM MAY BEDISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.14. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.15. AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS BEING MAINTAINED, TEMPORARY PUMPAROUND DAMS AND BYPASS PUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE-WATER THE WORK AREA ASDESCRIBED IN THE DETAILS.16. WHEN THE PROPOSED CHANNEL HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION, ALLTEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL ANDNORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATEDSPOILS AREAS PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAM.17. AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH ROCK STRUCTURES, BOULDER TOE STABILIZATION, AND LOG TOESTABILIZATION ARE CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS, TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS AND BYPASSPUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE-WATER THE WORK AREA, EXCEPT AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THENORMAL FLOW CAN BE DIVERTED AROUND THE WORK AREA WITH THE USE OF AN EXISTINGCHANNEL. WHEN THE TOE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO RESTRAIN EROSION ALLTEMPORARY COFFER DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL ANDNORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATEDSPOILS AREA PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY COFFER DAM.18. MATERIAL THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE STREAM WILL BE RE-DEPOSITED OUTSIDE OF THE ACTIVECHANNEL AND ITS FLOODPLAIN.19. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF ALL DISTURBED GRASSED AREAS AT THE TOP OFTHE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEEDING AND MULCHING SPECIFICATIONAS SHOWN ON PLANS.20. RE-FERTILIZE AND RE-SEED DISTURBED AREAS IF NECESSARY.21. TEMPORARY AND/OR PERMANENT IMPACTS TO EXISTING WETLANDS SHALL BE AVOIDED TO THEEXTENT POSSIBLE. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL EXISTINGWETLANDS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND/OR ADJACENT TO ANY CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES.STREAM CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:1. CONDUCT PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING INCLUDING OWNER, ENGINEER, ASSOCIATEDCONTRACTORS, NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL, AND OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES.CONTACT NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL AT 919-791-4200.2. OBTAIN EROSION CONTROL PERMIT FROM NCDENR - LAND QUALITY SECTION AND ALL OTHERAPPROVALS NECESSARY TO BEGIN AND COMPLETE THE PROJECT.3. CONTRACTOR IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL APPROPRIATE PARTIES ANDASSURING THAT UTILITIES ARE LOCATED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION.CALL NC ONE-CALL (PREVIOUSLY ULOCO) AT 1-800-632-4949 FOR UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONAND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.4. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, STABILIZED GRAVEL ENTRANCE/EXIT AND ROUTES OF INGRESS ANDEGRESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND DETAILS. MAINTAIN EXISTINGDRIVEWAY OVERTOPPING ELEVATION / PROFILE.5. PREPARE STAGING AND STOCKPILING AREAS IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTIONPLANS OR AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ANY EXCESS SPOIL FROM STREAM CONSTRUCTIONSHALL BE USED TO CONSTRUCT CHANNEL PLUGS AS SHOWN ON PLANS.6. INSTALL PUMP AROUND APPARATUS AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AT UPSTREAM END OF PROJECT.AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES, MOVE PUMP AROUND OPERATION DOWNSTREAM. (SEEDETAILS ON SHEET D1)7. INSTALL SILT FENCE, TEMPORARY CROSSINGS AND ALL OTHER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ASSHOWN ON PLANS.8. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TODOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.9. ROUGH GRADING OF CHANNEL SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.10. INSTALL STRUCTURES AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DETAILS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING, OBTAINAPPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.11. UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATSALONG CHANNEL BANKS.12. FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF THEENGINEER.13. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM ATTHE END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.14. DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE ENDOF EACH WORKING DAY.15. INSTALL LIVE STAKE, BARE ROOT, AND CONTAINERIZED PLANTINGS AS SPECIFIED ON PLANTINGPLANS.DOUBLE LOG DROP(PROFILE)ROCK CROSS VANE(SEE DETAIL D5)ROCK A-VANE(SEE DETAIL D5)ROCK CROSS VANE/A-VANE(PROFILE)BRUSH TOE PROTECTION(SEE DETAIL D2)DRY DETENTION BASIN(SEE DETAIL D2)SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us7/6/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONE10381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
NOTES
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINALOG VANE(SEE DETAIL D3)CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE(SEE DETAIL D6)
BB
BBBBBBBB
B
B
BB BBBBBB
BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BB BBBB BBBB BBBBBB BBBB BB BB BBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BBBBBB BBBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XX X X X X X X XXXXX X X XX XX X X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX X XLCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
BB BBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBB BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTB TBTBTB TBTB TB
TB TBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBTBT
B
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTBT
B
TBTB
TB
TB TBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTBT
B
TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB
X
X
X XX
X
XTBTB
TBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCE LCELCE
LC
E
LC
E LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCE LCELCE2004002000FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usDAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INDEX SHEET
SCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
AFMTRSAFMCSC0381E2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/10/2018SC5SC4SC3SC2SC1REACH CH2REACH HC3REACH CH1PROPOSED MOCKINGBIRDSTREAM MITIGATION SITEPROPOSED MOCKINGBIRDSTREAM MITIGATION SITE
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTB TBTB
TB
TB TBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
TBT
B
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TB TB TBT
B
TB TBTB
TB TBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTB
TBX
X
XBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X XXX XXX X XXXXXXXXX XXX X
TBTBT
B
TBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCE
3006003000FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usDAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
AFMTRSAFMCSC0381E3PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/10/2018REACH CH2REACH HC3REACH CH1PROPOSED MOCKINGBIRDSTREAM MITIGATION SITEPROPOSED MOCKINGBIRDSTREAM MITIGATION SITE
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXS32S33
S34S35S36S37S38MATCH LINE 6+00SC2LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006
+
5
0
7+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7157207257307357157207257307350+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00-0.35%S32S34S36(STA 0+53)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_HC1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us07/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSC10381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
REACH HC3
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH HC3RESTORATIONSTA 0+53 TO 27+39TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION3.1'6.1'18.4'2.1'14.8'3.0'19.8'3.9'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH HC3 STA 0+53 TO STA 27+392.6'14.8'3.0'19.8'3.9'EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKEXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLEDSEE DETAIL D2
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB
BB
BB
BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXS36S37S38S39S40S41S42S43S44S108S107SC1MATCH LINE 6+00MATCH LINE 12+00
SC3
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE5+005+506+006+50 7+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+001
1
+
5
0
12+0012+5013+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7157207257307357157207257307356+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+00-0.35%S40S38S423060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_HC1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us07/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSC20381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
REACH HC3
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH HC3RESTORATIONSTA 0+53 TO 27+39TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION3.1'6.1'18.4'2.1'14.8'3.0'19.8'3.9'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH HC3 STA 0+53 TO STA 27+392.6'14.8'3.0'19.8'3.9'EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKEXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLEDSEE DETAIL SHT D2REACH CH2
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXS43S44S45S46S47S48S49S50S512+251+502+004+142+50
3+00
3+504+00S106S108S105S107SC2MATCH LINE 12+00
MATCH LINE 18+00SC4LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE11+0011+50 12+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+001
5
+
5
0
16+0016+5017+0017+501
8+
0
0
18+5019+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'71572072573073571572072573073512+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+00-0.35%S44S46S47S493060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_HC1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us07/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSC30381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
REACH HC3
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH HC3RESTORATIONSTA 0+53 TO 27+39TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION3.1'6.1'18.4'2.1'14.8'3.0'19.8'3.9'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH HC3 STA 0+53 TO STA 27+392.6'14.8'3.0'19.8'3.9'EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANK
BBBBBB BBBBB
B
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXS49S50S51S52S53S54S55S56S57S104S106S105SC3MATCH LINE 18+00MATCH LINE 24+00
SC5
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE17+0017+5018+00 18+5019+0019+5020+0020+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+5025+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'71071572072573071071572072573018+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+00-0.35%S51S53S553060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_HC1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us07/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSC40381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
REACH HC3
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH HC3RESTORATIONSTA 0+53 TO 27+39TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION3.1'6.1'18.4'2.1'14.8'3.0'19.8'3.9'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH HC3 STA 0+53 TO STA 27+392.6'14.8'3.0'19.8'3.9'EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKEXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLEDSEE DETAIL D2EXISTING PIPE TO BEREMOVED AND DISPOSEDOF OFF-SITEREACH CH1
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBB
BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
XS56S57S58S59
S60S61S62S63SC4MATCH LINE 24+00MATCH LINE 30+00MB11LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE23+5024+0024+5025+0025+5026+0026+5027+0027+5028+0028+5029+0029+503
0+
0
0
30+5031+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'71071572072573071071572072573024+0024+5025+0025+5026+0026+5027+0027+5028+0028+5029+0029+5030+00-0.35%-0.35%S57S59S60(STA 27+39)
(STA 27+79)CONSERVATIONEASEMENTBREAKPROP 24 LF OFDBL 48" RCPMOCKINGBIRD STREAM MITIGATION SITESCOUT STREAM MITIGATION SITE3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_HC1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us07/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSC50381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
REACH HC3
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH HC3RESTORATIONSTA 0+53 TO 27+39TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION3.1'6.1'18.4'2.1'14.8'3.0'19.8'3.9'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH HC3 STA 0+53 TO STA 27+392.6'14.8'3.0'19.8'3.9'EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKPROPOSED MOCKINGBIRDSTREAM MITIGATION SITE(BEGINS AT STA 27+79)EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLEDSEE DETAIL SHEET D2PROPOSED 24 LFOF DBL. 48" RCP
BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
BB
BB BBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBB
B
BBB
B
B
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBX
X
X
X
X
X
X
XS49S50S51 S52S534+
1
4 0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+
0
0S102S104S106S103S105 LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
L
C
E
L
C
ESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7107157207257307107157207257300+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+50-1.00%-1.00%(STA 0+38)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
S104S106S1023060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_HC1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us07/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSC60381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
REACH CH1
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH CH1ENHANCEMENT IISTA 0+38 TO 3+86EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANK℄TYPICAL CROSS SECTION1.5'6.0'0.8'BANKFULL STAGEREACH CH1 STA 2+95 TO STA 3+861.5'REACH HC3EXISTING TOP OF BANKTIE REACH CH1 INTOPROPOSED BED OFREACH HC3
BB BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
BBBBB
B
BB
BBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
T
B
T
B TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBT
B
TBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XS41S42S43S44S452+250+000+501+001+502+00S108S107LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
LCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7157207257307357157207257307350+000+501+001+502+002+50-0.56%(STA 1+00)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
S1083060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_HC1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us07/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSC70381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
REACH CH2
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH CH2ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1+00 TO 2+10EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANK℄TYPICAL CROSS SECTION2.8'8.4'0.9'BANKFULL STAGEREACH CH2 STA 1+32 TO STA 2+101.4'1.2'TIE REACH CH2 INTOPROPOSED BED OFREACH HC3
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
BB BBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBB BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTB TBTBTBTBTB TB
TB TBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBT
B
TBTBT
B
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TB TBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTBT
B
TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB TB
TBTB
X
X
X XXXXTBTB
TBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCE LCELCE
LC
E
LC
E LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
LCELCELCE LCELCEBB
BBBBBBBB
BB
BB BBBBBB
BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BB BBBB BBBB BBBBBB BBBB BB BB BBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BBBBBB BBBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XX XX XX XXXXXX X X XX XX X X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX X XLCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
2004002000FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usDAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PLANTING PLAN
SCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
AFMTRSAFMCSC0381P1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/10/2018 PLANTING NOTESALL PLANTING AREAS1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATIONIS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECTEROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES AREFUNCTIONING PROPERLY.2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BEESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR SPRING-TOOTHCHISEL PLOW TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSSPLANTING AREAS WITH THE IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHICCONTOURS.4. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. LIVESTAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2.5. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6" DBH SHALLBE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.6. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO 6 PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES AREGROUPED TOGETHER.7. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.8. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTHBANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.9. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREASWITH SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1.10. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.11. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE. PLANTING LEGENDLive Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionSilky dogwoodCornus amomum40%Black willowSalix nigra60%PLANTING TABLEPermanent Riparian Seed MixCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionVirginia WildryeElymus virginicus25%Indian GrassSorghastrum nutans25%Little Blue StemSchizachyrium scoparium10%Soft RushJuncus effusus10%Blackeyed susanRudbeckia hirta10%DeertongueDichanthelium clandestinum10%Common MilkweedAsclepias syriaca5%Showy GoldenrodSolidago erecta5%LIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTLCEBare Root Planting Tree SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionWater OakQuercus nigra15%Willow OakQuercus phellos15%River BirchBetula nigra15%American SycamorePlatanas occidentalis15%Northern Red OakQuercus rubra10%Green AshFraxinus pennsylvanica10%Yellow PoplarLiriodendron tulipifera10%PersimmonDiospyros virginiana5%Black GumNyssa biflora5%EXISTING TREELINEREACH CH2REACH HC3REACH CH1PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED MOCKINGBIRDSTREAM MITIGATION SITEPROPOSED MOCKINGBIRDSTREAM MITIGATION SITERIPARIAN PLANTING(TOTAL AREA: 11.5 AC)
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
BB BBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBB BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTB TBTBTB TBTB TB
TB TBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBT
B
TBTBT
B
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
TB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTBT
B
TBTB
TB
TB TBTB TB TBTBTB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTBT
B
TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB
X
X
X XX
XXTBTB
TBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCE LCELCE
LC
E
LC
E LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
LCELCELCE LCELCEBB
BBBBBBBB
BB
BB BBBBBB
BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BB BB BBBB BBBB BBBBBB BBBB BB BB BBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BBBBBB BBBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X XX XX X X XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX X XLCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
2004002000FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usDAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MONITORING PLAN
SCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
AFMTRSAFMCSC0381M1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/10/2018LEGENDVPPROPOSED VEGETATION PLOT(AREA: 0.02 AC)PROPOSED CREST GAUGERIPARIAN PLANTINGLIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROPOSED CROSS SECTIONLOCATIONSLCEPROPOSED FLOW GAUGEREACH CH2REACH HC3REACH CH1VPVPVPVPVPVPVPVPVPVPPROPOSED MOCKINGBIRDSTREAM MITIGATION SITEPROPOSED MOCKINGBIRDSTREAM MITIGATION SITESUPPLEMENTALPLANTING/EVASIVES CONTROL
WHEN AND WHERE TO USE ITSILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS:WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE IS 100-FEET.WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS 2H:1V.THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS.DO NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP.CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:1. USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 95% BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER, WHICH ISCERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM D 6461.SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE AMINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF 0° TO 120°F.2. ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/LINEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 FEET.MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE FASTENING THE FABRIC.CONSTRUCTION:1. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS.2. ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUNDSURFACE. (HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE OF THESTRUCTURE.)3. CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOIDJOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH 4FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST.4. EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH 6 FEET POST SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE.SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM50 POUND TENSILE STRENGTH.5. EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED LINE OFPOSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER.6. PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH.7. BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH COMPACTIONOF THE BACKFILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE.8. DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES.MAINTENANCE:INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRSIMMEDIATELY.SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE ITPROMPTLY.REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND TOREDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND STABILIZEIT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.8"4"24" MIN
24" MIN
8"RUNOFFRUNOFF18" TO 24"FLAT-BOTTOM TRENCH DETAILV-SHAPED TRENCH DETAILSILT FENCE INSTALLATION18" TO 24"TEMPORARY SILT FENCENTSCOIR MATTINGNTSINSTALLATION NOTES:SITE PREPARATION1. GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.2. REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT MATTING WILLHAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.3. PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE.4. TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT SOIL TEST RESULTS TO THEENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH AS LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE SOIL IF NEEDED.SEEDING1. SEE PLANTING SHEETS FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.2. APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING.INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK1. SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FORINFORMATION REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING.2. OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS 3" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 12"ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAMMAT.3. EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER.4. LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT.5. ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINS.6. CUT 8" x 8" TRENCH ALONG TOP OF BANK FOR MAT TERMINATION AS SHOWN IN FIGURES 1& 2. EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK.7. PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OVERLAP.SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, ANDCOMPACT SOIL.8. STAPLE AT 12" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.9. STREAM BANK MATTING TO BE INSTALLED FROM TOE OF BANK TO A MINIMUM OF 2.0'PAST TOP OF BANK. SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TERMINATION AT TOP OF BANK.10. IF MORE THAN ROLL IS REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWNTO THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'.EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THEFOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:·100 % COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO AHIGH STRENGTH MATRIX.·THICKNESS - 0.35 IN. MINIMUM.·SHEAR STRESS – 5 LBS/SQFT·FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED 16 FT/SEC·WEIGHT - 29 OZ/SY·OPEN AREA - 38%·SLOPES – UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 1:1SEE S
ITE
P
LAN EXIST
ING
ROAD50' MIN.VARIES COARSE AGGREGATE -STONE SIZE = 2"-3"PURPOSE:STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE LEAVING ACONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD.CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:1. CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL ANDPROPERLY GRADE IT.2. PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL, AND SMOOTH IT.3. PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.4. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TOSEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.MAINTENANCE:MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE. AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTUREUSED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALSSPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS.TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCENTSNOTE: HOSE SHOULD BEKEPT OUTSIDE OF WORKAREANOTES:1. EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND/OR ISOLATED SECTIONS OFCHANNEL.2. IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAMFLOW.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED INONE WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONETIME.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING PUMP SIZESUFFICIENT TO PUMP BASE FLOW.5. DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-ERODIBLE MATERIALS SUCH AS SANDBAGS.SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:1. INSTALL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS A RIP RAP AT THEDOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA.2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARYPIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREATO THE STABILIZED OUTFALL.3. INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FORSTREAM DIVERSION.4. INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING PUMPINGAPPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSEFOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA.THIS WATER WILL ALSO BE PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLASS A RIPRAP.5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFOREREMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATERMUST BE PUMPED THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS,AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKEFIRST.6. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP AND IMPERVIOUSDIKES AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH.7. ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING IMPERVIOUS DIKE.SILT BAG PROFILE15' TO 20'FLOWINTAKE HOSEPUMP AROUNDPUMPCLASS ASTONEWORKAREADE-WATERINGPUMPIMPERVIOUSDIKESILT BAGLOCATIONSTABILIZED OUTFALLCLASS A STONEFILTER FABRICEXISTINGGROUNDDISCHARGEHOSE8" OF CLASS ASTONEFILTER FABRICSTABILIZEDOUTFALL CLASS ASTONEEXISTINGCHANNELDISCHARGE HOSEIMPERVIOUS DIKECLASS ASTONEPUMP AROUND & DEWATERING DETAILNTSSECTION B-BFLOWSECTION A-APLANFLOWCLASS I AND II RIPRAPSPILLWAY CREST1' MIN OF # 5WASHED STONECLASS I AND IIRIP RAPFILTER FABRICGENERAL NOTES:1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION CONTROLMANUAL.2. ROCK DAM RIPRAP SHALL BE 50/50 MIX OF CLASS I AND II.3. PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS B RIPRAP ROCK APRON 5 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE OF ROCKDAM.1.5' THICK CLASSB ROCK APRON1.5' THICK CLASSB ROCK APRONCUTOFF TRENCHFILTERFABRIC# 5 WASHED STONETEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAMNTSFLOWSECTION A-ANOTE: END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BEHIGHER THAN THE LOWEST POINT OF FLOW CHECK.SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE PLACED TOPREVENT SCOURING.SECTION B-BBBAAPLAN VIEWSANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OF SANDBAGS.THE BOTTOM LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS OF BAGS, THE MIDDLE LAYERSHALL CONSIST OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND THE TOP LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 1ROW OF BAGS. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED SANDBAG SHALL BEAPPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT X 0.5 FT X 1.5 FT.SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKENTS1
.
0
'MIN.KEY-IN MATTING PERFIG. 1 OR FIG. 2FLOW18"FLOWSTEP 1STEP 2FLOWSTEP 1STEP 2FLOW1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 18"O.C1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 12"O.C1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 24"O.CFIGURE 1FIGURE 2SOIL PILEFROM TRENCHTRENCH APPROX.8" WIDE X 8" DEEP1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 24"O.CKEY-IN AND/ORSTAKE MATTINGJUST ABOVECHANNEL TOE2.0'MIN.EROSION CONTROL WATTLENTSEXISTINGGRADEMINIMUM 9" EROSIONCONTROL STRAW WATTLEOR COIR WATTLE/LOGNOTE:EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOGS/WATTLES MAY BE USED IN PLACE OFSILT FENCE.SLOPEINSTALL WATTLE IN 3" TO5" TRENCH2" x 1" OR 2" x 2"WOODEN STAKEBACKFILL TRENCH WITHCOMPACTED EARTH1.25 LB./LINEAR FT. STEEL POSTSEXTRA STRENGTHFILTER FABRICUSE EITHER FLAT-BOTTOMOR V-BOTTOM TRENCHSHOWN BELOWBURY FABRICHEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIEFOR STEEL POSTS6' MAX WITH STANDARD FABRICFILTER FABRICCOMPACTEDEARTHFILTER FABRICFILTER FABRICCOMPACTEDEARTHRUNOFFFILTERFABRICTRENCH APPROX.8" WIDE x 8" DEEPSOIL PILEFROM TRENCHSOIL FILLEDFROM SOIL PILE,COMPACT WITH FOOTSOIL FILLEDFROM SOIL PILE,COMPACT WITH FOOTBBAA3:
1
2:12'5' MIN.W (SPILLWAY)MIN. 23 STREAM WIDTH6" MIN.MIDDLE LAYERBOTTOM LAYERTOP LAYEREARTH SURFACETRENCH 0.25' DEEPONLY WHEN PLACED ONEARTH SURFACEENDS OF BAGS INADJACENT ROWS BUTTEDSLIGHTLY TOGETHERSEE NOTELOWEST POINTGROUND LEVELEARTH SURFACE2'2' MIN. BELOWLOWEST BANKLEVELSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Fmullen
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us7/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND10381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NOTES:1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, 5-8 FEET LONG, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, ANDHARDWOOD.2. CABLE ANCHORS SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3' FROM EACH END OF LOG. REBAR (5/8" MINIMUM DIAMETER3' MIN. LENGTH TYPICAL) MAY BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR CABLE ANCHORS PER DIRECTION OFENGINEER.3. IF REBAR IS USED, PRE-DRILL HOLES WITH 5/8" DRILL BIT.FINISHED GRADE30'FLOWTYPICAL SECTIONLOG TOE PROTECTIONNTSCHANNEL PLUGNTSPLAN VIEWSECTION VIEWPLANTED COIR FIBERROLLNORMAL WATERLEVELDENSE COIR MATTING(ROLANKA BioD-Mat®90 OREQUIVALENT)WOOD STAKEEXISTING BANKPLANTED COIR FIBERROLLWOODSTAKESVEGETATED SILL DEFLECTORNTS2.0' TO 3.0'0.5' TO 1.25'NOTES:1. DESIGNER TO MARK LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OFSILLS IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.2. INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL.TOP OF STAKE SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.3. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (APPROX 2in DEEP) FORPLACEMENT OF ROLL.BACKFILL AREA BETWEEN BANK AND COIR FIBER ROLL(APPLY PERMANENT SEED MIX & COIR MATING)KEY IN UPSTREAMEND OF ROLL APPROX2-4 FT INTO BANKNOTES1. INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL. TOP OF STAKE SHOULDNOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.2. EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (DEPTH APPROX 1/2 TO 2/3 OF LOG DIAM) FORPLACEMENT OF ROLL.3. COIR LOGS SHALL BE 10 FT LONG AND HAVE A DIAMETER OF 12 IN.COIR LOG (TOE PROTECTION)NTSWOODSTAKESNOTE:1. ACCEPTABLE SPECIES INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA), SILKY WILLOW(SALIX SERICEA) AND SILKY DOGWOOD (CORNUS AMMOMUM).2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED IN AN AREA EXTENDING 3 FEET OUT FROM TOPOF BANK TO JUST BELOW BANKFULL.3. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE SPACED 3 FEET APART, ALTERNATE SPACING.41DETAILLIVE STAKES SHOULD BE LONG ENOUGHTO REACH BELOW THE GROUNDWATERTABLE. (GENERALLY, A LENGTH OF 2 TO 3FEET IS SUFFICIENT.) ADDITIONALLY, THESTAKES SHOULD HAVE A DIAMETER INTHE RANGE OF 0.75 TO 2 INCHES.WATER TABLELIVE STAKENTSDIBBLE PLANTING METHODUSING THE KBC PLANTING BAR1. INSERTPLANTING BAR ASSHOWN AND PULLHANDLE TOWARDPLANTER.4. PULL HANDLE OFBAR TOWARDPLANTER, FIRMINGSOIL AT BOTTOM.2. REMOVEPLANTING BARAND PLACESEEDING ATCORRECT DEPTH.3. INSERTPLANTING BAR 2INCHES TOWARDPLANTER FROMSEEDING.5. PUSHHANDLEFORWARDFIRMING SOILAT TOP.6. LEAVECOMPACTIONHOLE OPEN.WATERTHOROUGHLY.PLANTING NOTES:PLANTING BAGDURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALLBE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG ORSIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT THEROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.KBC PLANTING BARPLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADEWITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION,AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH THICK ATCENTER.ROOT PRUNINGALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOTPRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NOROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.NOTES:BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED 6FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER,RANDOM SPACING, AVERAGING 8FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY680 PLANTS PER ACRE.BARE ROOT PLANTINGNTSMAX. 75'EXISTINGCHANNELMIN. 25'FILL TO TOP OFBANKFILL AT LEAST70% OF CHANNELMAX. 75'MIN. 25'NOTES:1. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL TO BANKFULL ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.2. CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 12" TO 18" LIFTS,3. IF CHANNEL CANNOT BE COMPLETELY FILLED TO TOP OF BANK, FILL TO TOP OFBANK FOR 25' OUT OF EVERY 100' SEGMENT.CHANNEL BACKFILLNTSOLD CHANNEL TO BEDIVERTED ORABANDONEDNEW CHANNEL TO BECONSTRUCTEDCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" LIFTS)IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)10' MINUNCOMPACTED BACKFILL1.5' MINIMUM1111BANKFULL ELEVATION1/4 TO 1/3 OF LOGDIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSEDPRIOR TO FINAL GRADINGPROPOSED BEDMINIMUM OF 2/3 OF LOG DIAMETERBEDDED BELOW EXISTING CHANNEL INVERT10" MINIMUM LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)INSTALL CABLE ANCHOR AS SHOWN. DRILL (OR SAW CUT)PILOT HOLE THROUGH LOG 1/3 TO 1/4 OF THE WAY DOWNSO THAT ANCHOR CABLE IS NOT EXPOSED.BANKFULL ELEVATION1/4 TO 1/3 OF LOGDIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSEDPRIOR TO FINAL GRADINGPROPOSED BEDMINIMUM OF 1/2 TO 2/3 OF LOGDIAMETER BEDDED BELOWCHANNEL INVERT12" LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)CHANNEL PLUG30' MIN.BANKFULL ELEVATIONNEW CHANNEL BANK SHALLBE TREATED AS SPECIFIEDIN PLANSPROPOSEDCHANNEL INVERTLOG TOE OR COIR LOGFLOWEXISTING CHANNELBOTTOMTOP OF BANKCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" TO 18" LIFTS)COIR FIBERMATTINGFLAT TOP ENDLATERAL BUDSIDE BRANCHREMOVED ATSLIGHT ANGLE45 DEGREETAPERED BUTT END0.5' TO 1.5'18" MIN.0.75" TO 2"1' MIN.COIR FIBERMATTING2"PLAN VIEWSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Fmullen
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us7/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND20381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA XBCATZWZOUTLET ELEV: EPOOL ELEV: DPLAN VIEW6" #57 STONE ONGEOTEXTILE FABRICEVEN MIX OF NCDOT CLASS 1AND CLASS 2 RIPRAP 30" DEEPUNDISTURBED SOILSECTION A-A' YTYPICAL DRY DISSIPATER BASINNTSNOTE:BASINS WILL BE SIZED BASED ONCONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREATO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE.AA'FLOW
LOG VANENTSBANKFULL STAGEBASEFLOWPLAN VIEW - TRENCHING METHODFLOWPLAN VIEW - DRIVE POINT METHODFLOWDRIVE POINT METHOD:SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE "DRIVING" IT INTOTHE BANK. ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE STREAM FLOWMEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90-DEGREE ANGLE, DEFLECTING THE WATERAWAY FROM THE BANK. A TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACEDON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMEDBY THE ROOT WAD. THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 3' X 3' X 2'.TRENCHING METHOD:IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE BANK NEEDSTO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD SHOULD BE USED. THISMETHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTIONOF THE ROOT WAD. IN THIS CASE, A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLEDUNDERNEATH THE ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THEBANK AND WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE ROOT WADSHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.ROOTWADNTSBOULDER(AS DIRECTED BYENGINEER)ROOT WADFOOTER LOGBOULDER(AS DIRECTED BYENGINEER)ROOT WADIF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVERENTIRE BANK & CONSTRUCTIONIS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TOMID MARCH, PROTECT BANKWITH BRUSH LAYER.FOOTER LOGLEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTBALLAST BOULDEROR DUCKBILL ANCHORSPOOLHEADER LOGBANKFULLVARIES
0' TO 0.8'3% TO 7%BANKFULLHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGSTREAM BEDIN POOLVARIES0' TO 12 WIDTHFLOWSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBALLAST BOULDEROR DUCK BILL ANCHORSPOOLFLOWLOG VANENON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)STREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBANKFULL1/2 WIDTHFLOWFLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")MIN 4.0'LEFT OR RIGHT VANEARM BANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTNOTES:1. LOG VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE OR MORE LOGS HELD IN PLACE BY EITHER BALLAST BOULDERS, DUCKBILLANCHORS, OR REBAR. LOGS SHALL BE OF A LENGTH AND DIAMETER SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER AND BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHTHARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED. THE LENGTH SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE LOG IS BURIED INTO THE SOIL OF THE STREAMBANK (ON ONE END) AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT-SIDED BALLAST BOULDERSSHALL BE OF SIZE 2' X 2' X 1.5' OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.2.THE VANE SHALL INTERCEPT THE STREAM BANK AT A HEIGHT EQUAL TO BETWEEN ½ BANKFULL STAGE AND BANKFULL STAGE. ANELEVATION CONTROL POINT MAY BE ESTABLISHED AT THE LEFT OR RIGHT STREAM BANK/VANE INTERCEPT POINT. THE VANEINTERCEPT LOCATION MAY BE OTHERWISE DESCRIBED BY ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BANKFULL STAGE OR BY THE LENGTH AND SLOPEOF THE VANE ARM. BANKFULL IS NOT NECESSARILY THE TOP OF THE STREAM BANK SLOPE.3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THEVANE. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED ASNEEDED.4. LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS:A. OVER-EXCAVATE STREAM BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE HEADER (AND FOOTER IF SPECIFIED)LOGS.B. PLACE FOOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM IS MEASURED ALONG THE VANE ARMWHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREAM BANK AND PROFILE.C. INSTALL HEADER LOG OF THE VANE ARM ON TOP OF AND SLIGHTLY FORWARD OR BACK FROM THE FOOTER LOG.D. NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO THE HEADER LOG USING A GALVANIZED NAIL WITH A PLASTIC CAP. THE SIZE AND GAGE OF NAILAND NAIL SPACING SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.E. PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE.F. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND LOGS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE LOGS ARE FILLED.G. BACKFILL REMAINDER OF VANE WITH PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL.5. IF ANY EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAM BANK/VANE INTERCEPT POINT THEMATTING EDGES SHALL BE NEATLY SECURED AROUND THE LOGS.SECTION A-A PLAN VIEWPROFILE VIEW20° TO 30°NOTES:1. TREES NOT INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BEPROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION INACCORDANCE WITH PLANS.2. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLINGCOIR MATTING.INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DWG D1EXCAVATE / GRADE UPPER BANKINSTALL LIVE STAKES (SEE PLANTING PLAN)EXISTING CHANNEL BANKTIE TO EXISTING GRADEMIN SLOPE 2.5H:1VEXISTINGCHANNEL BEDTYPICAL BANK GRADINGNTS2.5' ±(DESIGNER TO MARK IN FIELDPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION)5' to 10'BENCHTYPICAL PLAN VIEWCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKCOIR MATTINGF
LOW
BRUSH TOENTSSECTION A-ASMALL LOGS AND/ORLARGE BRANCHES WITH AMIN DIAMETER OF 4".SMALL BRANCHESAND BRUSHCOMPACTED SOILTOP OF BANKLIVE STAKESNOTES:1. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACELARGER BRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN.LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING 6 IN TO 18 IN OF THELARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.2. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGERBRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) ANDCOMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TOLOCK IN PLACE.3. ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES A INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW(SALIX NIGRA) AND SILKY WILLOW (SALIX SERICEA). WILLOWCUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOWBETTER ROOTING.4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTEDSOIL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.5. INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVECUTTINGS LAYER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH1/4 MAX POOL DEPTHLIVE CUTTINGSNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DWG D1MIN 2.0'3' MAXIMUMBANK HEIGHTSTREAM CHANNELSURFACE FLOWDIVERSIONNOTES:1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATECHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.5. GRADE SLOPES TO A MINIMUM OF 2:1 SLOPE, MAXIMUM6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOTENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, 6 TO 9 INCHES THICK, LINED WITHFILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.8. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.9. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (8' MIN.) TO ACCOMMODATE THELARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TOEQUIPMENT UTILIZED.11. TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE.CLASS A STONE OVERFILTER FABRICSTONE APPROACHSECTION: 2:1 MIN., 5:1MAX. SLOPE ON ROADSURFACE FLOWDIVERSIONFORD CROSSINGNTSCLASS A STONEEXISTING STREAMBANKFILTER FABRICSOD MATSFLOOD PLAINBOULDER(AS DIRECTEDBY ENGINEER)24" MIN. DIAMETERBOULDER10-15 FEET LONG>10" DIAMETERFOOTER LOG > 12" DIAMETERMINIMUM OF 1/2 OF DIAMETERINSTALLED BELOW STREAM BEDTOP OF BANKAAAACROSS SECTION VIEWSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Fmullen
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us7/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND30381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAMIN 5.0'
CHANNEL TOPOF BANKA'APLAN VIEWSECTIONAL VIEW A - A'NOTES:REBAR (1/2" MINIMUM DIAMETER 3' MIN. LENGTHTYPICAL) SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3' FROM END OFLOG. ADDITIONAL REBAR TO BE PLACED AT 6'OFFSETS. LAST REBAR SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3'FROM END OF LOG. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BEUSED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR REBAR, 2 PER LOG.FLOODPLAIN SILLNTSNTSLOG SILLSECTION A-ASECTION B-B (OPT 1)FLOWCOARSE BACKFILLCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKTYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 1)AABBFLOWREBAR OR DUCKBILLANCHORREBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) ORDUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PERMANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)COIR MATTINGPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDTACK FABRICTO LOGMIN. 5.0'HEADER LOGFOOTER LOG5.0'MINBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (1" TO 5" DIA.)POOLPOOL APPROX.0.75' TO 1.5' DEEPBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (1" TO 5" DIA.)DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURENTSSECTION A-A0.5% SLOPE(MAX)AAFLOW
VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO 40')VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO 40')NOTES:1. NO FLOODPLAIN GRADING IS ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FT OFTHE PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP OF BANK.2. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10'-20' LONG AND AT LEAST 8INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND HARDWOOD.PLAN VIEWFLOWLOG STRUCTURE(SEE DETAIL)PROPOSEDLIMITSOF GRADINGGRADE AREA SUCH THATMAX SLOPE BELOW LOGSTRUCTURE IS 1%FILL DITCH SUCH THATTHE DOWNSTREAMELEVATION TIES INTOEXISTING GRADE OF THEFLOODPLAINPROPOSED CONSERVATIONEASEMENT LIMITSEXISTING DITCHBANKEXISTING DITCHTOP OF BANKEXISTINGDITCH INVERTPROPOSED GRADEEXISTING GRADETIE-IN TOEXISTINGFLOODPLAINELEVATIONFILL DITCH ANDINSTALL COIRMATTINGSECTION B-BEXISTINGGROUND3:1 MAX SLOPE3:1 MAXSLOPEFILL DITCHCUTBBCONSTRUCTPOOLINSTALL COIR MATTING PERMANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONS1% TO 3%HIGHLOWROOTWAD ORBRUSHTOE1% TO 3%HIGHLOWNOTES:1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLYHARVESTED.2. LOG DIMENSIONS:MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'ALONG THE LOG3. DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR.CHANNEL TOPOF BANKTYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 2)AABBFLOW5.0'MINPOOL1% TO 3%HIGHLOWROOTWAD ORBRUSHTOEHIGH
LOW
SECTION B-B (OPT 2)PROPOSED STREAM BANKHEADER LOGFOOTER LOG1% TO 3%HIGHLOWOVERLAP OFDOWNSTREAM LOGREBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) ORDUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PERMANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)COARSE BACKFILLCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKFILTER FABRICMIN. 4.0'NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)MINIMUMDIAMETER 12"6'REBARLOGS5'LENGTH VARIESDOWNVALLEY5/8" REBARPROPOSED FLOODPLAINSURFACE5'6" (TYP.)BANKFULL LIMITS OFPROPOSED CHANNELSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Fmullen
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us7/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND40381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINADOUBLE LOG DROPNTSNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)FOOTERLOGPROFILE A-A'HEADER LOGINVERT ELEVATIONMAX ALLOWABLEDROP OF 0.5 FTFLOWPLAN VIEWBANKFULLFOOTER LOGHEADER LOGHIGHLOWLOG BURIED INBANK MIN 5FTLOG BURIED INBANKMIN 5FTBB'AA'CMAX DEPTH 12 OFLOG DIAMETER(TYP)4% TO 6%4% TO 6%MIN. 2.5' OFCOVERMIN 5FTMIN 5FTMIN 5FTMIN 5FTPROFILE B-B'PROFILE C-C'OVERLAP OFUPSTREAM LOGOVERLAP OFDOWNSTREAM LOGHIGHHIGHLOWLOWNOTES:1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLYHARVESTED.2. LOG DIMENSIONS:MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'3. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'ALONG THE LOGCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")HIGHLOW4' TO 8'POINT REFERENCED INSTRUCTURE TABLEPOINT REFERENCED INSTRUCTURE TABLEHEADER LOGINVERT ELEVATIONMIN 5.0'MIN 3.0'C
LINE PANELWOVEN WIRE:ASTM CLASS 3 GALVANIZED.TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE.INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN.12 1/2 GAUGE.NOTES:1. LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 4 IN. DIAM. OR 4 IN. SQUARE.2. LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U, OR Y SHAPED, WITH ANCHOR PLATES.3. MIN. WEIGHT 1.3 LBS./FT. (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BE DRIVEN A MINIMUMOF 18" DEEP AND MUST BE AT LEAST 5.5 FT IN LENGTH4. SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIESSUCH AS RED CEDAR, BLACK LOCUST OR OSAGE-ORANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, ORNON-DURABLE WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS./CUBIC FOOTCCA, OR EQUIVALENT NON-CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED PINE.WOVEN WIRE FENCE (NRCS DETAIL 382A)NTSWOVEN WIRE WITH ONE BARB DETAILTIMBER MAT CROSSINGTIMBER MAT APPROACHTOP OF BANKCLASS B RIP RAPTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPERPENDICULARTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPARALLELTIMBER MAT(TYP)CARRIAGE BOLTFLOWTOE OF BANK(TYP)TIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPERPENDICULARTOP OF BANKCLASS B RIP RAPCARRIAGE BOLT(TYP)FILTER FABRICAPPROXIMATE BASE FLOWWATER SURFACE(5' MIN)RIP RAP APPROACHTIMBER MATINSTALLED PARALLELTOE OF BANKPLAN VIEWSECTION VIEWTIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSINGNTSNOTES:1. TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARYCONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDYARES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND TO CROSS THESTREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.2. THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEN FLOW ISLOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF THECHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING THEAPPROACHES OR CROSSING.3. THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CROSS THESTREAM OR CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCHTHAT THE TIMBER MAT EXTENDS PAST THE TOP OF BANK ONEACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TOSUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USING THECROSSING.4. STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBERMAT LENGTHS ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE TOPS OFTHE STREAM BANKS. TIMBER MAT STREAM APPROACHESSHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHSORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.5. STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALLBE CONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVERFILTER FABRIC.6. ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BECOMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE CROSSINGIS REMOVED.NOTES:1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.2. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.3. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE APPROPRIATE BEDDING MATERIAL WITH MANUFACTURER.4. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.5. WIDTH OF TYPICAL FARM CROSSINGS SHALL BE PER PLAN OR A MINIMUM OF 12'.6. WHEN REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE PIPE MATERIAL AND COVER MEET H-20 LOADINGREQUIREMENTS.PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSINGNTSSTREAM CHANNELFLOW MIN 3'MIN 3'PLAN VIEWSECTION VIEW2" - 3"LINE POSTWOVEN WIREBARBED ORELECTRIC WIRELINE POST16' MAX.BARBED ORELECTRIC WIREWOVEN WIREGROUND LINE4" TO 6"LINE POST3" MIN.32" TO 42"6"6' MIN.2' MIN.MIN. 2.5 TIMES PIPE DIAMETEROR 12" WHICHEVER IS GREATERFILTER FABRICCOARSE AGGREGATE(#5 WASHED STONE) 6" DEEPEARTH FILL COVERED BYLARGE ANGULAR ROCKPIPE SIZE PER PLANINVERT PER PLAN BURYCULVERT 1.0' UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE BY ENGINEERINSTALL CLAY PLUG 2 FEETBELOW CULVERT INVERTCOARSE AGGREGATEEARTH FILL COVERED BYLARGE ANGULAR ROCKLOG OR ROCK SILLSET TOP OF SILL 1FT.ABOVE CULVERT INVERTTOP OF BANKLOG OR ROCK SILLSET TOP OF SILL 1 FT.ABOVE CULVERT INVERT10' MIN.10' MIN.SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Fmullen
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us7/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND50381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2% TO 4%VANE LENGTHLOG BURIED INSTREAM BANKOFFSET FROMTOP OF BANK12 MAX DEPTH OFNEAREST RIFFLELOG BURIED IN STREAMBANK MIN. 5FTSCOURPOOLAA'FL
O
W
POINTBARBANKFULLLOG J-HOOKNTSPLANVIEWSECTION B-B'SECTION A-A'HEADER LOGFOOTER LOGROOT WADBANKFULLINVERTSTREAM BEDELEVATIONOUTSIDEMEANDER BENDSILL LOG ORROOT WADLIVE STAKINGHEADERBOULDERSFOOTERBOULDERSSELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL (MIX OF COARSEAGGREGATE AND #5 STONE)BANKFULLLIVE STAKES(TYP.)SOILBACKFILLSELECTBACKFILL MATERIALHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGSTREAMBEDNOTES:1. 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 HEADERLOGS/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 THEWATER SURFACE DURING EXTREMELY LOW FLOWS.6. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTING LOGS WHERE SCOUR POOLS ARE ANTICIPATED TO FORM ASSHOWN 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.11. HEADER LOG SHALL TIE INTO THE STREAM BANK AT A MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 14 DMAX (MEASURED AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE)BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION AND A MINIMUM ELEVATION OF 12 DMAX (MEASURE AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE) BELOW BANKFULLELEVATION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.12. CUTTING OF THE SILL LOG ROOTWAD BAY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT THE ROOTWAD FROM PROTRUDING ABOVE THE BANKFULLELEVATION.13. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING LOGS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH LIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ONTHE UPSTREAM SIDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.14. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN 1 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 PLANVIEWAND IN SECTION B-B'. PLACE SELECT BACKFILL FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG AND BOULDER HOOK.16. 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 AMINIMUM.18. NAIL NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL AS SHOWN IN THEGEOTEXTILE PLACEMENT AND SELECT BACKFILL DETAIL.HEADER LOGFOOTER LOGTYPICAL PLAN VIEWDITCH TOP OFBANKDITCH BOTTOMOF BANKSECTION A-AWOODY DEBRIS FILL(LOGS, BRANCHES, ANDBRUSH) COMPACTEDWITH SOIL TO PROPOSEDGRADE.COMPACTED FILLEXISTING DITCHINVERTWOODY DEBRIS FILL(LOGS, BRANCHES, ANDBRUSH) COMPACTEDWITH SOILPROFILE VIEWWOODY DEBRIS FILL (LOGS,BRANCHES, AND BRUSH) COMPACTEDWITH SOIL TO PROPOSED GRADE.COMPACTED FILLEXISTINGGROUNDCOMPACTED FILLEXISTING DITCHINVERTMIN 1'PROPOSEDGROUNDNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC (TYP.)12" MIN DIAM.HARDWOOD LOG;MIN LENGTH = 20'BRUSH BED SILLNTS5.0'LENGTH VARIES (TYP 10' TO 20')PROPOSEDGROUNDMIN5.0'NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL(MIX OF COARSE AGGREGATEAND #5 STONE)PLAN VIEWPROFILECROSS SECTION A-A'FLOWVARIESEND RIFFLE CONTROL POINTPROPOSED TOPOF BANKBEGIN RIFFLECONTROL POINTVARIES CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTHBEGIN RIFFLEEND RIFFLERIFFLE MATERIALFLOWTOP OF BANKTOE OF BANK4' MIN 4' MIN4'MIN4'MINRIFFLERUNGLIDESMALL POOLLARGE COBBLE/SMALL BOULDERSLOGS/WOODYDEBRISLOGS/WOODYDEBRISTOP OF BANK4.0' (TYP)RIFFLE MATERIAL1.0' MIN0.5' MINTOP OF BANKPROPOSED TOE OF BANKGRADE CONTROL ROCK50/50 MIX OF CLASS A ANDB RIPRAPLOGS/WOODY DEBRISSMALL POOL, TYP4.0'TYPLARGE COBBLE/SMALLBOULDERS, TYPRIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUAL MIXOF #5/#57 STONE, SURGESTONE AND NATIVESUBSTRATE MATERIALFLOWTHALWEGTHALWEGCHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH4.0' (TYP)4.0'TYPNOTES:1. CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BYTHE DESIGNER.2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TOESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE REQUIREDTO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.3. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B RIPRAP. GRADECONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLEMATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND WOOD. THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OFAN EQUAL MIX OF #5 / #57 STONE, SURGE STONE AND NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL. RIFFLE MATERIALSHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. OTHERWISEROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, “RIVER-TYPE” ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCKCHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHANNEL. IN ADDITION, LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHALLBE 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 TOCREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT “JUMP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAMPOOL-GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT “DROP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE ANDTHE DOWNSTREAM RUN-POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALLGENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOMEVARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.6. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN-STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL ORJ-HOOK).7. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED BYTHE DESIGNER. THE "KEY" SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF THERIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOTBE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.RIFFLE MATERIAL; EQUALMIX OF #5/#57 STONE,SURGE STONE AND NATIVESUBSTRATE MATERIALGRADE CONTROL ROCK50/50 MIX OF CLASS A ANDB RIPRAPCONSTRUCTED RIFFLENTSBBAADOWN VALLEYAADOWN VALLEYSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Fmullen
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us7/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND60381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
HEADER AND FOOTERBOULDERSPOOLFLOWCROSS VANE INVERTCONTROL POINTFILTER FABRICSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBANKFULLFOOTER ROCKLEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTPOOLHEADER ROCKBANKFULLVARIES0' TO 0.8'3% TO 5%BANKFULLHEADER BOULDERFOOTER BOULDERSTREAM BEDIN POOLFILTER FABRICVARIES0' TO 13 WIDTHFLOWSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKFLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")SECTION A-A'PROFILE VIEWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")MIN5.0'COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTLEFT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINT13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTHMIN5.0'20° TO 30°PLAN VIEWFILTERFABRICFOOTER BOULDERHEADER BOULDER13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTHVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTSECTION B-B'BBAAROCK CROSS VANENTSSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\CAD\DWG\0312_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Fmullen
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARK DATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us7/10/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND70381CSCAFMTRSAFMSCOUT STREAM MITIGATION BANK SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA HEADER AND FOOTERBOULDERSPOOLFLOWCROSS VANE INVERTCONTROL POINTFILTER FABRICSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBANKFULLFOOTER ROCKSLEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTPOOLHEADER ROCKSBANKFULLVARIES0' TO 0.8'3% TO 5%BANKFULLHEADER BOULDERFOOTER BOULDERSTREAM BEDIN POOLFILTER FABRICVARIES0' TO 13 WIDTHFLOWSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKFLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")SECTION A-A'PROFILE VIEWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")MIN5.0'COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTLEFT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINT13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTHMIN5.0'20° TO 30°PLAN VIEWFILTERFABRICFOOTER BOULDERHEADER BOULDER13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTHVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTSECTION B-B'BBAAROCK A-VANENTSPOOLFILTER FABRICPOOLSTEP INVERTCONTROL POINTPOOLFLOWFOOTER LOGINVERT LOGPOOLA'ASTREAM BED13 W13 W20°-30°FILTER FABRICSTREAM BANKS,TYPICALCROSS VANE INVERTINVERT LOG (SEE NOTE 6 & 11)HEADER LOGBANKFULLDUCKBILL ANCHORMIN5'BANKFULLHEADER LOGFOOTER LOG, IFSPECIFIEDSTREAM BED IN POOLFILTER FABRIC0' TO 13 WSTREAM BANKFILTER FABRICFLOWFLOWFOOTER LOGBANKFULLTOE OF BANK, TYPICAL13 W3% TO 8%COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")PROFILE VIEWPLAN VIEWSECTION A-A'COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")LOG CROSS VANENTSNOTES:1. LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF 12' IN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER ANDRELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOGCOMBINATION, PER DIRECTION OF DESIGNER.3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(S) ANDTHE STREAM BED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BENO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED,TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS NEEDED.4. COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO A THICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTHOF THE HEADER (AND ANY FOOTER) LOGS AND SHALL EXTEND OUT FROM THEVANE ARMS TO THE STREAM BANK AND UPSTREAM.5. AS AN OPTION, FLAT-SIDED BOULDERS MAY BE PLACED AS BALLAST ON TOPOF THE STREAM BANK SIDE OF THE EMBEDDED VANE ARMS. DUCK BILLANCHORS MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.6. DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAY BE USED TOSECURE LOGS INTO THE STREAM BED AND/OR BANKS. FLAT SIDED BOULDERSCAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHOR SYSTEM.VANE ARM LOG, TYPICALOPTIONAL BALLAST BOULDERHEADER LOG

Appendix B –
Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information

Vegetation Survey

")
")JD2JD1H
C
3
WD VP1
VP2
0 350175
Feet
Existing Vegetation Survey Plot Locations
Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/21/2018
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\Mit Plan\Veg Survey Map_Scout.mxdLegend
")Vegetation Plots
Streams
Proposed Easement
Wetlands
Protocol for Existing Conditions Vegetation Surveying
Plot Selection and Setup
Survey multiple plots on-site, which together are representative of all ecotypes present within the
easement boundaries. Each plot is a 5m X 20m belt transect, positioned parallel to the channel in the
floodplain or adjacent upland.
Take a GPS point at the origin and set the bounds with 5m as the “x-axis” and 20m as the “y-axis.” Set
the plot with the y-axis as the side parallel to the stream channel. Record the y-axis azimuth to allow for
future resampling. Conclude selection and set-up with a representative photo of the plot taken from the
origin.

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

Data Processing
Begin processing collected data by identifying the unknown species observed from voucher photos and
specimen(s) collected. When species present are sufficiently identified, use the dominant canopy species
assemblages and ecological region to identify a habitat type from Schafale (2012).
Calculate both basal area and stems per acre for each plot surveyed using the formulas below. These
metrics help to inform the existing conditions of the canopy on-site and inform the development of the
project’s planting plan.
Basal Area Formula:
Basal area of each tree (m2) = 0.00007854 X (DBHcm)2
Basal area of plot (m2/ha) = (sum of basal areas for all trees in plot) X 100
•100 is to scale up from our 0.01ha plot to 1ha
Stems per Acre Formula:
Stems/Acre = (# of stems)/0.02471
Viola sororiaBasal area= 32.95m^2/haStems per acre = 40.47
VP4
Duchesnea indicaViola sororiaSolidago canadenseSambucus canadensisBasal area = 0m^2/haStems per acre = 0Geranium carolinianumCardmine flexuosaLamium purpureumBlack

Morphological Parameters

Scout Morphological ParametersFeatureRiffle Pool Riffle Riffle Pool Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle PoolDrainage Area (ac)Drainage Area (mi2)NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)DimensionBF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)18.1 23.427.4 25.6 47.72.93.335.2 44.5BF Width (ft) 13.7 15.011.9 10.7 16.84.73.218.4 19.8BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.41.62.32.42.80.61.11.92.2BF Max Depth (ft) 1.72.73.73.44.00.92.02.63.9Wetted Perimeter (ft) 14.9 16.815.8 13.9 20.55.35.719.7 22.7Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.21.41.71.82.30.50.61.82.0Width/Depth Ratio 9.89.65.24.55.97.63.09.68.8Floodprone Width (ft) >50---30.2 25.1 >30 14.08.550 26.5Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 ---2.52.3 >2.23.02.72.71.3Bank Height Ratio 1.01.1---2.1-1.01.71.01.0Bed MaterialDescription (D50)D16 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)PatternMin Max Min Max Max MinMaxMinMaxMin MaxChannel Beltwidth (ft) 26.3 55.5-------3869Radius of Curvature (ft) 13.5 103.3-------3287Radius of Curvature Ratio 1.06.9-------1.74.4Meander Wavelength (ft) 49.4 66.0-------80104Meander Width Ratio 3.64.4-------2.15ProfileMin Max Min Max Max MinMaxMinMaxMin MaxRiffle Length (ft) 618-------824Run Length (ft) 716-------922Glide Length (ft) 513-------718Pool Length (ft) 542-------757Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft) 1864-------2487Additional Reach ParametersValley Length (ft)Channel Length (ft)SinuosityWater Surface Slope (ft/ft)Channel Slope (ft/ft)Rosgen Classification 1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data 2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003) 3 NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003)HC3HC3 CH1 CH2Reference ReachUT to Grassy Creek81081043 1564261.271.26 0.07 0.240.67105.7105.712.3 31.866.2108.3108.3 13.4 33.668.6-90--508.52.11.36.58.20.62.214.45.21.02.8Sand/Gravel Sand/Gravel GravelGravel0.062-- 0.062Sand/Gravel- 110162--141131823782560238 692790.0041.05 1.05 0.991.14E40.00410.00350.0310 0.01670.004DesignE4/E5E4 E4/5b E40.00680.0035--1.0525042686249 68-31
Scout
Reach HC3
DA (ac)810
DA (sqmi)1.27
~ QBKF 87
Q1.1 95
Q1.5 154
Q2 196
Q10 454
NC‐QBKF (1)108
NC‐QBKF (2)106
VA‐QBKF 55
Q1 79
Q2 144
Q5 274
Q10 395
Q25 578
Q1 295
Q2 474
Q5 775
Q10 1029
Q25 1397
Q2(1996 EQNS)169
Q2(2001 EQNS)159
Q2 184
Q5 342
Q10 460
Q25 619
Q50 761
Qbnkfull 90
~ QBKF / FFQ Q1.1 0.912
Hydraflow Avg 111
% FFQ Q1.1 0.94
% RC 0.85
USGS RR Eqns (Region 1)
Recommended Design Flows = 
SCS (Hydraflow Express with 24 hour duration and a PSF of 484)
SCS (Hydraflow Hydrographs with 6 hour duration and a PSF of 484)
Piedmont Regional Curves
FFQ Analysis
Ex. Conds XSs

Cross Sections of Current Conditions
& Reference Reaches

Upstream Downstream
86.50
87.00
87.50
88.00
88.50
89.00
89.50
90.00
90.50
91.00
91.50
92.00
0 5 10 15 20 25Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach HC3 -XS28 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
86.50
87.00
87.50
88.00
88.50
89.00
89.50
90.00
90.50
91.00
91.50
92.00
0 5 10 15 20Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach HC3 -XS28 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
90.00
90.50
91.00
91.50
92.00
92.50
93.00
93.50
94.00
94.50
95.00
95.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach HC3 -XS32 (Pool)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
90.00
90.50
91.00
91.50
92.00
92.50
93.00
93.50
94.00
94.50
95.00
95.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach HC3 -XS32 (Pool)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
90.00
91.00
92.00
93.00
94.00
95.00
96.00
97.00
98.00
99.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach HC3 -XS33 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
90.00
91.00
92.00
93.00
94.00
95.00
96.00
97.00
98.00
99.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach HC3 -XS33 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
92.00
92.50
93.00
93.50
94.00
94.50
95.00
0 5 10 15 20 25Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach CH1 -XS29 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
89.00
90.00
91.00
92.00
93.00
94.00
95.00
96.00
97.00
0 5 10 15 20 25Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach CH1 -XS30 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
89.00
90.00
91.00
92.00
93.00
94.00
95.00
96.00
97.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach HC3 -XS28 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
89.00
90.00
91.00
92.00
93.00
94.00
95.00
96.00
97.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach CH2 -XS31 (Riffle)
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream969798991001011020 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)UT to Grassy Creek Cross Section 1 RiffleCross Section 1Approx. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream95969798991001011021030 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)UT to Grassy Creek Cross Section 2 PoolCross Section 2Approx. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream95969798991001011021030 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)UT to Grassy Creek Cross Section 3 PoolCross Section 3Approx. BankfullFloodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream969798991001011020 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)UT to Grassy Creek Cross Section 4 RiffleCross Section 4Approx. BankfullFloodprone Area

Channel Stability Assessment

HC3 JD1 JD2
1 Watershed characteristics 8 7 8
2 Flow habit 9 8 9
3 Channel pattern 3 7 7
4 Entrenchment/channel
confinement 11 7 6
5 Bed material 9 8 7
6 Bar development 6 2 3
7 Obstructions/debris jams 5 7 5
8 Bank soil texture and
coherence 10 9 9
9 Average bank angle 11 9 8
10 Bank vegetation/protection 10 11 10
11 Bank cutting 10 8 7
12 Mass wasting/bank failure 9 7 5
13 Upstream distance to bridge NA NA NA
Score 101 90 84
Rating*Fair Fair Fair
* Excellent (0 < Score <= 36), Good (36 < Score <= 72), Fair (72 < Score <= 108), Poor (108 < Score <= 144)
Channel Stability Assessment Summary Table
13
V---)�
c
5
ts
o
j�
n N
r i
a$
arm
o f
rn
bow
a E
nus •�
m m u
yy„mv
Ty 0 L
2
p E E
�,
v
m
a1 e}.mc
m N
ED v c
o E m c a m
i° �i
m m w
C d
9^.� °
c m L
aro a o
N
d
°1 E
m m m
iC U C
E p v
b G]
m !s ,m ui rn
°o n F_
N a
L fl
iE9
a y �, rn
'�
r
m a -
sa .
E
°
$ W 4
rn 3 S
r m 30
o
t=p p ro=
Q f!] C 6 .L`�
m
? a
r
N r
a m
o o
m 5E 'y
m
m
wE
g
y 7 LS
'g
E m
a
m
d Vl
n m t
X N Y a7
o m e
QI o
? E m
s M 0 m
C C
U 3@ E a C
Te o
w E 0
a ',
Q u m .��-.
Y a1 A m ca
�! .-I A
m r W •� O
LL U !�
i
Y °
3
aci 7, �i '°
p
0 o m m
C Y
`m 'o o
vEi O
}+
_°
mm0i mAm
d p t r 61
E
m
�m.J oNN
T U N E}ie
mm�EA
m N
na E ^
N
mm ,o �N
M n
E
p U U
0to a
m
0�
m
E�_
E
LL
O ymj
E N m
a m m
c
n
ti ro n m `m
E
a
$$ m` m •�
�m
E E m E
my
a$"s�E
m Kai
�` g
�t`n
V)
can mem
NoE
cmE`
2o
u�Qwn
15
?
$ca
v
oNa a
um�an
EmE
pEv
Nv�_bmT
3$�
o
p�E$c
:.
m
0a�9a��y�yp
°
Q N b m C
@ L
m$c °ate
°v22
r N C
t al
rd41
mmm
u
v p 5
gH
E
0
v w
C
U
14
c �.E%
�
c� �E
—o
a
r
C5E
m yR
��
N ��-,
IL,
au
a%
$
L w
u=
0
m$
A
A$'offim4
rn
`m
w 2 t°°
m
E
m
_
E d m
0 m✓
—_ LL
° y E L a,
LL
~O
m E
Q
7 U y O
n L
'� 4
b
C C O
a E 2 y
� m v
3 E o
M
A m `p)
T Ca1 N V m 0
_
w
v $Cog
D `p $sJ
°�
m
av2Z
��mm`m
�i'�
�z
E
322 E��g
c A =
°
C7 E.E c
m°
E,°
'& -5 >
$> E
a
E
o
8 m
o
m
C N
foGi
E
of a1
W A 16
V N 'O T
O C
•E
_
ema as '}
�s
6
m as as
a
a ccc m
' t `t u
ro `w
ss
m E a m g' 3
O 3 rn u v m
a$
¢ u 0.00
4 au Qs m a
2 'o E
w E v v a o A
d m
m v
T
p
V C
m
N E p m
E
v .J
c
y
m` yp�
am
ti m
C®
L$
NC
_m
m
E@
FL E
pm al
p
3 m 3 u 0y
E
°
L
c o c
a 2' ° a n m
N
V
W m
d�
N
d
g' as m
dp G)
o N°
NW
'N 0+ r
N °_� W `p 10
o f LL
°
m Yy
g
a'nm
a E
ui
g
0
0
VY 3
d
Z N?
Q b C
Q O TL
IL E W V
m
W
Ec
iE 'm
v
P m
v �
o
vi
m
c
tJ
C
U
°T
m w
aci
a1
TME
13N
Av�
fq
n
=
Y,E
n
p a
€
m
E a
n
o m
m u
t
c
a m
ro
u
o y E
To
LL
fV
C1
P1
W
v
m si a
47 LL a
m
jw
D u m 3i
1,: 0 M `1

r�
�.
cn
d N y ] y d T
O} R W d :C 'D O X L O rya N C L Q T
tl� bj 3 c—
R c
EAe
C C 14 G C C T O uY O L� EQ� yj '��' U C cn
71
v 4 a N 8k C i� ❑ N
—R°
CC)
d ° VaE ro
AE
E g aN rnd c
i

1-1
s
4
y
y E
a u
g g
Q R
S ti
o v
m
d
m
o
.0 > a
E 0
m a m
c v
E
M
t 3
3
T y `tp u
a d E
T 2 E d
C� ° 91
c 'o
a c
R
V E R77,
yy
o 2 w mvr_rn3
�ui�
$E r
rn
D A my
dm-
E
L x uo
vomn.
' vas
ac umc
p0ES.�
S
yam m
vE.�
N N
rn3oaaa A
oflw°
IL N c
Qp
uti}
'S m 'n a m
m
d E 4 ar
w
ro2 V
m O L
`pf C
O `E2 L
O
N 4'f- C C
C N W
R
v 3 E o
ul E o
a u ra
T
'u
O V
O
O
`m
OC
W
C
'Iml
N m
m
fi ^- w
m m E n
E ti
mdi
{gyp c E
OI C
D i 51 y
R l0 V
2d
g
N°
lu
R C to
R- t
- v
0
E
A V
rC
m
yc
E
sC
m,a
m19
o°
si
4
LL
C'i
41 S 05
'1q�arom�
�v�°`�
Nc 2r
v m o
° y£ c
o� �o�
u m D .o
rmE
°m rn `r
a
a
tom
°
y v� �a
m
ca
C
m .� a
-y[�c-oDc
o? _3 u°
m 2 y}w
m
V
nR �'I
O a R v
v O'D T
}i
v o m m a
m� �m p°
.0 y C
a O�
L
C f9 7 C
C N :6i
4%
U]
T�GkgU N
C�
O
LL �.
G
Q V R R m V
L CF1 a C
JO a E
pi pypll
LL C V?
p
L 7 C U tV
E
N� R 7
l9
m
D L 4Yl
�oaxno�
�mm R
_
aESm
E V
N_°i
�5 m EP
nm tel°
o
U N°
O L
d y
N m
N E N C
G 'C (7�V7l
E f0
Irk V
o
A
TCO N
A V
O O D m {b
O L_
a m L
C C m m}
Y
m L
m m 9
C
m
c
°�
R E
E r g
m
i7 E c
o
o
o f
m
m }
T
o
o? o n2
-a
owe«�^
-^'tel 2w
m 0
c `�`o
h'�Un
Rc
aaaE o
m
mv
EL
mmm
o���mov
v E_T
.N c
m L P
v m
aio
n c -n m
me
} %Yc
a
a cl
E
D 3 rnu m
b `a '�
¢ y v
Q v u Gla
o f
�i E a v n o m
O m
v
°
n
m
Nn
«
m E
Z,
'yJ 1$ N
m
y i y Ny
m
N LL
" m R
A? A L N C
t
N
m
A
_
a
m
'p°' _i
y�
_
°
°O
am
a
`m o
�°-
m w
E
v ni m
to r
ro
v3 3
a
m
da
m -�
a
z y
>
Gm
m
o'2
IiE 3 m 0-
m
.i
m
E
a)
c
Y
m
4n
y0 C
1p -T
-�
us
q
N
O d
vCLc
D
m
O
C J
Y
�D«
-
a
«
°"
L
2ymcc
V
L
3
R
`I
a U
NCD
O
liU
!L
m Iy
m
O V?
r R
N
C]
Q
.i {L 2
fd
ti Ol d

t%J
1pIZ N
Gl
�'L.. "?. V O a
ro �
L G
•6
L �_
N
Cm m E m N
�i
N� .Yl p
tpp
Q
g
gE
�'
m m
o h°
m
TJ C
a� -o `°
o
m "� c t c
a
°° �
a b c
p°p
eya m c 3 m N •mc E
c e=s
m o m m V nCL
E
c v '^
paiH } S` a
o
U
A a
m
N_ °}
m b,
s° U
o
T O •T E i O
v= u -s
m ro"
�Eadm
s
= S
0
m
g= E-
"o,
m
(Lj'm00 z
4wn'o
u`.I--mm
m
3¢
`c
0
C L Q
o y
9-0m7m
°CmNy
Obl
c m
jn7 Cp
DSL'n
m°N ��jL
o v p
OC aI�
m
r
a
�E�UUE
�_�°y;p`opppNc�a°�yy
c
�nv
v_Ep(a`yis°
SQL
LL
o
Q m G 0
p Y t6
r°j
O
a. E
m p i9
o = 3 �I ¢ 3 ° i'
.°�_ .0 t
v ori
mgE�
rn m`a��
vEs�E $a�E
a o}
w' �aE33.0
�c
m m a
N c
=� m
$
a u i,
o�=B
�
myb0
�21 g'0T
i�
m
}
O
�v3r
c
�, z}
10 b°'
E
N°OU'�$
O c v'
3 l4
°2mc�
¢¢
D 5 6 m [p m
a.-�-�. c°i
2
r 4
(wmE
°
I C
is
N
C U
N O U
O
° pL m m? L`I N L
y
O C
' d Q m
`m u 4
m
`C = m
�'y4
41
m
v_
E o�'
No
o 19 n- o
ad, }� ET6
�
mm=3N
a
o���
wOtO
�o_o m`�
LEm
m
m`�
��c
E
_o
`mE`Lx
m c
mo "o
�•`i¢o warn m o
o Mm
Via Ma
cca
W E3 o
npi
m
L
c
m
m
CL
v
0
c
3z m
o
p N m
b
4 �
C
m
0 3 y
3
mco
Eke
cE}o
`o
3
-t-o
a°i
e4
N
N
a n
m
W
z o
E�
n
U L
�
U
mgEn
C E
Ez
b���
z °>
m
o
E
m
C
m
m
L
L
fJ °
of
m
p�pY'Y°
6f
C
a ro
C
U
C m
Y
C
c
N
Oa
vn
N
CD}
y C
Y
y
N
O
C
N
M
N
O
A
0o
. o
m M
o°
,- n
cli
m m
E
n
2

m
u
�
1
t
=
�
wm ao8
NW'?mow
,Eti�:c
C
n E
ga
� q m
�p�m
� C]
"�
m
m" �> m
�
v
o c
w W
u E
°' #
n
W m
ui v
wEm
n m rn
vN -°' m
E
E
E
W
e^
3
`p LR 'm v
Gc
a,
?
m
N N
°
N E 7
m m
m C I�
rL
N L
C
j fEll T c
-°O
S
T C
^O m
V
L a U #
m N m m
E°
E m m
2 c
m
a m E g
m7 c3 W
^C
A
o
m
`m,tm o
E
Eom
U 3 E o �°
W E o
¢ u m
ax n m
7 n
u H p
..
m
N
y`
a
L
m> g
W O
'o o u
H
y m CJ
cS
O
vi
m m a N
E
y
N
z o
T
m m E
moo
n E n
m m v
m N
v m c
m
N-oa
- W N
m��
ELL
M
'o v
W
SEH �
n o
U
�M2m
N.E 9 7 3
is
m EE
y c°i a c
m o
a u m E
m c o m
•tv `mnac ��e
LL y c c S� r
o
mkcsn
�� m m
�w m'gm
c
m �E
E 0E
crn�E
m n° `pmt
�'ooyo
� 2 E m
L) -
mn oi_on
`o
°"Ec
vNg�v4
pkv
o3c
2
a,am`n
3
ac
n
`m`ma
�0
E
A m
v w_
x30: o'�
Qmm
���
�o
�v°c0
�Un
C E
a
L N
C S m
N m m
O
L C 4
p
N C
m Q
�
a u�v
E'Ev
iO a O° w
m a.
16
3i m W
m
N LL
p ro u li qm7
vN, O
�. m° W
n ,c
o .� G
P u o
r v
n M m m o
p
-60
C oro cuc '[» E
n v s uc
2100 W}
°'' w
3 m E
0
Cpl E c n c
m a g
in
c ami
u] E
m 0 E a o g
c
��m 4
E$
ac dE
��vp0
CDa's
°_ c �
N
c ro s
m v U n
w °
C
m a m
[yp H 4 a.
o m>
o_
w C
u m L
C O
m m m
C m Q
F p
w C N'�
m e
m
'� °3
L
a' E �o4 m v
E
,o
41 U
d O m
m
Q U W O
iaX(
Q U V W P
}i
O E
LL E V U Z O ED
O m
L
v
3
m :B LL
} mCL om
L
C T C
a
7+ Nf E
A
T m a C m
m
E
L m'� @
c�$ r
m a
c_ c°
z nE
_m uoa
-o ° p n w
`c
N
m�
m
inu
ov�m
W cc
mn
mu
m DIM TZ
r mb
w
n
'� m
��$g.
a ca m
� 'y
0m s
m
g
{jWc
v L
4/N
m -- 2
Y
¢m
E
ag
v d m o p
M g
`o
m
m
4 W
6t ar]
m
O w W
?
�]
i O
LUpD
8 W C O N
w
m
tq 3
d a
Z N 5
¢ a c❑
m
LL E 3 m°
N
a-.
i
E
Y n
44
L
a
c
E
y
y
m W
cci
E
4
m a
m
a a` Y
.�. v
(� U
j2 LbE
U
m O
?
w
C
m
m u
o
c
v
c
u
W
ro
m
o m E
k
U
W
Co ie
m
Q u v y

84
Buffer Calculation
Site Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWR Project Number:
Sponsor:
County:Davie
Minimum Required Buffer Width1:50
Mitigation Type Mitigation Ratio
Multiplier2
Creditable Stream
Length3 Baseline Stream Credit
Restoration (1:1)1 2686 2686.00
Enhancement I (1.5:1)1.5
Enhancement II (2.5:1)2.5 458 183.20
Preservation (5:1)5
Other (7.5:1)7.5
Other (10:1)10
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals 3144.00 2869.20
Buffer Zones less than 15 feet >15 to 20 feet >20 to 25 feet >25 to 30 feet >30 to 35 feet >35 to 40 feet >40 to 45 feet >45 to 50 feet >50 to 75 feet >75 to 100 feet >100 to 125 feet >125 to 150 feet
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)4 94320 31440 31440 31440 31440 31440 31440 31440 157200 157200 157200 157200
Ideal Buffer (square feet)5 96648.68245 32390.31558 32495.29434 32573.92511 32624.04559 32426.13255 32198.04232 32115.68819 158924.1326 156621.467 157793.6594 160193.6225
Actual Buffer (square feet)6 93251.62033 30494.99705 30168.51555 29901.84511 29608.01789 29092.67357 28758.58585 28456.70673 113261.6706 54713.98657 26261.84516 16595.22929
Zone Multiplier 50%10%10%10%5%5%5%5%7%5%4%4%
Buffer Credit Equivalent 1434.60 286.92 286.92 286.92 143.46 143.46 143.46 143.46 200.84 143.46 114.77 114.77
Percent of Ideal Buffer 96%94%93%92%91%90%89%89%71%35%17%10%
Credit Adjustment -50.42 -16.79 -20.54 -23.54 -13.26 -14.75 -15.32 -16.34 143.14 50.12 19.10 11.89
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required
Buffer
Credit Gain for
Additional Buffer
Net Change in
Credit from Buffers Total Credit
2869.20 -170.97 224.24 53.27 2922.47
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Scout
SAW-2017-01505
RES
4This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
6Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non-forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non-creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
5Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OHWM or the edge of the average stream width if OHWM is not known. Non-creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet-to-credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
1Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
3Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.

Appendix C – Site Protection Instrument

February 23, 2018
Cara Gander
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27805
Dear Ms. Conder,
Unique Places
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 exssts. The fee for this is $2000 for construction bond and $1000 for the monitoring bond.
David Harper, Executive Director
Unique Places To Save
1125/2018
Representative Si§mature Resource
Environmental Solutions
Printed Name
IA� N p -61H
Date I
PO Box 1183 - Chapel Hill, INC 27514 585-472-9498 info(d)uniprieclacestosave.ora

Unique Places to Save Annual Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment
Scout Mitigaton Easement - CONFIDENTIAL
Units Hours Cost/Unit Frequency Annual Cost
Annual Monitoring
Staff time to monitor mitigation easement, including file
review, travel time, on site time, post visit report production 14 acres 7 60.00$ Annual 420.00$
Staff time needed to address minor violations or issues N/A 10 600.00$ Once every 10 yrs.60.00$
Mileage 196.4 N/A 0.54$ Annual 105.07$
Meal Costs 1 N/A 20.00$ Annual 20.00$
Insurance 1 N/A 100.00$ N/A 100.00$
Total Annual Funding Amount 705.07$
Capitalization Rate 3.00%
Monitoring Endowment $23,502.33
Accepting and Defending the Easement in Perpetuity
Staff time for major violations N/A 50 60 N/A 3,000.00$
Legal Counsel N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,000.00$
Other Incidentals N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,000.00$
Monitoring Endowment 18,000.00$
Total Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment $41,502.33

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

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

• 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? Y N

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:

♦ _____ 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 BE TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THIS SITE MONITORING VISIT:

• INFORMATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR 2013 MONITORING VISIT:

V. MONITOR CONTACT INFORMATION

NAME:

TITLE:

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:

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.

Photo # Photopoint Description
UTM Northing
(meters)
UTM Easting
(meters)

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
l. Flares
m. 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. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian 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
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

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

REACH HC3 CH1 CH2
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) 21 14 10.5
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 222
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 2 1 1
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence
211
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 3 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 0 0 0
Total Points (Subtotal=)39.5 27 23.5
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Summary
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3 g
Project/Site: C a
U
Latitude:
Evaluator: ' L,>rr i ,�
County: AV 1
Longitude:
0
1
14. Leaf litter
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle wieL
Other
,
if? 19 or perennial if a 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = r: )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
14. Leaf litter
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
C2
3
3. In -channel structure; ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
12
0.5
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2)
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1
3
8. Headcuts
0 )
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
2
3
9. Grade control
-6-
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
0
Yes(= 3 `
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolopv (Subtotal = ` _' , S )
12_ Presence of Baseflow
D
1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
5
1
5' 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?
92
No = 0
Yes f3
C. Biologv (Subtotal = /'U
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)
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
92
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
4�,F
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
D
0.5
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. ttiE, 5 N'
r
Sketch:

/CH1
/CH2

Appendix E – USACE District Assessment
Methods/Forms

HC3 CH1 CH2
1 Presence of flow / persistent
pools in stream 423
2 Evidence of past human alteration 3 3 3
3 Riparian zone 1 1 1
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical
discharges 112
5 Groundwater discharge 1 0 3
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 4 3 3
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
substrate 122
12 Evidence of channel incision or
widening 022
13 Presence of major bank failures 1 3 4
14 Root depth and density on banks 1 1 2
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or
timber production 012
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool
complexes 122
17 Habitat complexity 2 3 3
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 2 1 1
19 Substrate embeddedness 2 1 2
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 2 2 2
21 Presence of amphibians 2 1 1
22 Presence of fish 0 0 0
23 Evidence of wildlife use 3 1 1
35 35 44BiologyTotal Score:
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet Summary
PhysicalStabilityHabitat
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = maxpoints)
2 Evidence of past human alteration
extensive alteration - 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3 Riparian zone
no buffer = 0, contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max ints
5 Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0; s rin s, se s, wetlands, etc. = max point
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
a'
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
no wetlands = 0; 14Me adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channeiization = 0; natural meander = max points
10 Sedimentinput
(exten Sive dennsitinn= th lith[+ nr nn ci r.A;m—t , ;n+cti
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
0-5
0-4
0-5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
0-6
0-5
0-5
0-6
0-4
0-5
f
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
0-3
0-4
0-4
I
0-4
0-4
0-2
13
0-5
0-4
0-2
'
0-6
0--4
0-2
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
0-5 0-4 0-3
I
0-5 0-4 0-4
J
ucsc cuaractt;FiRws are not assesses to coastal streams.
2
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
NAS
0-4
0 - 5
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
�+
(dee I incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
0-5
0-4
0-5
13
Presence of major bank failures
„►a,,
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
J
pdq
14
Root depth and density on banks
F.,
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
0-3
0-4
0-5
f
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
J
substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
'CJ
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0- 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max oinis
f
17
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points
0-6
0-6
0-6
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
►�,
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
19
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
NA*
0-4
0-4
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous s =max ints
2—
4
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es - max ints
G
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
ucsc cuaractt;FiRws are not assesses to coastal streams.
2

/CH1
/CH2

Appendix F – Wetland JD Forms

86$50<&25362)(1*,1((56
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. 6$:DQG6$: County: 'DYLH U.S.G.S. Quad: 1&)DUPLQJWRQ

NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Requestor: 1RUWK&DUROLQD'HSDUWPHQWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\'LYLVLRQRI0LWLJDWLRQ6HUYLFHV 
+DUU\7VRPLGHV
Address: 5DYHQVFURIW'ULYH6XLWH 
$VKHYLOOH1&
Telephone Number: 
E-mail: KDUU\WVRPLGHV#QFGHQUJRY 

Size (acres)  Nearest Town 0RFNVYLOOH
Nearest Waterway <DGNLQ5LYHU River Basin 8SSHU3HH'HH
USGS HUC  Coordinates Latitude: 
Longitude: 
Location description:7KHUHYLHZDUHDVDUHORFDWHGRQWKHZHVWVLGHRI6SLOOPDQ5RDG3,1V
DQG5HIHUHQFHUHYLHZDUHD
GHVFULSWLRQLQ-XULVGLFWLRQDO'HWHUPLQDWLRQ5HTXHVW3DFNDJHHQWLWOHG³3RWHQWLDO:HWODQGRU1RQ:HWODQG:DWHUVRIWKH86
0DS´DQG3ULQWHG'DWHRI

,QGLFDWH:KLFKRIWKH)ROORZLQJ$SSO\

$.PreliminaryDetermination

 There appear to be ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGV 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
ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGV 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 . 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 ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGV 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 ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGV 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 ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGV at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the ZDWHUV
LQFOXGLQJZHWODQGV 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.

%$SSURYHG'HWHUPLQDWLRQ

 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 ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGV 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.

6$:DQG6$:
We recommend you have the ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGV 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 ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGV 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 0$3'$7(. 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 ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGV have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below on6859(<6,*1(''$7(. 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 0RUHKHDG&LW\1&DW 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 %U\DQ5RGHQ5H\QROGVDWRU
EU\DQURGHQUH\QROGV#XVDFHDUP\PLO.

C.%DVLV)RU'HWHUPLQDWLRQ%DVLV)RU'HWHUPLQDWLRQ6HHWKHSUHOLPLQDU\MXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQ
IRUPGDWHG
'.5HPDUNV 1RQH

($WWHQWLRQ86'$3URJUDP3DUWLFLSDQWV

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.

)$SSHDOV,QIRUPDWLRQ7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQDSSOLHVRQO\WRDSSURYHGMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQVDVLQGLFDWHGLQ%
DERYH

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 1RWDSSOLFDEOH.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**

6$:DQG6$:
Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________

Date of JD:  Expiration Date of JD:1RWDSSOLFDEOH
RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 Digitally signed by RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
Date: 2018.03.26 14:25:37 -04'00'
6$:DQG6$:
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.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0

Copy furnished:

Agent: 5HVRXUFH(QYLURQPHQWDO6ROXWLRQV 
-HUHP\6FKPLG
Address: -HIIHUVRQ6WUHHW6XLWH 
5DOHLJK1& 
Telephone Number:  
E-mail: MVFKPLG#UHVXV
6$:DQG6$:
127,),&$7,212)$'0,1,675$7,9($33($/237,216$1'352&(66$1'
5(48(67)25$33($/
Applicant: 1RUWK&DUROLQD'HSDUWPHQWRI
(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\'LYLVLRQRI0LWLJDWLRQ6HUYLFHV
+DUU\7VRPLGHV
File Number: 6$:DQG
6$:
Date: 
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
$,1,7,$/352))(5('3(50,7<RXPD\DFFHSWRUREMHFWWRWKHSHUPLW
•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.
%352))(5('3(50,7<RXPD\DFFHSWRUDSSHDOWKHSHUPLW
•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.
&3(50,7'(1,$/ 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.
'$33529('-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21 You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
•ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
•APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
6$:DQG6$:
(35(/,0,1$5<-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21: 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
appeal process you may contact:
'LVWULFW(QJLQHHU:LOPLQJWRQ5HJXODWRU\'LYLVLRQ
$WWQ%U\DQ5RGHQ5H\QROGV
$VKHYLOOH5HJXODWRU\2IILFH
86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV
3DWWRQ$YHQXH5RRP
$VKHYLOOH1RUWK&DUROLQD

If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.

________________________________________
Signature of appellant or agent.
Date: Telephone number:

For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:

'LVWULFW(QJLQHHU:LOPLQJWRQ5HJXODWRU\'LYLVLRQ, $WWQ%U\DQ5RGHQ5H\QROGV'DUOLQJWRQ$YHQXH:LOPLQJWRQ1RUWK
&DUROLQD

For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:

'LYLVLRQ(QJLQHHU&RPPDQGHU86$UP\(QJLQHHU'LYLVLRQ6RXWK$WODQWLF$WWQ0U-DVRQ6WHHOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO
2IILFHU&(6$'3'2)RUV\WK6WUHHW5RRP0$WODQWD*HRUJLD
3KRQH













35(/,0,1$5< -85,6',&7,21$/ '(7(50,1$7,213-' )250
%$&.*5281',1)250$7,21
$5(3257&203/(7,21'$7()253-'03/26/2018

%1$0($1'$''5(662)3(56215(48(67,1*3-'North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Mitigation Services, Harry Tsomides, 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102, Asheville, NC 28801 

&',675,&72)),&(),/(1$0($1' 180%(5Wilmington District, Scout and Mockingbird Sites,
SAW-2017-01469 and SAW-2017-01505

'352-(&7/2&$7,216$1'%$&.*5281',1)250$7,21The review areas are located on the west
side of Spillman Road. PINs: 5853144949, 05853153934, 5843932576, 5853416631, 5852594790, 5853601920,
58535114536, 5853164843, and 5853173894. Reference review area description in Jurisdictional Determination
Request Package entitled “Potential Wetland or Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map” and Printed Date of 2/28/2018. 
86(7+(7$%/(%(/2:72'2&80(17 08/7,3/($48$7,&5(6285&(6$1'25
$48$7,&5(6285&(6$7',))(5(176,7(6
State: NC County: Davie City: Mocksville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 36.0261 Longitude: -80.5050
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Yadkin River 
(5(9,(:3(5)250(')256,7((9$/8$7,21&+(&.$//7+$7$33/<
 Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Field Determination. Date(s): DQG

7$%/(2)$48$7,&5(6285&(6,15(9,(:$5($:+,&+0$<%(68%-(&7725(*8/$725<
-85,6',&7,21

Site Number Latitude (decimal
degrees)
Longitude (decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount of
aquatic resources in
review area (acreage
and linear feet, if
applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic resource
“may be” subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or Section
10/404)
Scout Site (SAW-2017-01469)
Wetland
WD 36.0028026 -80.5144835 0.75 acres Wetland 404
Stream
HC3 36.030105 -80.516072 2,428 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
JD1 36.030583 -80.517263 238 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
JD2 36.029308 -80.515734 77 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Mockingbird Site (SAW-2017-01505)
Wetland
WA 36.026870 -80.504691 0.83 acres Wetland 404
Wetland
WB 36.023060 -80.503075 0.08 acres Wetland 404
Wetland
WC 36.020154 -80.503590 0.13 acres Wetland 404
Wetland
WE 36.024412 -80.504582 0.36 acres Wetland 404
Wetland
WF 36.024210 -80.504827 0.05 acres Wetland 404
Wetland
WG 36.023900 -80.504506 0.23 acres Wetland 404
Wetland
WH 36.025417 -80.505161 0.75 acres Wetland 404
Stream
HC1 36.036092 -80.516843 1,960 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
HC2-A 36.021119 -80.503956 855 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
HC2-B 36.023879 -80.504621 937 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
HC2-C 36.025208 -80.505265 426 linear feet Non-wetland 404

Stream
HC2-D 36.025872 -80.506699 455 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
JS1 36.039677 -80.517472 505 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
NM1 36.034585 -80.516771 378 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
NM2 36.035076 -80.518932 1,148 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
NM3 36.037264 -80.516842 202 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
NM4 36.037801 -80.515787 310 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
NM5 36.037645 -80.516801 101 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
TP1 36.021662 -80.503054 380 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
TP2 36.023014 -80.503143 438 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Stream
TP3 36.026046 -80.505192 489 linear feet Non-wetland 404

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or
requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has
not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or
different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant
can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD
constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,
signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such
jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD
or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual

permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over
aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the
review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:














6833257,1*'$7$'DWDUHYLHZHGIRU3-'FKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\

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: 9LFLQLW\0DS'DWHG Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 86*60DS)DUPLQJWRQ
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: 6RLOV0DS'DYLH&RXQW\'DWHG
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: 1DWLRQDO:HWODQGV,QYHQWRU\0DS86):61:,0DSSHU
State/local wetland inventory map(s): _
FEMA/FIRM maps: _
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): 3RWHQWLDO:HWODQGRU1RQ:HWODQG:DWHUVRIWKH860DS'DWHG

or Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Other information (please specify):

,03257$17127(7KHLQIRUPDWLRQUHFRUGHGRQWKLVIRUPKDVQRWQHFHVVDULO\EHHQ
YHULILHGE\WKH&RUSVDQGVKRXOGQRWEHUHOLHGXSRQIRUODWHUMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQV





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.

RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.K
ENNETH.1263385574
Digitally signed by RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD,
ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
Date: 2018.03.26 14:25:58 -04'00'
PROJECT MANAGER: DRAWN: ATP JOB NUMBER: ###### DATE: 09/29/2017 REVISIONS: NONE 0500250Feet©Potential Wetland or Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map Mockingbird and Scout Mitigation Sites Davie County, North CarolinaLegendEasement - MockingbirdEasement - ScoutPotential Non-Wetland Waters of the USPotential Wetland Waters of the US
M``aDP-6
DP-5
WD
HC
3JD1
JD2HC1NM2
JS
1
N
M
1
NM4
NM3NM5
NM2
0300150
Feet
Potential Wetland or Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map - Northern Section
Mockingbird and Scout Mitigation Sites
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
M Wetland Data Points
``a Upland Data Points
Easement - Mockingbird
Easement - Scout
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US
Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Date: 2/28/2018
Drawn by: xxx
Checked by: xxxxxxxx
Document Path: C:\Users\jschmid\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\MXD\JD\Mockingbird_WOUS_11x17_North.mxd©
Northern
Section
Southern
Section
M``a
M
M``a
WA
WH
WE
WG
WC
WB
WF
DP-8
DP-7
DP-4
DP-2DP-1
HC2-ATP3TP2HC
2
-
B
TP1
H
C
2
-
C
H
C
2
-
D
<N
u
l
l
>
H
C
2
-
B
0200100
Feet
Potential Wetland or Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map - Southern Section
Mockingbird and Scout Mitigation Sites
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
M Wetland Data Points
``a Upland Data Points
Easement - Mockingbird
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US
Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Date: 2/28/2018
Drawn by: xxx
Checked by: xxxxxxxx
Document Path: C:\Users\jschmid\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Mockingbird\MXD\JD\Mockingbird_WOUS_11x17_South.mxd©
Northern
Section
Southern
Section

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

1
November 15, 2017
Regulatory Division
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 (ºN) Longitude (ºW)
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).
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
2
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 [phone] extension 59.
Sincerely,
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
HUGHES.ANDREA.W
ADE.1258339165
Digitally signed by
HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
ou=USA, cn=HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
Date: 2017.11.15 11:25:11 -05'00'
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
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
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 [phone] or at [e-mail].
ec: Travis Wilson and Oliva Munzer, NCWRC
MEMORANDUM
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NC IRT
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 DW1-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 DW1-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 DW1-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 DW1-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 FF1-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.
•FF1-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 FF1-C being too
close to the road also applies to upper FF1-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.
•FF1-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-B. 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. I 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-B 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 TC3-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
[e-mail].
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers

Comments submitted to Andrea Hughes (SAW-PM) via email on October 6, 2017.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona 111. Bartos, Administrator
Govemor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi 11. 1lamilton
November 7, 2017
Daniel Ingran:a
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 Arclures and I Iistory
Deputy Secretary Kevirt 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,
Q&6_� A &ax�_
rmona. M. Bartos
Location: 109 i?ast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 N161 Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-0599

From:Eric Teitsworth
To:"[e-mail]"
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.pdf
Scoping 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
RES| res.us
Mobile: [phone]

res.us
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
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,
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 [e-mail] with any questions that
you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Eric Teitsworth
Ecologist
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
0 1,500750
Feet
USGS Map Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area (Scout)
Contracted DMS Easements
©Date: 12/29/2017
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: C:\Users\eteitsworth\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\RFP_Updated\USGS for scoping letters_Scout.mxd615ac.
43ac.
156ac.
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 septentrionalis) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Davie &
Surry counties are within the range
(https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf) of the northern
long-eared bat and may be present or in the vicinity of the project site. As such, consultation with
the USFWS may be required. For more information, please see
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/ or
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/NLEB_RFO.html or contact the Asheville office of the USFWS to ensure
that potential issues related to this species are addressed.

Please let me know if I can assist further.

Thanks,
Vann

From: Eric Teitsworth [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 10:45 AM
To: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Cc: Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
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 [e-mail].

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
RES| res.us
Mobile: [phone]

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
res.us
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
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,
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 [e-mail] with any questions that
you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Eric Teitsworth
Ecologist
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
0 1,500750
Feet
USGS Map Scout Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area (Scout)
Contracted DMS Easements
©Date: 12/29/2017
Drawn by: EWT
Document Path: C:\Users\eteitsworth\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Scout\MXD\RFP_Updated\USGS for scoping letters_Scout.mxd615ac.
43ac.
156ac.
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

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
2

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:

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

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

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

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

5. Streambanks with deep-rooted woody vegetation are the most stable, and stream
restoration efforts should incorporate the use of native vegetation adapted to the site
conditions. Biodegradable erosion-control materials may be incorporated into
3

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.

4

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.