20180067 Ver 1_Puncheon Fork Stream Mitigation Project_20200522

S9S10S11S12S13S7S8S14S1S2S3S4S5S6BBBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBB BBBB
BB
BB
BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTB TBTB TB
TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
T
B
TB TTTTTTTTT T T T T T T
T
T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
T TBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LC
E
LCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCE LCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCE
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCEPROJECT LOCATIONSITE MAPNTSSHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALRESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC3600 GLENWOOD AVENUE., SUITE 100RALEIGH, NC 27612VICINITY MAPNTSEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTMADISON COUNTY, NCFRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN: HUC 06010105MAY 202005/D11/2020
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION----0506BPBBRCSCFAFMSKeet List TaEleSKeet NumEerSKeet Title--CO9ERA1O9ERALL AERIAL 9IE:E1NOTESE2E;ISTIN* CON'ITIONSS1REACH JB2S2REACH JB3S3REACH JB3S4REACH JB5S5REACH JB5S6REACH JB5S7REACH JB6S8REACH JB6S9REACH JB1S10REACH JB1S11REACH JB4S12REACH JB4S13REACH JB4S14REACH JB7:1:ETLAN' PLAN:2:ETLAN' PLANP1PLANTIN* PLAN)1)ENCIN* PLAN'1'ETAILS'2'ETAILS'3'ETAILS'4'ETAILS'5'ETAILS'6'ETAILSPROJECT TOPO*RAPH< AN' E;ISTIN* CON'ITIONSPLANIMETRICS S8R9E< :AS PRO9I'E' B< .EEMAPPIN* AN' S8R9E<IN*, PA NC )IRM LICENSEN8MBER C-3039, PHILLIP B .EE, NC PLS L-4647,SEALE' MA< 10, 2019'ESI*NE' B<RESO8RCE EN9IRONMENTAL SOL8TIONS, LLC3600 *LEN:OO' A9E, S8ITE 100RALEI*H, NC 27612S8R9E<E' B<.EE MAPPIN* AN' S8R9E<IN*, PAPO BO; 2566ASHE9ILLE, NC 28802PROJECT 'IRECTOR<Know what'sbelow.before you digCallNOTICE TO CONTRACTORPRIOR TO CONSTR8CTION, 'I**IN*, OR E;CA9ATION THECONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE )OR LOCATIN* ALL 8N'ER*RO8N'8TILITIES P8BLIC OR PRI9ATE THAT MA< E;IST AN' CROSS THRO8*HTHE AREAS O) CONSTR8CTION, :HETHER IN'ICATE' ON THE PLANSOR NOT CALL 811 A MINIM8M O) 72 HO8RS PRIOR TO 'I**IN* ORE;CA9ATIN* REPAIRS TO AN< 8TILIT< 'AMA*E' RES8LTIN* )ROMCONSTR8CTION ACTI9ITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILIT< O) THECONTRACTOR
TBS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABB
BB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBB
BB BB BBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBB BBBB BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
B
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
T
B TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TB TBTBTB TB TBTB TB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBT
B
TBTB TTTTTTTTTTTT T T T T T T T TT T
T
T
T
T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
T TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCE
LC
E
LCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCE
LCELC
E
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE150300150REACH JB1REACH JB3REACH JB5REACH JB2REACH JB4REACH JB6REACH JB70FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_COVER.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506A1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
OVERALL AERIAL VIEW
MADISON COUNTY, NC
5/11/2020
LE*EN'TBBBE;ISTIN* TREELINELIMITS O) PROPOSE'CONSER9ATION EASEMENT5050E;ISTIN* O9ERHEA' ELECTRIC 8TILIT< LINEPROPOSE' BAN.)8LLE;ISTIN* )ENCELINEE;ISTIN* BOTTOM O) BAN.E;ISTIN* TOP O) BAN.PROPOSE' CONTO8R MINORPROPOSE' CONTO8R MAJORE;ISTIN* CONTO8R MINORE;ISTIN* CONTO8R MAJORE;ISTIN* :ETLAN'PROPOSE' CHANNEL PL8*SEE 'ETAIL '2LO* SILLSEE 'ETAIL '4LO* STR8CT8REPRO)ILEPROPERT< LINEPROPOSE' CENTERLINE O) CHANNELE;ISTIN* TREEE;ISTIN* STREAMTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBROC. STR8CT8REPRO)ILEROC. SILLSEE 'ETAIL '4STEP POOLSEE 'ETAIL '4RI))LE *RA'E CONTROLSEE 'ETAIL '5E;ISTIN* EASEMENTPROPOSE' COIR :ATTLE SLOPE BREA.SEE 'ETAIL '3S)HASPECIAL )LOO' HAZAR' AREA)EMA 100-<R )LOO'PLAINBO8L'ER CL8STERSEE 'ETAIL '5STONE TOESEE 'ETAIL '5FILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NC
NOTES
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
5/11/2020
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONE10506BPBBRCSCFAFMBR8SH TOESEE 'ETAIL '3STREAM CONSTR8CTION NOTES1ALL PROPOSE' CHANNELS AN' TEMPORAR< AN' PERMANENT CROSSIN*S SHALL BE CONSTR8CTE' INA 'R< CON'ITION 9IA O))LINE CONSTR8CTION :HERE POSSIBLE P8MP ARO8N' OPERATIONSSHO8L' BE LIMITE' TO AREAS :HERE THE E;ISTIN* AN' PROPOSE' CHANNEL ALI*NMENTS O9ERLAP2ALL IMPER9IO8S 'I.ES AN' P8MPIN* APPARAT8S SHALL BE REMO9E' )ROM THE STREAM AT THE EN'O) EACH 'A< TO RESTORE NORMAL )LO: BAC. TO THE CHANNEL 8NLESS OTHER:ISE APPRO9E' B<THE EN*INEER :ITH APPRO9AL, A P8MP ARO8N' MA< BE ALLO:E' TO R8N CONTIN8O8SL< I) THEREIS NO )ORECAST )OR RAIN O9ERNI*HT, AN'OR THE P8MP APPARAT8S IS MAINTAINE' AN'MONITORE' CONTIN8O8SL<3CONSTR8CT 8PSTREAM PORTION O) THE CHANNEL )IRST, :OR.IN* IN AN 8PSTREAM TO'O:NSTREAM 'IRECTION, 8NLESS OTHER:ISE APPRO9E' B< THE EN*INEER4REMO9E AN' STOC.PILE TOPSOIL :ITHIN AREAS THAT ARE TO BE C8T 9 OR MORE BELO: E;ISTIN**RA'E STOC.PILE' TOPSOIL IS TO BE PLACE' ALON* THE )LOO'PLAIN BENCHES5STR8CT8RES ARE TO BE INSTALLE' IN LOCATIONS SHO:N ON PLAN SHEETS AS IN'ICATE' ON THESTR8CT8RE TABLES 8SIN* METHO'S 'ESCRIBE' IN THE 'ETAIL SHEETS PRIOR TO )INE *RA'IN*,OBTAIN APPRO9AL O) THE EN*INEER ON INSTALLATION O) STR8CT8RES6S8BSTRATE MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLE' ALON* THE BE' O) ALL PROPOSE' RI))LE SECTIONSRI))LE MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST O) A MI; O) O) NATI9E S8BSTRATE, CLASS A, AN' CLASS B RI9ERROC. O) E48I9ALENT SIZE MA< BE S8BSTIT8TE' 8PON APPRO9AL O) THE EN*INEER SEE RI))LE'ETAILS ON SHEET '5 )OR RI))LE COMPOSITION7ALL 48ARR< STONE SHALL MEET NC'OT STAN'AR'S AN' SPECI)ICATIONS88PON COMPLETION O) )INE *RA'IN*, INSTALL STREAM BAN. STABILIZATION INCL8'IN*, EROSIONCONTROL MATTIN* OR SO' MATS ALON* CHANNEL BAN.S9)ILL AN' STABILIZE ABAN'ONE' SE*MENTS O) THE E;ISTIN* CHANNEL PER 'IRECTION O) THEEN*INEERLO* 9ANESEE 'ETAIL '4
TBTBTBS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BB
BB
BB BB
BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBB
B
B
B
BB
BBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTB TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB TBTBTBTB TBTBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TB TBTB
TB TB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBT
B
TB
TB
T
B
TBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT T T T T T T T T TT TT
T
T
T
T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
T
T TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTB
TB TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCE LCE
LC
E
LCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCE
LCELC
E LCE
LCE
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE120240120REACH JB1REACH JB3REACH JB5REACH JB2REACH JB4REACH JB6REACH JB70FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506E2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
MADISON COUNTY, NC
5/11/2020
TBTB
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
TBTBTBTB
TBTBT
B
TBT
B TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT3675367036903695370036703675368036853690369537003705371037153720372537303735
3
6
6
5
3
6
6
0
3
6
5
5
3665
366036553650365036453645364536403655
36503655LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LC
E
LCE1-11-31-51-71-91-111-21-41-61-81-103680 367536703665
1-141-120+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+501-13MATCH LINE - 6+50
S2SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
3650366036703680369037003650366036703680369037000+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+50E; 36 PIPEE; 36 ; 60PIPE1-11-31-51-71-91-11-080%-1189%-1248%-1252%-646%-635%-620%1-141-12STA 0+83LIMITS O) CONSER9ATION EASEMENT
306030REACH JB2-ARESTORATIONSTA 1+24 TO 3+25E;ISTIN* *RA'EALON* STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSE'CHANNEL BE'PROPOSE' TOPO) BAN.E;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.T<PICAL RI*HT MEAN'ER CROSS SECTION℄℄T<PICAL RI))LE CROSS SECTION℄T<PICAL LE)T MEAN'ER CROSS SECTION07
21
56
04
41
18
72
08
08
18
41
72
BAN.)8LL STA*EBAN.)8LL STA*EBAN.)8LL STA*EREACHJB2 STA 0+78 TO STA 3+2505
E;ISTIN* PIPE TOBE REMO9E' AN''ISPOSE' O) O))-SITEREACH JB2-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 3+25 TO 6+54BRI'*E 'EBRIS TOBE REMO9E' AN''ISPOSE' O) O))-SITE*RA'E BOTH BAN.S # 251)ROM STA 5+30 TO 6+20REACH JB1 PROPOSE' *RA'IN*E;ISTIN* PIPE TOBE REMO9E' AN''ISPOSE' O) O))-SITEE;ISTIN* CHANNEL TO BEABAN'ONE' AN' BAC.)ILLE'SEE 'ETAIL '3:ETLAN' :RTIE REACH JB2 INTOE;ISTIN* STREAM BE'8TILIT< TO BERELOCATE' B< OTHERSRECONNECT E;ISTIN*CHANNEL0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB2.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506----PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
S1
MADISON COUNTY, NC
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA S)HAS)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTB TBTBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB3655 365036503645364036453645 3640 365036553660366536703635364036453650365536603665367036
3
0
3630
3625362
0
36203615 LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
2-11-145+005+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+001-13S1MATCH LINE 6+50M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

1
1
+
2
5
S3SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
36203630364036503660362036303640365036606+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+252-1STA 7+07STA 7+50CONSER9ATIONEASEMENT BREA.306030E;ISTIN* *RA'EALON* STREAMCENTERLINEE;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.REACH JB3-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 6+54 TO 7+07REACH JB3-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 7+50 TO 10+86:ETLAN' :4PROPOSE' )OR'CROSSIN*SEE 'ETAIL '2:ETLAN' :9*RA'E RI*HT BAN. # 251)ROM STA 6+50 TO 7+10*RA'E RI*HT BAN. # 251)ROM STA 8+60 TO 9+10PROPOSE' BE'0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB3.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB3
MADISON COUNTY, NC
S)HAS)HA S)HA S)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA S)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)H
A
S)HAS)HA
S
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S)H
A
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB
BBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
BBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBB
B
BBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TB
TBTBTBT
B
TBT
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
36303630 36253620 36203615
362036253630361536103605361036153620362536353
6
1
0 36153
6
2
0 36253630363536
0
5
3600
3600
36
0
5
3595LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
L
C
E
L
C
E
0+
0
0
0+502-19+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015
+
5
0
1
6
+
0
0
16+5017+0017+5
0
1
8
+
0
0
S2MATCH LINE 11+25
MATCH
L
I
N
E

-

1
5
+
0
0
S4SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
360036103620363036403600361036203630364011+2511+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+00STA 13+74CONSER9ATIONEASEMENT BREA.306030REACH JB3-BENHANCEMENT ISTA 10+86 TO 13+74E;ISTIN* *RA'EALON* STREAMCENTERLINEE;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.:ETLAN' :PPROPOSE' )OR'CROSSIN*SEE 'ETAIL '2*RA'E LE)T BAN. # 21)ROM STA 12+50 TO 12+95REMO9E 'EBRIS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB3.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S3PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB3
MADISON COUNTY, NC
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S)H
A
S
)
H
A
S)
H
A
S)HA
S
)H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB BB
BBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
BBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBB
B
BB
BBB
B
BBB
B
BBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
T
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT T T T3605361036153610361536203625 363036053600 3600 36053610361536203595
3595
3590 360035
9
5
35903590359536003
6
0
6
3
6
1
0
3
5
8
03595 LCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCE14+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+50 18+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5021+0021+5022+00S3MATCH LINE 15+00
MATCH LINE - 21+00S5SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
358035903600361036203580359036003610362015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5021+00STA 20+34
STA 20+76CONSER9ATIONEASEMENT BREA.STA 15+29CONSER9ATIONEASEMENT BREA.306030REACH JB5-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 15+29 TO 20+34E;ISTIN* *RA'EALON* STREAMCENTERLINEE;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.REACH JB4REACH JB7:ETLAN' :.:ETLAN' :O:ETLAN' :L:ETLAN' :M:ETLAN' :88TILIT< TO BERELOCATE' B< OTHERS8TILIT< TO BERELOCATE' B< OTHERS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB5.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S4PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB5
MADISON COUNTY, NC
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT35903590359535803580357535753580358535903595360036053610361536203625363035703575358035853590359535
6
5 LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCE20+0020+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+5025+0025+5026+002
6+
5
0
27+0027+505-15-2S4MATCH LINE 21+00
MATCH LINE

-

2
7
+
0
0
S6SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
356035703580359036003560357035803590360021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+5025+0025+5026+0026+5027+005-15-2306030REACH JB5-BENHANCEMENT IIISTA 20+76 TO 24+46E;ISTIN* *RA'EALON* STREAMCENTERLINEE;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.REACH JB5-CENHANCEMENT ISTA 24+46 TO 30+86:ETLAN' :J:ETLAN' :I:ETLAN' :H*RA'E LE)T BAN. # 251)ROM STA 26+50 TO 27+308TILIT< TO BERELOCATE' B< OTHERS*RA'E LE)T BAN. # 251)ROM STA 24+40 TO 25+150FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB5.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S5PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB5
MADISON COUNTY, NC
TBS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)H
A
S)
H
A
S
)
H
ABBBBBBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBB
BB BBBBBB
BB
BB BBBB BBBBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBT T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTT3565 35603560
3555
35
5
0
355
0
3
5
5
5 35603565357035703565355535603565357035753580358535903595360036053610361536203550
354535503555LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE25+0025+5026+0026+50 27+0027+5028+0028+5029+0029+5030+0030+5030+905-26-1S5MATCH LINE 27+00
SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
354035503560357035803540355035603570358027+0027+5028+0028+5029+0029+5030+0030+5031+0031+506-1306030REACH JB5-CENHANCEMENT ISTA 24+46 TO 30+86E;ISTIN* *RA'EALON* STREAMCENTERLINEREACH JB6E;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.:ETLAN' :*:ETLAN' :):ETLAN' :CREACH JB5 TIES INTOE;ISTIN* BE' O)REACH JB6*RA'E LE)T BAN. # 31)ROM STA 30+25 TO 30+758TILIT< TO BERELOCATE' B< OTHERS*RA'E LE)T BAN. # 251)ROM STA 26+50 TO 27+300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB5.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S6PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB5
MADISON COUNTY, NC
LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCE
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCETBS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA S)HA S)HA S)HA S)HA S)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA
S
)H
A
S
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA
S
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)
H
A
S)HA S)HA S)HA S)HA S)HA S)HA S)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA S)HA S)HA S)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA
S
)
H
A
S)
H
A S)HA
S)HA S)HA
S)
H
A
S)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S)
H
A
S)
H
A
S)HA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
T
B
TBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTTT T T T T T T TTTTTTTTTTT3560 3560355535503550355535603565 3570 35703565356035553560356535703575358035853550
3
5
4
5
3540355035550+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+00
5+
5
0
6+006
+
5
0
7
+
0
08-17-1MATCH LINE - 6+00S8SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
35403550356035703580354035503560357035800+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00E; 72 PIPE8-17-1STA 1+91LIMITS O) CONSER9ATION EASEMENT
306030E;ISTIN* *RA'E ALON*STREAM CENTERLINEE;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.REACH JB5REACH JB6ENHANCEMENT ISTA 1+91 TO 7+45*RA'E POINTBAR # 51:ETLAN' :*:ETLAN' :E:ETLAN' :):ETLAN' :C*RA'E LE)T BAN. # 31)ROM STA 2+65 TO 4+208TILIT< TO BERELOCATE' B< OTHERS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB6.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S7PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB6
MADISON COUNTY, NC *RA'E LE)T BAN. # 31)ROM STA 5+30 TO 5+75
LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCES)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA S)HA S)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTTTT
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB35404+505+00 5+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5010+898-1S7MATCH LINE 6+00
SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
35203530354035503560352035303540355035606+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+00E; 96 PIPESTA 7+45STA 7+95CONSER9ATIONEASEMENT BREA.STA 10+57
LIMITS O) CONSER9ATION EASEMENT
306030REACH JB6-AENHANCEMENT ISTA 1+91 TO 7+45E;ISTIN* *RA'E ALON*STREAM CENTERLINEE;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.REACH JB6-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 7+95 TO 10+42LINE 8PSTREAM )ACE O)CROSSIN* :CLASS
II
RIP RAPSEE C8L9ERT PROTECTION'ETAIL ON '2E;ISTIN* PIPE TOREMAIN:ETLAN' :C:ETLAN' :':ETLAN' :B:ETLAN' :A0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB6.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S8PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB6
MADISON COUNTY, NC
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELC
E
LCELCEL
C
E S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB3665
3695369036853680
3675 36953700370537103715372036803685369036703665366036603675
36553665367036750+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+009-19-210-1MATCH
L
I
N
E

-

5
+
0
0
S10SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
36603670368036903700366036703680369037000+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+00E; 30 PIPEE; 24 PIPE9-19-29-2STA 3+60
STA 4+23CONSER9ATIONEASEMENT BREA.STA 0+57LIMITS O) CONSER9ATION EASEMENT
306030REACH JB1ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1+26 TO 3+52E;ISTIN* *RA'EALON* STREAMCENTERLINEE;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.E;ISTIN* PIPE TO BEREMO9E' AN' 'ISPOSE'O) O))-SITE*RA'E CHANNEL IN PLACEREACH JB1ENHANCEMENT IISTA 4+45 TO 6+69E;ISTIN* PIPE TOREMAIN:ETLAN' :TPROPOSE' *RA'E8TILIT< TO BERELOCATE' B< OTHERS8TILIT< TO BERELOCATE' B< OTHERS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB1.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S9PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB1
MADISON COUNTY, NC
LCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
LCELCELCELCE
LC
E
LCE
LCES)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)
H
A
S)HAS
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S)H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA
S
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S)H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
B
B
B BBBBB
B
BBBBBB
BB
BB
B
B
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B TBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBT
B
TBTBTBT T T T T T T T T T T TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
T3660 3655
3655365036503645364036453
6
4
5
36
4
0367036653660366036753655 36653670367536503655366036653670363536403645365036553630 3+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+507+929-210-110-210-310-4S9MATCH LINE 5+00SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
36403650366036703680364036503660367036805+005+506+006+507+007+508+00E; 60 x 42ARCH CMP10-110-210-3STA 6+69
STA 7+10CONSER9ATIONEASEMENT BREA.306030REACH JB2E;ISTIN* *RA'EALON* STREAMCENTERLINEE;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.REACH JB1ENHANCEMENT IISTA 4+45 TO 6+69REACH JB3RETAIN:ETLAN' :S:ETLAN' :4REACH JB1ENHANCEMENT ISTA 7+10 TO 7+88:ETLAN' :9REACH JB1 TIES INTOE;ISTIN* BE' O)REACH JB30FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB1.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S10PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB1
MADISON COUNTY, NC
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB368036753670366536603655365036453640363536853690369536753680368536903695370037053710371537203725373036803675367036
6
5
3660365536503
6
4
5
3
6
4
0
3635369036953700370537103715372037253730363036553660LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+50





12-212-136303625MATCH LINE - 5+00
S12SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
36403650366036703680364036503660367036800+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+00E; 15 PIPESTA 0+53LIMITS O) CONSER9ATION EASEMENT
306030REACH JB4-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 0+55 TO 6+19E;ISTIN* *RA'E ALON*STREAM CENTERLINEE;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.E;ISTIN* PIPE TO BEREMO9E' AN' 'ISPOSE'O) O))-SITECOIR :ATTLESLOPE BREA.SEE 'ETAIL '30FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB4.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S11PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB4
MADISON COUNTY, NC
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB36453640363536453640 3635363036253630363536403645
3630363536403645365036553660366536703675363536303625362036
1
5
361
0
3620361536103
6
0
5 36053600
36003
6
0
5LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCE4+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009
+
5
0
10+0010+5011+0012-212-412-512-612-812-912-112-1112-312-1013-112-7363036253620
36
153615
3620361536203625S11MATCH LINE 5+00
MATCH LINE - 10+00S13SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
36003610362036303640360036103620363036405+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+00E; 24 PIPE-453%-645%-688%12-212-412-512-612-812-912-112-11STA 8+41
STA 9+17CONSER9ATIONEASEMENT BREA.306030E;ISTIN* *RA'E ALON*STREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSE'CHANNEL BE'PROPOSE' TOPO) BAN.E;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.T<PICAL RI*HT MEAN'ER CROSS SECTION℄℄T<PICAL RI))LE CROSS SECTION℄T<PICAL LE)T MEAN'ER CROSS SECTION06
17
46
03
34
14
59
06
06
14
34
59
BAN.)8LL STA*EBAN.)8LL STA*EBAN.)8LL STA*EREACHJB2 STA 07+04 TO STA 08+4104
E;ISTIN* PIPE TOBE REMO9E' AN''ISPOSE' O) O))-SITEREACH JB4-BRESTORATIONSTA 6+19 TO 8+41REACH JB4-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 0+55 TO 6+1970 L) O) PROPOSE'48 RCPPROP 70 L) O)48 RCPREACH JB4-CENHANCEMENT ISTA 9+17 TO 14+57PROPOSE' *RA'IN*LINE SPRIN* CON)L8ENCE:ITH )ILTER )ABRIC AN' A5050 MI; O) CLASS A AN'CLASS B RIP-RAPCONSTR8CT BAN.*RO8N':ATER'I9ERSIONSEE 'ETAIL '30FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB4.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S12PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB4
MADISON COUNTY, NC
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HATBTB
TB
TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TB TBTB
TB TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB36253595359036003595359035903595360036063610362536303635364036453650363536303625362036153610362036153610360536053600 3605
360035953595 3610 3615 3620 36253605LCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE14+667+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+00
11+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5012-512-612-812-912-1112-1013-112-736203615361536203615S12MATCH LINE 10+00SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 6
358035903600361036203580359036003610362010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+00306030E;ISTIN* *RA'E ALON*STREAM CENTERLINEE;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.REACH JB4-CENHANCEMENT ISTA 9+17 TO 14+57REACH JB7REACH JB5-A:ETLAN' :8:ETLAN' :.:ETLAN' :O:ETLAN' :L:ETLAN' :M:ETLAN' :NREACH JB4 TIES INTOE;ISTIN* BE' O) JB5*RA'E LE)T BAN. # 251)ROM STA 12+75 TO 13+90*RA'E BOTH BAN.S # 251)ROM STA 11+20 TO 12+250FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB4.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S13PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB4
MADISON COUNTY, NC
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)H
A
S)HA
S
)
H
A
S)H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HATBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB T
B
TB
TB TTTTTTTT3620362536153610360536103615362036253635364036453650365536603665 361036053600 36003595
3595
3590
3590359536003606361036053605 36003605360035953
5
9
53610361536203625360
5
LCELCE LCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCE0+000+501+001+502+002+502+
7
3SCALE HOR 1 30
 9ERT 1 3
35853590359536003605358535903595360036050+000+501+001+502+002+503+00306030REACH JB7ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1+03 TO 2+69E;ISTIN* *RA'E ALON*STREAM CENTERLINEREACH JB7 TIES INTOE;ISTIN* BE' O)REACH JB4E;ISTIN* TOPO) BAN.REACH JB4REACH JB5:ETLAN' :.:ETLAN' :O:ETLAN' :8:ETLAN' :M:ETLAN' :L:ETLAN' :NEPHEMERAL INTERMITTENT BREA.0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB7.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S14PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5/11/2020
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
REACH JB7
MADISON COUNTY, NC
TBTBTBTBS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS
)
H
A
S)
H
A
S)
H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B BBBB
BB BBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
B
B
BBBB
BBBBBB
BBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BB BB BBBB BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTB
TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTB TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
TB
TB
T
B
T
B
TB TBTTTTTTTT T T T T T T T T T T TT T T T T T T T T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
T
T
T
T
T TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTB TB TB TBTB TBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCELCELCE LCE LCE LC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE
6012060:ETLAN' :S0039 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :T0011 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :R0077 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :40026 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :P0011 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :O0079 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :.0220 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :L0012 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :N0012 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :M0031 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :80066 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :90004 ACRESENHANCEMENTLE*EN':ETLAN' ENHANCEMENT1993 ACRESE;ISTIN* :ETLAN'REACH JB70FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506W1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
WETLAND PLAN
MADISON COUNTY, NC
5/11/2020
TBTBS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HA S)HA S)HA S)HA S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)
H
A
S)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)
HA
S)
H
A
S
)
H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB BB
BB
BB BBBB
BB BB
BB
BB BBBB
BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B TBTB TB TB TBTB TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT T T T T
T T T T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCE6012060:ETLAN' :J0014 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :I0084 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :H0019 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :*0211 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :C0524 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :B0257 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :)0008 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :E0033 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :A0248 ACRESENHANCEMENT:ETLAN' :'0007 ACRESENHANCEMENTLE*EN':ETLAN' ENHANCEMENT1993 ACRESE;ISTIN* :ETLAN'0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506W2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
WETLAND PLAN
MADISON COUNTY, NC
5/11/2020
TBTBTBS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BB
BB
BB BB
BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBB
B
B
B
BB
BBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTB TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB TBTBTBTB TBTBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TB TBTB
TB TB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBT
B
TB
TB
T
B
TBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT T T T T T T T T TT TT
T
T
T
T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
T
T TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTB
TB TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCE LCE
LC
E
LCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCE
LCELC
E LCE
LCE
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE120240120REACH JB1REACH JB3REACH JB5REACH JB2REACH JB4REACH JB6PLANTIN* LE*EN'LIMITS O) CONSER9ATIONEASEMENTLCEE;ISTIN* TREELINEPROPERT< LINERIPARIAN PLANTIN*TOTAL AREA 675 ACS8PPLEMENTAL PLANTIN*IN9ASI9ES CONTROLTOTAL AREA 449 ACPLANTIN* TABLEREACH JB7Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionSilk\ ZilloZSalix saricea30%Black ZilloZSalix nigra30%Silk\ dogZoodCornus amomum25%ElderEerr\SamEucus canadensis15%Permanent Riparian Seed MixCommon NameScientific NamePercentComposition9irginia :ildr\eEl\mus virginicus25%Indian *rassSorgKastrum nutans25%Little Blue StemScKi]acK\rium scoparium10%Soft RusKJuncus effusus10%Blacke\ed susanRudEeckia Kirta10%'eertongue'icKantKelium clandestinum10%Common MilkZeedAsclepias s\riaca5%SKoZ\ *oldenrodSolidago erecta5%Bare Root Planting Tree SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentComposition<elloZ PoplarLiriodendron tulipifera15%<elloZ EircKBetula allegKaniensis15%NortKern Red Oak4uercus ruEra10%CKestnut Oak4uercus montana10%:Kite Oak4uercus alEa10%Eastern KemlockTsuga canadensis10%River EircKBetula nigra10%<elloZ poplarLiriodendron tulipifera10%Ha]el alderAlnus serrulata10%0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506P1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
PLANTING PLAN
MADISON COUNTY, NC
5/11/2020 PLANTIN* NOTESALL PLANTIN* AREAS1EROSION CONTROL MEAS8RES SHALL BE PROPERL< MAINTAINE' 8NTIL PERMANENT9E*ETATION IS ESTABLISHE' AN' )INAL APPRO9AL HAS BEEN ISS8E' THECONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEAS8RES AT THE EN' O) EACH:OR.IN* 'A< TO ENS8RE MEAS8RES ARE )8NCTIONIN* PROPERL<2'IST8RBE' AREAS NOT AT )INAL *RA'E SHALL BE TEMPORARIL< 9E*ETATE' :ITHIN 10:OR.IN* 'A<S 8PON COMPLETION O) )INAL *RA'IN*, PERMANENT 9E*ETATION SHALLBE ESTABLISHE' )OR ALL 'IST8RBE' AREAS :ITHIN 10 :OR.IN* 'A<S SEE'IN* SHALLBE IN ACCOR'ANCE :ITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN3ALL 'IST8RBE' AREAS SHALL BE PREPARE' PRIOR TO PLANTIN* B< 'ISC ORSPRIN*-TOOTH CHISEL PLO: TO MINIM8M 'EPTH O) 12 INCHES M8LTIPLE PASSESSHALL BE MA'E ACROSS PLANTIN* AREAS :ITH THE IMPLEMENT AN' THE )INAL PASSSHALL )OLLO: TOPO*RAPHIC CONTO8RS4BARE ROOT PLANTIN*S SHALL BE PLANTE' ACCOR'IN* TO 'ETAIL SHO:N ON SHEET '3LI9E STA.ES SHALL BE PLANTE' ACCOR'IN* TO 'ETAIL SHO:N ON SHEET '35BARE ROOT AN' LI9E STA.E TREE SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTE' ACCOR'IN* TO THE TABLESHO:N TO THE LE)T, B8T SPECIES MA< BE S8BSTIT8TE' BASE' ON A9AILABILIT<6TREATMENTREMO9AL O) IN9ASI9E SPECIES, PINES AN' S:EET *8MS LESS THAN 6 'BHSHALL BE PER)ORME' THRO8*HO8T THE PLANTE' AREA7SPECIES SHALL BE 'ISTRIB8TE' S8CH THAT 3 TO 6 PLANTS O) THE SAME SPECIES ARE*RO8PE' TO*ETHER8BARE ROOT PLANTIN* 'ENSIT< IS APPRO;IMATEL< 800 STEMS PER ACRE9LI9E STA.ES ARE PROPOSE' ALON* THE O8TSI'E O) MEAN'ER BEN'S AN' ALON*BOTH BAN.S O) STRAI*HT REACHES A'JACENT TO POOLS10TEMPORAR< SEE' MI; SHALL BE APPLIE' AT A RATE O) 150 LBSACRE TO ALL'IST8RBE' AREAS :ITH SLOPES E48AL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3111PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEE' MI; SHALL BE APPLIE' TO ALL 'IST8RBE' AREAS :ITHIN THECONSER9ATION EASEMENT AT A RATE O) 15 LBSACRE12PERMANENT HERB SEE' MI; SHALL BE APPLIE' TO ALL 'IST8RBE' AREAS :ITHIN THECONSER9ATION EASEMENT BREA.S AT A RATE O) 15 LBSACRE
TBTBTBS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)H
A
S)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HAS)HABBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB BBBBBB BBBBBB BB
BB
BB BB
BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBB
B
B
B
BB
BBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTB TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TB
TB TBTBTBTB TBTBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TB TBTB
TB TB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBT
B
TB
TB
T
B
TBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT T T T T T T T T TT TT
T
T
T
T TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
T
T TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTB
TB TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCE LCE
LC
E
LCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCE
LCELC
E LCE
LCE
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE120240120REACH JB1REACH JB3REACH JB5REACH JB2REACH JB4REACH JB6)ENCIN* LE*EN'LIMITS O) CONSER9ATIONEASEMENTLCEE;ISTIN* )ENCELINEPROPOSE' )ENCELINEINSTALL 570 L) O):O9EN :IRE )ENCEINSTALL 3,600 L) O):O9EN :IRE )ENCEINSTALL 1,800 L) O):O9EN :IRE )ENCEINSTALL 3,110 L) O):O9EN :IRE )ENCE279 L) O) E;ISTIN*)ENCE TO BE REMO9E'AN' 'ISPOSE' O)O))-SITE315 L) O) E;ISTIN* )ENCETO BE REMO9E' AN''ISPOSE' O) O))-SITE502 L) O) E;ISTIN* )ENCETO BE REMO9E' AN''ISPOSE' O) O))-SITE250 L) O) E;ISTIN* )ENCETO BE REMO9E' AN''ISPOSE' O) O))-SITEINSTALL 2,010 L) O):O9EN :IRE )ENCEPROPOSE' *ATEREACH JB7204 L) O) E;ISTIN*)ENCE TO BE REMO9E'AN' 'ISPOSE' O)O))-SITE)ENCIN* NOTES1CONTRACTOR TO TIE PROPOSE' )ENCEINTO E;ISTIN* )ENCE :HERE APPLICABLETO MAINTAIN CATTLE E;CL8SION2CONTRACTOR SHALL REMO9E ALL )ENCIN*LOCATE' :ITHIN LIMITS O) CONSER9ATIONEASEMENT0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506F1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
FENCING PLAN
MADISON COUNTY, NC
5/11/2020
:HEN AN' :HERE TO 8SE ITSILT )ENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS:HERE THE MA;IM8M SHEET OR O9ERLAN' )LO: PATH LEN*TH TO THE )ENCE IS 100-)EET:HERE THE MA;IM8M SLOPE STEEPNESS NORMAL >PERPEN'IC8LAR@ TO )ENCE LINE IS 2H19THAT 'O NOT RECEI9E CONCENTRATE' )LO:S *REATER THAN 05 C)S'O NOT PLACE SILT )ENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR 8SE IT AS A 9ELOCIT< CONTROL BMPCONSTR8CTION SPECI)ICATIONS18SE A S<NTHETIC )ILTER )ABRIC O) AT LEAST 95% B< :EI*HT O) POL<OLE)INS OR POL<ESTER, :HICH ISCERTI)IE' B< THE MAN8)ACT8RER OR S8PPLIER AS CON)ORMIN* TO THE RE48IREMENTS IN ASTM ' 6461S<NTHETIC )ILTER )ABRIC SHO8L' CONTAIN 8LTRA9IOLET RA< INHIBITORS AN' STABILIZERS TO PRO9I'E AMINIM8M O) 6 MONTHS O) E;PECTE' 8SABLE CONSTR8CTION LI)E AT A TEMPERAT8RE RAN*E O) 0ƒ TO 120ƒ)2ENS8RE THAT POSTS )OR SE'IMENT )ENCES ARE 133 LBLINEAR )T STEEL :ITH A MINIM8M LEN*TH O) 5 )EETMA.E S8RE THAT STEEL POSTS HA9E PROJECTIONS TO )ACILITATE )ASTENIN* THE )ABRICCONSTR8CTION1CONSTR8CT THE SE'IMENT BARRIER O) E;TRA STREN*TH S<NTHETIC )ILTER )ABRICS2ENS8RE THAT THE HEI*HT O) THE SE'IMENT )ENCE 'OES NOT E;CEE' 24 INCHES ABO9E THE *RO8N'S8R)ACE HI*HER )ENCES MA< IMPO8N' 9OL8MES O) :ATER S8))ICIENT TO CA8SE )AIL8RE O) THESTR8CT8RE3CONSTR8CT THE )ILTER )ABRIC )ROM A CONTIN8O8S ROLL C8T TO THE LEN*TH O) THE BARRIER TO A9OI'JOINTS :HEN JOINTS ARE NECESSAR<, SEC8REL< )ASTEN THE )ILTER CLOTH ONL< AT A S8PPORT POST :ITH 4)EET MINIM8M O9ERLAP TO THE NE;T POST4E;TRA STREN*TH )ILTER )ABRIC :ITH 6 )EET POST SPACIN* 'OES NOT RE48IRE :IRE MESH S8PPORT )ENCESEC8REL< )ASTEN THE )ILTER )ABRIC 'IRECTL< TO POSTS :IRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHO8L' HA9E MINIM8M50 PO8N' TENSILE STREN*TH5E;CA9ATE A TRENCH APPRO;IMATEL< 4 INCHES :I'E AN' 8 INCHES 'EEP ALON* THE PROPOSE' LINE O)POSTS AN' 8PSLOPE )ROM THE BARRIER6PLACE 12 INCHES O) THE )ABRIC ALON* THE BOTTOM AN' SI'E O) THE TRENCH7BAC.)ILL THE TRENCH :ITH SOIL PLACE' O9ER THE )ILTER )ABRIC AN' COMPACT THORO8*H COMPACTIONO) THE BAC.)ILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT )ENCE PER)ORMANCE8'O NOT ATTACH )ILTER )ABRIC TO E;ISTIN* TREESMAINTENANCEINSPECT SE'IMENT )ENCES AT LEAST ONCE A :EE. AN' A)TER EACH RAIN)ALL MA.E AN< RE48IRE' REPAIRSIMME'IATEL<SHO8L' THE )ABRIC O) A SE'IMENT )ENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, 'ECOMPOSE OR BECOME INE))ECTI9E, REPLACE ITPROMPTL<REMO9E SE'IMENT 'EPOSITS AS NECESSAR< TO PRO9I'E A'E48ATE STORA*E 9OL8ME )OR THE NE;T RAIN AN' TORE'8CE PRESS8RE ON THE )ENCE TA.E CARE TO A9OI' 8N'ERMININ* THE )ENCE '8RIN* CLEANO8TREMO9E ALL )ENCIN* MATERIALS AN' 8NSTABLE SE'IMENT 'EPOSITS AN' BRIN* THE AREA TO *RA'E AN' STABILIZEIT A)TER THE CONTRIB8TIN* 'RAINA*E AREA HAS BEEN PROPERL< STABILIZE'8424 MIN
24 MIN
8R8NO))R8NO))18 TO 24)LAT-BOTTOM TRENCH 'ETAIL9-SHAPE' TRENCH 'ETAILSILT )ENCE INSTALLATION18 TO 24TEMPORAR< SILT )ENCENTSNOTE HOSE SHO8L' BE.EPT O8TSI'E O) :OR.AREANOTES1E;CA9ATION SHALL BE PER)ORME' ONL< IN 'R< AN'OR ISOLATE' SECTIONS O)CHANNEL2IMPER9IO8S 'I.ES SHO8L' BE 8SE' TO ISOLATE :OR. AREAS )ROM STREAM)LO:3THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT 'IST8RB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZE' INONE :OR.IN* 'A< A MA;IM8M O) 200 )EET MA< BE 'IST8RBE' AT AN< ONETIME4THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE )OR 'ETERMININ* P8MP SIZES8))ICIENT TO P8MP BASE )LO:5'I.E M8ST BE CONSTR8CTE' O) NON-ERO'IBLE MATERIALS S8CH AS SAN'BA*SSE48ENCE O) CONSTR8CTION1INSTALL STILLIN* BASIN AN' STABILIZE' O8T)ALL 8SIN* CLASS A RIP RAP AT THE'O:NSTREAM EN' O) THE 'ESI*NATE' PROJECT :OR.IN* AREA2THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE P8MP ARO8N' P8MP AN' THE TEMPORAR<PIPIN* THAT :ILL CON9E< THE BASE )LO: )ROM 8PSTREAM O) THE :OR. AREATO THE STABILIZE' O8T)ALL3INSTALL 8PSTREAM IMPER9IO8S 'I.E AN' BE*IN P8MPIN* OPERATIONS )ORSTREAM 'I9ERSION4INSTALL THE 'O:NSTREAM IMPER9IO8S 'I.E AN' 'E:ATERIN* P8MPIN*APPARAT8S I) NEE'E' TO 'E:ATER THE ENTRAPPE' AREA THE P8MP AN' HOSE)OR THIS P8RPOSE SHALL BE O) S8))ICIENT SIZE TO 'E:ATER THE :OR. AREATHIS :ATER :ILL ALSO BE P8MPE' TO AN O8T)ALL STABILIZE' :ITH CLASS A RIPRAP5THE CONTRACTOR SHALL E;CA9ATE AN< ACC8M8LATE' SILT AN' 'E:ATER BE)OREREMO9AL O) THE IMPER9IO8S 'I.E :HEN 'E:ATERIN* AREA, ALL 'IRT< :ATERM8ST BE P8MPE' THRO8*H A SILT BA* REMO9E IMPER9IO8S 'I.ES, P8MPS,AN' TEMPORAR< )LE;IBLE HOSEPIPIN* STARTIN* :ITH THE 'O:NSTREAM 'I.E)IRST6ONCE THE :OR.IN* AREA IS COMPLETE', REMO9E ALL RIP RAP AN' IMPER9IO8S'I.ES AN' STABILIZE 'IST8RBE' AREAS :ITH SEE' AN' M8LCH7ALL :OR. IN CHANNEL M8ST BE COMPLETE' BE)ORE REMO9IN* IMPER9IO8S 'I.ESILT BA* PRO)ILE15
TO 20
)LO:INTA.E HOSEP8MP ARO8N'P8MPCLASS ASTONE:OR.AREA'E-:ATERIN*P8MPIMPER9IO8S'I.ESILT BA*LOCATIONSTABILIZE' O8T)ALLCLASS A STONE)ILTER )ABRICE;ISTIN**RO8N''ISCHAR*EHOSE8 O) CLASS ASTONE)ILTER )ABRICSTABILIZE'O8T)ALL CLASS ASTONEE;ISTIN*CHANNEL'ISCHAR*E HOSEIMPER9IO8S 'I.ECLASS ASTONEP8MP ARO8N' 'E:ATERIN* 'ETAILNTS)LO:SECTION A-ANOTE EN' O) 'I.E AT *RO8N' LE9EL TO BEHI*HER THAN THE LO:EST POINT O) )LO: CHEC.S8))ICIENT SAN'BA*S ARE TO BE PLACE' TOPRE9ENT SCO8RIN*SECTION B-BBBAAPLAN 9IE:SAN'BA* BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTR8CTE' O) THREE LA<ERS O) SAN'BA*STHE BOTTOM LA<ER SHALL CONSIST O) 3 RO:S O) BA*S, THE MI''LE LA<ERSHALL CONSIST O) 2 RO:S O) BA*S AN' THE TOP LA<ER SHALL CONSIST O) 1RO: O) BA*S THE RECOMMEN'E' 'IMENSION O) A )ILLE' SAN'BA* SHALL BEAPPRO;IMATEL< 05 )T ; 05 )T ; 15 )TSAN'BA* IMPER9IO8S 'I.ENTSBAC.)ILL TRENCH :ITHCOMPACTE' EARTH125 LBLINEAR )T STEEL POSTSE;TRA STREN*TH)ILTER )ABRIC8SE EITHER )LAT-BOTTOMOR 9-BOTTOM TRENCHSHO:N BELO:B8R< )ABRICHEA9< '8T< PLASTIC TIE)OR STEEL POSTS6
MA; :ITH STAN'AR' )ABRIC)ILTER )ABRICCOMPACTE'EARTH)ILTER )ABRIC)ILTER )ABRICCOMPACTE'EARTHR8NO)))ILTER)ABRICMI''LE LA<ERBOTTOM LA<ERTOP LA<EREARTH S8R)ACETRENCH 025
'EEPONL< :HEN PLACE' ONEARTH S8R)ACEEN'S O) BA*S INA'JACENT RO:S B8TTE'SLI*HTL< TO*ETHERSEE NOTELO:EST POINT*RO8N' LE9ELEARTH S8R)ACEEROSION CONTROL :ATTLENTSNOTE1EROSION CONTROL :ATTLES OR COIRLO*S:ATTLES MA< BE 8SE' IN PLACE O) SILT)ENCE2INSTLL A MINIM8M O) 2 8PSLOPE STA.ES AN' 4'O:NSLOPE STA.ES AT AN AN*LE TO :E'*E:ATTLE IN PLACEE;ISTIN**RA'EMINIM8M 9 EROSIONCONTROL COIR :ATTLELO*SLOPEINSTALL :ATTLE IN 2 TO3 TRENCH2 x 2 ; 2
:OO'ENSTA.EPLAN 9IE::OO'ENSTA.ES # 2
CENTERS)LO:PRO)ILE 9IE:SECTION B-B)LO:SECTION A-APLAN)LO:CLASS I RIP RAPSPILL:A< CREST1
MIN O)  5:ASHE' STONECLASS I RIPRAP)ILTER )ABRIC*ENERAL NOTES1CONSTR8CT 'AM ACCOR'IN* TO NC'ENR EROSION CONTROLMAN8AL2ROC. 'AM RIPRAP SHALL BE CLASS I3PLACE ROC. 'AM AS SHO:N ON PLANS E;TEN' CLASS B RIPRAP ROC. APRON 2 )EET 'O:NSTREAM )ROM TOE O) ROC.'AM15
THIC. CLASSB ROC. APRON10
THIC. CLASSB ROC. APRONC8TO)) TRENCH)ILTER)ABRIC 5 :ASHE' STONETEMPORAR< ROC. CHEC. 'AMNTSBBAA3
1
2108 ; B.)2
MIN: SPILL:A<MIN 23 STREAM :I'TH08 ; B.)BAN.)8LLFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NC
DETAILS
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
5/11/2020
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND10506BPBBRCSCFAFMSEE S
ITE
P
LAN E;IST
IN*
ROA'50
MIN9ARIES COARSE A**RE*ATE -STONE SIZE 2-3P8RPOSESTABILIZE' CONSTR8CTION ENTRANCES SHO8L' BE 8SE' AT ALL POINTS :HERE TRA))IC :ILL BE LEA9IN* ACONSTR8CTION SITE AN' MO9IN* 'IRECTL< ONTO A P8BLIC ROA' CONSTR8CTION SPECI)ICATIONS1CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AN' E;IT AREA O) ALL 9E*ETATION, ROOTS, AN' OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL AN'PROPERL< *RA'E IT2PLACE THE *RA9EL TO THE SPECI)IC *RA'E AN' 'IMENSIONS SHO:N ON THE 'ETAIL, AN' SMOOTH IT3PRO9I'E 'RAINA*E TO CARR< :ATER TO A SE'IMENT TRAP OR OTHER S8ITABLE O8TLET48SE *EOTE;TILE )ABRICS BECA8SE THE< IMPRO9E STABILIT< O) THE )O8N'ATION IN LOCATIONS S8BJECT TOSEEPA*E OR HI*H :ATER TABLEMAINTENANCEMAINTAIN THE *RA9EL PA' IN A CON'ITION TO PRE9ENT M8' OR SE'IMENT )ROM LEA9IN* THE CONSTR8CTION SITETHIS MA< RE48IRE PERIO'IC TOP 'RESSIN* :ITH 2-INCH STONE A)TER EACH RAIN)ALL, INSPECT AN< STR8CT8RE8SE' TO TRAP SE'IMENT AN' CLEAN IT O8T AS NECESSAR< IMME'IATEL< REMO9E ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALSSPILLE', :ASHE', OR TRAC.E' ONTO P8BLIC ROA':A<S, OR AIR)IEL' PA9EMENTSTEMPORAR< *RA9EL CONSTR8CTION ENTRANCENTS6 MININSTALL PIPEPER 'ESI*NCOIR MATTIN*NTSINSTALLATION NOTESSITE PREPARATION1*RA'E AN' COMPACT AREA2REMO9E ALL ROC.S, CLO'S, 9E*ETATION, AN' OBSTR8CTIONS SO THAT MATTIN* :ILLHA9E 'IRECT CONTACT :ITH THE SOIL3PREPARE SEE'BE' B< LOOSENIN* 3 TO 4 INCHES O) TOPSOIL ABO9E )INAL *RA'E4TEST SOILS )OR AN< N8TRIENT 'E)ICIENCIES AN' S8BMIT SOIL TEST RES8LTS TO THEEN*INEER APPL< AN< TREATMENT S8CH AS LIME OR )ERTILIZERS TO THE SOIL I) NEE'E'SEE'IN*1SEE PLANTIN* SHEETS )OR SEE'IN* RE48IREMENTS2APPL< SEE' TO SOIL BE)ORE PLACIN* MATTIN*INSTALLATION - STREAM BAN.1SEE *RA'IN* NOTES ON PLAN AN' PRO)ILE SHEETS AN' 'ETAIL SHEETS )ORIN)ORMATION RE*AR'IN* :HAT AREAS ARE TO RECEI9E COIR MATTIN*2O9ERLAP A'JACENT MATS 6 IN 'IRECTION PARALLEL TO )LO: AN' ANCHOR E9ER< 12ACROSS THE O9ERLAP THE 8PSTREAM MAT SHO8L' BE PLACE' O9ER THE 'O:NSTREAMMAT3E'*ES SHO8L' BE SHIN*LE' A:A< )ROM THE )LO: O) :ATER4LA< MAT LOOSE TO ALLO: CONTACT :ITH SOIL 'O NOT STRETCH TI*HT5ANCHOR MAT 8SIN* BIO'E*RA'ABLE STA.ES6E;TEN' MAT 2 TO 3 )EET PAST TOP O) BAN.7PLACE A'JACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH :ITH A MINIM8M O) 4 O9ERLAPSEC8RE :ITH BIO'E*RA'ABLE STA.ES, BAC.)ILL ANCHOR TRENCH, AN' COMPACT SOIL8STA.E AT 12 INTER9ALS ALON* O9ERLAP9I) MORE THAN ROLL IS RE48IRE' TO CO9ER THE CHANNEL )ROM THE TOP O) BAN. 'O:NTO THE TOE, THEN O9ERLAP MATTIN* B< A MINIM8M O) 1
EROSION CONTROL MATTIN* M8ST MEET OR E;CEE' THE)OLLO:IN* RE48IREMENTS·100 % COCON8T )IBER COIR T:INE :O9EN INTO AHI*H STREN*TH MATRI;·THIC.NESS - 035 IN MINIM8M·SHEAR STRESS ² 5 LBSS4)T·)LO: 9ELOCIT<- OBSER9E' 16 )TSEC·:EI*HT - 29 OZS<·OPEN AREA - 38%·SLOPES ² 8P TO A MA;IM8M O) 1110
MI
N
.E<-IN MATTIN*STA.E MATTIN* J8STABO9E CHANNEL TOEAN' BAC.)ILL :RI))LE MATERIAL20
MIN6 RI))LEMATERIAL
LINE PANEL:O9EN :IREASTM CLASS 3 *AL9ANIZE'TOP AN' BOTTOM :IRES MIN 12 *A8*EINTERME'IATE AN' STA< :IRES MIN12 12 *A8*ENOTES1LINE POSTS :OO'EN MIN 4 IN 'IAM OR 4 IN S48ARE2LINE POSTS STEEL ST8''E' OR P8NCHE' T, 8, OR < SHAPE', :ITH ANCHOR PLATES3MIN :EI*HT 13 LBS)T E;CL8'IN* ANCHOR PLATE POSTS SHALL BE 'RI9EN A MINIM8MO) 18 'EEP AN' M8ST BE AT LEAST 55 )T IN LEN*TH4SPECIES AN' TREATMENT )OR ALL :OO' 8SE 8NTREATE' '8RABLE POSTS O) SPECIESS8CH AS RE' CE'AR, BLAC. LOC8ST OR OSA*E-ORAN*E :ITH BAR. REMO9E', ORNON-'8RABLE :OO' THAT IS PRESER9ATI9E PRESS8RE TREATE' 040 LBSC8BIC )OOTCCA, OR E48I9ALENT NON-CCA TREATMENT 'O NOT 8SE RE' PINE:O9EN :IRE )ENCE NRCS 'ETAIL 382ANTS:O9EN :IRE :ITH ONE BARB 'ETAILTIMBER MAT CROSSIN*TIMBER MAT APPROACHTOP O) BAN.CLASS B RIP RAPTIMBER MAT INSTALLE'PERPEN'IC8LARTIMBER MAT INSTALLE'PARALLELTIMBER MATT<PCARRIA*E BOLT)LO:TOE O) BAN.T<PTIMBER MAT INSTALLE'PERPEN'IC8LARTOP O) BAN.CLASS B RIP RAPCARRIA*E BOLTT<P)ILTER )ABRICAPPRO;IMATE BASE )LO::ATER S8R)ACE5
MINRIP RAP APPROACHTIMBER MATINSTALLE' PARALLELTOE O) BAN.PLAN 9IE:SECTION 9IE:TIMBER MAT TEMPORAR< CROSSIN*NTSNOTES1TIMBER MATS SHALL BE 8SE' )OR TEMPORAR<CONSTR8CTION ACCESS TO TRA9ERSE :ET AN'OR M8''<ARES A'JACENT TO THE STREAM AN' TO CROSS THESTREAM AN' OTHER CONCENTRATE' )LO: AREAS2THE STREAM CROSSIN* SHALL BE INSTALLE' :HEN )LO: ISLO: THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO 'IST8RBANCE O) THECHANNEL BE' AN' BAN.S AS A RES8LT O) INSTALLIN* THEAPPROACHES OR CROSSIN*3THE LEN*TH O) TIMBER MAT RE48IRE' TO CROSS THESTREAM OR CONCENTRATE' )LO: AREAS SHALL BE S8CHTHAT THE TIMBER MAT E;TEN'S PAST THE TOP O) BAN. ONEACH SI'E O) THE CROSSIN* A S8))ICIENT 'ISTANCE TOS8PPORT THE MA;IM8M E48IPMENT SIZE 8SIN* THECROSSIN*4STREAM CROSSIN*S SHALL BE INSTALLE' :ITH THE TIMBERMAT LEN*THS ORIENTE' PERPEN'IC8LAR TO THE TOPS O)THE STREAM BAN.S TIMBER MAT STREAM APPROACHESSHALL BE INSTALLE' :ITH THE TIMBER MAT LEN*THSORIENTE' PARALLEL TO THE TOPS O) THE STREAM BAN.S5STREAM CROSSIN* APPROACHES )ROM 'R< AREAS SHALLBE CONSTR8CTE' 8SIN* CLASS B RIP RAP PLACE' O9ER)ILTER )ABRIC6ALL TIMBER MATS, )ILTER )ABRIC, AN' RIP RAP SHALL BECOMPLETEL< REMO9E' )ROM THE SITE :HEN THE CROSSIN*IS REMO9E'LINE POST:O9EN :IREBARBE' ORELECTRIC :IRELINE POST16
MA;BARBE' ORELECTRIC :IRE:O9EN :IRE*RO8N' LINE4 TO 6LINE POST3 MIN32 TO 4266
MIN2
MINNOTES1CONSTR8CT STREAM CROSSIN* :HEN )LO: IS LO:2INSTALL STREAM CROSSIN* PERPEN'IC8LAR TO )LO:3CONTRACTOR TO COOR'INATE APPROPRIATE BE''IN* MATERIAL :ITH MAN8)ACT8RER4)ILTER )ABRIC 8SE' SHALL BE NC'OT T<PE 2 EN*INEERIN* )ABRIC OR E48I9ALENT5:I'TH O) T<PICAL )ARM CROSSIN*S SHALL BE PER PLAN OR A MINIM8M O) 12
6:HEN RE48IRE', CONTRACTOR TO ENS8RE PIPE MATERIAL AN' CO9ER MEET H-20 LOA'IN*RE48IREMENTSPROPOSE' C8L9ERT CROSSIN*NTSSTREAM CHANNEL)LO: MIN 3
MIN 3
PLAN 9IE:SECTION 9IE:10
MIN10
MINMIN 2
8NLESS A''ITIONAL CO9ER ISRE48IRE' B< MAN8)ACT8RER)ILTER )ABRICCOARSE A**RE*ATE5 :ASHE' STONE 6 'EEPEARTH )ILLPIPE SIZE PER PLANIN9ERT PER PLAN B8R< 20%O) C8L9ERT AREA 8NLESSNOTE' OTHER:ISE B<EN*INEERINSTALL CLA< PL8* 2 )EETBELO: C8L9ERT IN9ERTCOARSE A**RE*ATE5 :ASHE' STONEEARTH )ILLTOP O) BAN.LO* SILLSET TOP O) LO* ATPROPOSE' BE' IN9ERTLO* SILLSET TOP O) LO* ATPROPOSE' BE' IN9ERT3
MA;IM8MBAN. HEI*HTSTREAM CHANNELS8R)ACE )LO:'I9ERSIONNOTES1CONSTR8CT STREAM CROSSIN* :HEN )LO: IS LO:2HA9E ALL NECESSAR< MATERIALS AN' E48IPMENT ON-SITE BE)ORE :OR. BE*INS3MINIMIZE CLEARIN* AN' E;CA9ATION O) STREAMBAN.S 'O NOT E;CA9ATE CHANNEL BOTTOM COMPLETE ONE SI'E BE)ORE STARTIN* ON THE OTHER SI'E4INSTALL STREAM CROSSIN* PERPEN'IC8LAR TO )LO:5*RA'E SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN 516MAINTAIN CROSSIN* SO THAT R8NO)) IN THE CONSTR8CTION ROA' 'OES NOT ENTER E;ISTIN* CHANNEL7A STABILIZE' PA' O) NAT8RAL CLASS A STONE, 6 TO 9 INCHES THIC., LINE' :ITH )ILTER )ABRIC SHALL BE 8SE' O9ERTHE BERM AN' ACCESS SLOPES8)ILTER )ABRIC 8SE' SHALL BE NC'OT T<PE 2 EN*INEERIN* )ABRIC OR E48I9ALENT9:I'TH O) THE CROSSIN* SHALL BE S8))ICIENT 8
MIN TO ACCOMMO'ATE THE LAR*EST 9EHICLE CROSSIN* THECHANNEL10CONTRACTOR SHALL 'ETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP AN*LE ACCOR'IN* TO E48IPMENT 8TILIZE'11TEMPORAR< CROSSIN*S ARE TO BE ABAN'ONE' IN PLACE)ILTER )ABRIC CO9ERE'IN 6 O) CLASS A STONEAN' 3 O) 57 STONESTONE APPROACHSECTION NO STEEPERTHAN 51 SLOPE ON ROA'S8R)ACE )LO:'I9ERSION)OR' CROSSIN*NTSCLASS A STONEE;ISTIN* STREAMBAN.)ILTER )ABRIC)ILTER )ABRICE;ISTIN*  PROPOSE'C8L9ERTS15
CLASS
I1
RIP-RAPC8L9ERT PROTECTIONNTSNOTES1CONSTR8CT C8L9ERT PROTECTON IN A 'R<CON'ITION2)ILTER )ABRIC 8SE' SHALL BE NC'OT T<PE 2EN*INEERIN* )ABRIC OR E48I9ALENT)LO: E;ISTIN*  PROPOSE'CHANNEL BE')ILTER )ABRIC57 STONEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NC
DETAILS
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
5/11/2020
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND20506BPBBRCSCFAFM
)INISHE' *RA'E30
)LO:T<PICAL SECTIONCHANNEL PL8*NTS'IBBLE PLANTIN* METHO'8SIN* THE .BC PLANTIN* BAR1 INSERTPLANTIN* BAR ASSHO:N AN' P8LLHAN'LE TO:AR'PLANTER4 P8LL HAN'LE O)BAR TO:AR'PLANTER, )IRMIN*SOIL AT BOTTOM2 REMO9EPLANTIN* BARAN' PLACESEE'IN* ATCORRECT 'EPTH3 INSERTPLANTIN* BAR 2INCHES TO:AR'PLANTER )ROMSEE'IN*5 P8SHHAN'LE)OR:AR')IRMIN* SOILAT TOP6 LEA9ECOMPACTIONHOLE OPEN:ATERTHORO8*HL<PLANTIN* NOTESPLANTIN* BA*'8RIN* PLANTIN*, SEE'LIN*S SHALLBE .EPT IN A MOIST CAN9AS BA* ORSIMILAR CONTAINER TO PRE9ENT THEROOT S<STEMS )ROM 'R<IN*.BC PLANTIN* BARPLANTIN* BAR SHALL HA9E A BLA'E:ITH A TRIAN*8LAR CROSS SECTION,AN' SHALL BE 12 INCHES LON*, 4INCHES :I'E AN' 1 INCH THIC. ATCENTERROOT PR8NIN*ALL SEE'LIN*S SHALL BE ROOTPR8NE', I) NECESSAR<, SO THAT NOROOTS E;TEN' MORE THAN 10INCHES BELO: THE ROOT COLLARNOTESBARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTE' 6)T TO 10 )T ON CENTER,RAN'OM SPACIN*, A9ERA*IN* 8)T ON CENTER, APPRO;IMATEL<680 PLANTS PER ACREBARE ROOT PLANTIN*NTSMA; 75
E;ISTIN*CHANNELMIN 25
)ILL TO TOP O)BAN.)ILL AT LEAST70% O) CHANNELMA; 75
MIN 25
NOTES1)ILL E;ISTIN* CHANNEL TO TOP O) BAN. ELE9ATION :HEN POSSIBLE2CHANNEL M8ST BE )ILLE' IN 12 TO 18 LI)TS,3I) CHANNEL CANNOT BE COMPLETEL< )ILLE' TO TOP O) BAN., )ILL TO TOP O)BAN. )OR 25
O8T O) E9ER< 100
SE*MENTCHANNEL BAC.)ILLNTSOL' CHANNEL TO BE'I9ERTE' ORABAN'ONE'NE: CHANNEL TO BECONSTR8CTE'COMPACTE' BAC.)ILL12 LI)TSIMPER9IO8S SELECT MATERIALPER 'IRECTION O) EN*INEER10
MIN8NCOMPACTE' BAC.)ILL15
MINIM8M1111CHANNEL PL8*30
MINBAN.)8LL ELE9ATIONNE: CHANNEL BAN. SHALLBE TREATE' AS SPECI)IE'IN PLANSPROPOSE'CHANNEL IN9ERTTOE PROTECTIONBOTTOM O)E;ISTIN* CHANNELE;ISTIN* CHANNELTOP O) BAN.COMPACTE' BAC.)ILL12 TO 18 LI)TS2PLAN 9IE:NOTES1SEE' AN' M8LCH ALL BAN.S PRIOR TO INSTALLIN*COIR MATTIN*INSTALL COIR MATTIN* PER 'ETAILSEE 'ETAIL '1INSTALL LI9E STA.ESSEE PLANTIN* PLANE;ISTIN* CHANNEL BAN.TIE TO E;ISTIN* *RA'EMIN SLOPE 25H19OR PER PLAN SHEETE;ISTIN*CHANNEL BE'T<PICAL BAN. *RA'IN*NTSCOIR :ATTLE SLOPE BREA.NTSE;ISTIN**RA'EMINIM8M 9:ATTLELO*SLOPEINSTALL :ATTLE IN 2 TO3 TRENCH9AR PER PLAN2 x 2 ; 2
:OO'ENSTA.E ON 2
CENTERS2 x 2 ; 2
:OO'ENSTA.E ON 2
CENTERSPRO)ILE 9IE:BARE ROOT PLANTIN*SON 6
TO 8
CENTERSBAC.)ILL :ATTLES: TOPSOILNOTES1SEE' AN' M8LCH ALL BAN.S PRIOR TO INSTALLIN*COIR MATTIN*2)ILTER )ABRIC 8SE' SHALL BE NC'OT T<PE 2EN*INEERIN* )ABRIC OR E48I9ALENTINSTALL COIR MATTIN* PER 'ETAILSEE 'ETAIL '1INSTALL LI9E STA.ESSEE PLANTIN* PLANE;ISTIN* CHANNEL BAN.TIE TO E;ISTIN* *RA'EMIN SLOPE 25H19OR PER PLAN SHEETPROPOSE'CHANNEL BE'SEE PLANSHEETBAN. *RO8N':ATER CONTROLNTSCLASS
A
RIPRAPEARTH )ILL05
MIN10
MIN)ILTER )ABRICNOTES1STA.EIN* MA< 9ER< PER 'IRECTION O) S8PPLIER2SEE' AN' M8LCH ALL BAN.S PRIOR TO INSTALLIN*FILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NC
DETAILS
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
5/11/2020
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND30506BPBBRCSCFAFM NOTES1SEE TABLE ON PLANTIN* SHEET )OR ACCEPTABLE SPECIES AN' COMPOSITION2LI9E STA.ES SHO8L' BE 2 TO 3 )EET LON* AN' 075 TO 2 INCHES IN 'IAMETER3LI9E STA.ES SHALL BE PLANTE' ON 15
ALTERNATIN* SPACIN* ON LAR*ECHANNELS POOL 'EPTH ! 2)T AN' 10
ALTERNATIN* SPACIN* ON SMALLCHANNELS POOL 'EPTH  2)T4LI9E STA.ES SHALL BE PLANTE' ON ALL RESTORATION REACHES AN' ALON* ALLENHANCEMENT REACHES AS SHO:N ON LI9E STA.E SHEETSLI9E STA.IN*NTSPLAN 9IE:N:ST<PICAL SECTIONCOIR )IBERMATTIN*SMALL CHANNELSPACIN*LAR*E CHANNELSPACIN*N:STOB15
30

15
30
LI9ESTA.E SPACIN*LAR*E CHANNELINSTALL LI9ESTA.ESARO8N' O8TSI'E O)MEAN'ER BEN'SINSTALL LI9ESTA.ESARO8N' STR8CT8RES)
L
O:LI9ESTA.ECOIR )IBERMATTIN*N:STOB10
10
20
LI9ESTA.E SPACIN*SMALL CHANNELLI9ESTA.ECOIR )IBERMATTIN*:ATER TABLECOIR )IBERMATTIN*)LAT TOP EN'LATERAL B8'SI'E BRANCHREMO9E' ATSLI*HT AN*LE45 'E*REETAPERE' B8TT EN'05
TO 15
18 MIN075 TO 2'ETAIL
1STEP POOL ROC.S MINIM8M BO8L'ER SIZE 2
; 2
; 1
2THE 8PPER LIMIT )OR BO8L'ER SIZES SHO8L' BE NO MORE THAT 20% O) THE SPECI)IE' MINIM8M SIZE AN' SHALL BE APPRO9E' B< THE EN*INEER PRIORTO INSTALLATION O) THE STR8CT8RE3BAC.)ILL MATERIAL, I) NEE'E' TO ESTABLISH A STEP-POOL S8BPA9EMENT AN'OR TO RAISE THE CHANNEL BE' '8E TO SCO8RINCISION, SHALL BE O) AT<PE, SIZE, AN' *RA'ATION AS SPECI)IE' B< THE 'ESI*NER BAC.)ILL SHALL BE PLACE' S8CH THAT THE A''ITION O) THE SPECI)IE' THIC.NESS O)STEP-POOL MATERIAL SHALL ACHIE9E THE 'ESI*NATE' *RA'ES4STEP-POOL BE' MATERIAL SHALL BE O) A T<PE, SIZE, AN' *RA'ATION AS SPECI)IE' B< THE 'ESI*NER TO BE MOBILE OR NON-MOBILE AS THE CON'ITIONSIN THE CHANNEL :ARRANT IE ² CLEAN-:ATER 'ISCHAR*E EN9IRONMENT, HI*H BE'LOA' S<STEM, ETC BE' MATERIAL SHALL BE E;CA9ATE', STOC.PILE',AN' RE-8SE' )ROM ABAN'ONE' CHANNEL SECTIONS :HERE9ER PRACTICAL OTHER:ISE BE' MATERIAL SHALL BE SLI*HTL< RO8N'E', ´RI9ER-T<PEµ ROC.,8NLESS OTHER ROC. CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE )OR THE CHANNEL LO*S AN' OTHER :OO'< 'EBRIS MA< BE INCORPORATE' INTO THESTEP-POOL BE' MATERIALS5STEP-POOL IN9ERTS SHALL CONSIST O) BO8L'ERS O) AN INTERME'IATE 'IAMETER O) 12 TO 14 AN' )OOTERS SHALL HA9E AN INTERME'IATE 'IAMETERO) 14 TO 18 IN9ERTS SHALL BE SET AT A 'ROPRISE )ROM THE A'JACENT 8PSTREAM'O:NSTREAM IN9ERT TO ACCOMMO'ATE THE PASSA*E O) )ISHTHE IN9ERTS SHALL )ORM THE THAL:E* O) THE STEP POOL STR8CT8RE POOLS SHALL BE )ORME' BET:EEN THE IN9ERTS TO THE 'IMENSIONS SPECI)IE'B< THE 'ESI*NER6THE BENCH O) THE STEP-POOL STR8CT8RE SHALL BE )ORME' BESI'E THE POOL AT THE 'IMENSIONS SPECI)IE' B< THE 'ESI*NER THE BENCH SHALL BE)ORME' O) STEP-POOL MATERIALS PLACE' TO A 'EPTH S8CH THAT THEIR S8R)ACE MATCHES THE STEP-POOL IN9ERT IMME'IATEL< 8PSTREAM78SE CLASS A AN' B RIPRAP TO )ILL *APS ON 8PSTREAM SI'E O) STEP POOL ROC.S8A)TER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACE', )ILL IN THE 8PSTREAM SI'E O) THE STR8CT8RE :ITH CLASS A AN' B RIPRAP TO THE ELE9ATION O) THE TOP O) THEHEA'ER ROC.9)ILTER )ABRIC SHALL MEET SPECI)ICATIONS )OR NC'OT :O9EN )ILTER )ABRICSTEP POOLNTSFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NC
DETAILS
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
5/11/2020
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND40506BPBBRCSCFAFM )LO:PRO)ILE 9IE: STREAM IN9ERTCONTROL POINTBAN.)8LLBAC.)ILL E;ISTIN*CHANNEL :ITH NATI9EMATERIAL AS NEE'E')OOTER ROC.HEA'ER ROC.:OO'<'EBRISSECTION A-A
)OOTER ROC.:ELL *RA'E' MI; O)57 STONE, CLASS AAN' B RIPRAP)ILTER )ABRICSTREAM BE'08
MA; T<P15x RI))LE'EPTH T<PHEA'ER ROC.BAN.)8LLBAN.)8LLBAN.)8LL STREAM IN9ERTCONTROL POINT)LO:AA5
MINNTSLO* SILLSECTION A-A
OPT 1SECTION B-B
)LO:T<PICAL PLAN 9IE:AA
BB
)LO:MIN 50
50
MINHI*HLO:HI*HLO:NOTES1LO*S SHO8L' BE RELATI9EL< STRAI*HT HAR':OO' AN' RECENTL< HAR9ESTE'2COARSE A**RE*ATE BAC.)ILL SHALL CONSIST O) AN E48AL MI; O) S8R*ESTONE, CLASS A RIPRAP AN' CLASS B RIPRAP3HI*H SI'E O) LO* SHALL BE APPRO; 02
HI*HER THAN LO: EN'4REACH LO* 'IMENSIONSJB1, JB2, AN' JB4 MIN 'IAM 12, MIN LEN*TH 18
JB5 AN' JB6 MIN 'IAM 12, MIN LEN*TH 25
5NAIL )ILTER )ABRIC 8SIN* 3 10' *AL9ANIZE' COMMON NAIL E9ER< 15
ALON*THE LO*MIN 40
CHANNEL TOPO) BAN.COARSE A**RE*ATEBAC.)ILL SEE NOTE 2CHANNEL BOTTOMO) BAN.COIR MATTIN*PROPOSE'STREAM BE'TAC. )ABRICTO LO*HEA'ER LO*)OOTER LO*BAC.)ILL :ITH COARSEA**RE*ATE SEE NOTE 2POOLBAC.)ILL :ITH COARSEA**RE*ATE SEE NOTE 2NON-:O9EN*EOTE;TILE )ABRICNC'OT T<PE IINON-:O9EN*EOTE;TILE )ABRICNC'OT T<PE IIBR8SH TOE PROTECTIONLEN*TH B.) :I'TH8NLESS OTHER:ISENOTE' ON THE PLANSSECTION A-A
OPT 2)LO:MIN 50
PROPOSE'STREAM BE'TAC. )ABRICTO LO*BAC.)ILL :ITH COARSEA**RE*ATE SEE NOTE 2SEE PRO)ILE )ORPOOL 'EPTHSCO8R POOLNON-:O9EN*EOTE;TILE )ABRICNC'OT T<PE IISEE PRO)ILE )ORPOOL 'EPTH5 - 20°2 - 4%POINT RE)ERENCE' INSTR8CT8RE TABLETOLERANCE “ 01
POINT RE)ERENCE'IN STR8CT8RE TABLETOLERANCE “ 01
NTSROC. SILLNOTES1MINIM8M BO8L'ER SIZE 2
; 2
; 1
2THE 8PPER LIMIT )OR BO8L'ER SIZES SHO8L' BE NO MORE THAT 20% O) THESPECI)IE' MINIM8M SIZE AN' SHALL BE APPRO9E' B< THE EN*INEER PRIOR TOINSTALLATION O) THE STR8CT8RE3CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE )OR INSTALLATION O) 'O:NSTREAM TOEPROTECTION I) STR8CT8RE IS CONSTR8CTION S8CH THAT LO: )LO: IS NOT'IRECTE' TO:AR' THE CENTER O) THE CHANNEL2COARSE A**RE*ATE BAC.)ILL SHALL CONSIST O) AN E48AL MI; O) S8R*ESTONE, CLASS A RIPRAP AN' CLASS B RIPRAP3THE BO8L'ER SILL IS *ENERALL< CONSTR8CTE' AS )OLLO:SAPLACE )OOTER BO8L'ERS A LA<ER O) BE''IN* MATERIAL 8N'ER THE)OOTER BO8L'ERS MA< BE SPECI)IE' B< THE 'ESI*NER THERE SHALL BENO *APS BET:EEN BO8L'ERSBINSTALL )ILTER )ABRICCPLACE CO8RSE BAC.)ILL BEHIN' THE )OOTER BO8L'ERS'INSTALL HEA'ER BO8L'ERS ON TOP O) AN' SET SLI*HTL< BAC. )ROM THE)OOTER BO8L'ERS S8CH THAT PART O) THE HEA'ER BO8L'ER IS RESTIN*ON THE COARSE BAC.)ILL HEA'ER BO8L'ERS SHALL SPAN THE SEAMS O)THE )OOTER BO8L'ERS THERE SHALL NOT BE A SEAM IN THE CENTER O)THE STREAM BE' AT THE THAL:E* THERE SHALL BE NO *APS BET:EENBO8L'ERSEPLACE COARSE BAC.)ILL BEHIN' HEA'ER BO8L'ERS ENS8RIN* THAT AN<9OI'S BET:EEN THE BO8L'ERS ARE )ILLE'4BAC.)ILL SHALL BE COMPACTE' IN 12 LI)TSSECTION B-BCOARSE A**RE*ATEBAC.)ILL SEE NOTE 4CHANNEL TOPO) BAN.CHANNEL BOTTOMO) BAN.T<PICAL PLAN 9IE:AABB)LO:50
MINPROPOSE' STREAMBAN.STREAM BE')OOTER BO8L'ER, T<PICALSILL CONTROL POINTELE9ATIONTOP O) BAN.HEA'ER BO8L'ER, T<PICALSECTION A-A)LO:PROPOSE'STREAM BE'MIN 50
SILL CONTROL POINT ELE9ATIONHEA'ER BO8L'ER)OOTER BO8L'ERCOARSE A**RE*ATEBAC.)ILL SEE NOTE 2)ILTER )ABRIC804211 CLASS 2SEE PRO)ILE )ORPOOL 'EPTHSCO8R POOLPOOL20% O) PROPOSE'RI))LE 'EPTHSEE NOTE 3LO* 9ANENTSPOOLMIN 05
3% TO 7%BAN.)8LLSTREAM BE'IN POOL 12 BAN. :I'TH)LO:STREAM BAN.POOL
COARSE A**RE*ATEBAC.)ILL SEE NOTE 2NOTES1LO* 9ANES SHALL BE CONSTR8CTE' :ITH HEA'ER AN' )OOTER LO*S :ITH A MINIM8M'IAMETER O) 10 LO*S SHO8L' BE RELATI9EL< STRAI*HT HAR':OO', RECENTL< HAR9ESTE'THE LEN*TH SHALL BE S8CH THAT THE LO* IS B8RIE' INTO THE SOIL O) THE STREAM BAN. ONONE EN' AN' STREAM BE' ON THE OTHER EN' A MINIM8M 'ISTANCE O) 40
2COARSE A**RE*ATE BAC.)ILL SHALL CONSIST O) AN E48AL MI; O) S8R*E STONE AN' CLASSA RIPRAP3THE 9ANE SHALL INTERCEPT THE STREAM BAN. AT A HEI*HT E48AL TO BET:EEN õ BAN.)8LLSTA*E AN' BAN.)8LL STA*E AN ELE9ATION CONTROL POINT MA< BE ESTABLISHE' AT THE LE)TOR RI*HT STREAM BAN.9ANE INTERCEPT POINT THE STR8CT8RE AN*LE SHALL BE MEAS8RE')ROM A POINT TAN*ENT TO THE 9ANE INTERCEPT IN RELATION TO THE 'IRECTION O) )LO:4*EOTE;TILE )ABRIC SHALL BE 8SE' TO SEAL THE *APS BET:EEN THE LO*S AN' 8N'ER THECOARSE BAC.)ILL MATERIAL O) THE 9ANE THERE SHALL BE NO *EOTE;TILE )ABRIC 9ISIBLE INTHE )INISHE' :OR. E'*ES SHALL BE )OL'E' T8C.E', OR TRIMME' AS NEE'E'5LO* 9ANES SHALL BE B8ILT T<PICALL< AS )OLLO:SAO9ER-E;CA9ATE STREAM BE' TO A 'EPTH E48AL TO THE TOTAL THIC.NESS O) THEHEA'ER AN' )OOTER I) SPECI)IE' LO*SBPLACE )OOTER LO* O) THE 9ANE ARM I) SPECI)IE' THE SLOPE O) THE 9ANE ARM ISMEAS8RE' ALON* THE 9ANE ARM :HICH IS INSTALLE' AT AN AN*LE TO THE STREAMBAN. AN' PRO)ILECINSTALL HEA'ER LO* O) THE 9ANE ARM ON TOP O) AN' SLI*HTL< )OR:AR' OR BAC.)ROM THE )OOTER LO*'NAIL *EOTE;TILE )ABRIC TO THE HEA'ER LO* 8SIN* 3 10' *AL9ANIZE' COMMON NAILE9ER< 15
ALON* THE LO*EPLACE BALLAST BO8L'ERS OR '8C.BILL ANCHOR ON THE 9ANE)PLACE COARSE BAC.)ILL BEHIN' LO*S ENS8RIN* THAT AN< 9OI'S BET:EEN THE LO*SARE )ILLE'*BAC.)ILL REMAIN'ER O) 9ANE :ITH BAC.)ILL SPECI)IE' IN NOTE 26I) AN< EROSION CONTROL MATTIN* IS SPECI)IE' )OR 8SE IN THE 9ICINIT< O) THE STREAMBAN.9ANE INTERCEPT POINT THE MATTIN* E'*ES SHALL BE NEATL< SEC8RE' ARO8N' THELO*SSECTION A-A
PLAN 9IE:PRO)ILE 9IE:NON-:O9EN *EOTE;TILE)ABRIC NC'OT T<PE IIPOINT RE)ERENCE' INSTR8CT8RE TABLETOLERANCE “ 01
)LO
:A
ABAN. INTERCEPT POINTSEE NOTE 3MIN
4

0

20ƒ - 30ƒCOARSE A**RE*ATEBAC.)ILL SEE NOTE 2BAN.)8LL
TABLE 1 - STONE COMPOSITIONREACHSTONE SIZE%JB1, JB2, JB4CLASS A50CLASS B25NATI9E25TABLE 1 - STONE COMPOSITIONREACHSTONE SIZE%JB1, JB2, JB4CLASS A50CLASS B25NATI9E25)LO:CROSS SECTION A-A
E;ISITN* CHANNELAPPRO;IMATE BO8L'ER 'IMENSION:I'TH 18LEN*TH 18HEI*HT MA; 9BO8L'ER CL8STERNTSA
AN:SAPPRO;IMATE BO8L'ER 'IMENSION:I'TH 18LEN*TH 18HEI*HT MA; 95
MINMIN15
MIN20
NOTES1BO8L'ERS SHO8L' BE PLACE' )ROM THE STREAM BAN.2BO8L'ERS INSTALLE' APPOR;IMATL< 3 BELO: E;ISTIN* STREAM BE'3BO8L'ERS SHO8L' E;TEN' NO MORE THAN 6 ABO9E THE CHANNEL BOTTOM4BO8L'ERS SHO8L' BE PLACE' 'IRECTL< A'JACENT TO THE THAL:E*1O9ER E;CA9ATE THE O8TSI'E BEN' O) THE CHANNEL INSTALL )ILTER )ABRIC, BASE STONE LA<ER AN' COMPACT INSTALL TOP STONELA<ER, BAC.)ILL AN' COMPACT TO LOC. IN PLACE2PLACE LI9E C8TTIN*S O9ER THE RIPRAP ACCEPTABLE LI9E C8TTIN*S SPECIES INCL8'E BLAC. :ILLO: SALI; NI*RA AN' SIL.< :ILLO:SALI; SERICEA :ILLO: C8TTIN*S SHO8L' BE RINSE' AT C8TTIN* POINT TO ALLO: BETTER ROOTIN*3INSTALL COMPACTE' SOIL LI)T COIR MATTIN* SHO8L' BE :RAPE' 8N'ER SOIL LI)T AN' .E<E' INTO TOP O) BAN.4INSTALL 1 TO 3 RO:S O) LI9E STA.ES ABO9E THE LI9E C8TTIN*S LA<ER PER 'IRECTION O) EN*INEER5)ILTER )ABRIC SHALL MEET SPECI)ICATIONS )OR NC'OT :O9EN )ILTER )ABRICSECTION A-AMINIM8M 12 INTERME'IATE'IAMETER STONECOMPACTE' SOIL LI)TTOP O) BAN.LI9E STA.ES12 MA; POOL 'EPTHLI9E C8TTIN*SINSTALL COIR MATTIN* PER 'ETAILSEE ':* '1MIN 20
.E< COIR MATTIN*INTO BAN.N:SMIN20
MIN 05
STONE TOE PROTECTIONNTS)ILTER)ABRICROC. SHALL BE E9EN :ITH 'ESI*NE' BAN.SLOPE A9OI' E;CESSI9E ROC. PROT8SION)ROM BAN.FILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NC
DETAILS
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
5/11/2020
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND50506BPBBRCSCFAFMPRO)ILECROSS SECTION A-A
)LO:9ARIES PER PRO)ILEEN' RI))LECONTROL POINTPROPOSE' TOPO) BAN.RI))LE MATERIALSEE TABLE 1MA; 2-3BRANCHES075
MINTOP O) BAN.PROPOSE'TOE O) BAN.LAR*E COBBLESMALLBO8L'ERS, T<PRI))LE MATERIALSEE TABLE 1POOLR8NCHANNELBOTTOM :I'THNOTES1T<PICAL RI))LES SHALL BE INSTALLE' IN ALL NE:L< *RA'E' CHANNELSECTIONS THRO8*HO8T THE PROJECT 8NLESS OTHER:ISE SPECI)IE'ON PLAN SHEETS2ELE9ATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE 'ESI*NATE' AT THEBE*INNIN* AN' EN' O) RI))LE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART O) THEPRO)ILE O) THE CHANNEL S8R9E< O) CONTROL POINTS SHALL BERE48IRE' TO ESTABLISH ACC8RATE RI))LE INSTALLATION :ITHIN ATOLERANCE O) “02
3RI))LE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISE' O) 75% ROC.S AN' 25%:OO'< MATERIAL :OO'< MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST O) LO*S,BRANCHES, AN' BR8SH NO *REATER THAN 3 IN 'IAMETER THEROC. MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST O) NATI9E S8BSTRATE MATERIAL:HEN POSSIBLE NATI9E MATERIAL SHALL BE E;CA9ATE',STOC.PILE', AN' RE-8SE' )ROM ABAN'ONE' CHANNEL SECTIONS I)A S8ITABLE 48ANTIT< O) NATI9E S8BSTRATE MATERIAL CANNOT BEHAR9ESTE', CONTRACTOR MA< S8BSTIT8TE THE RI))LE MATERIAL:ITH ROC. MATCHIN* THE COMPOSITION IN TABLE 14THE PLACEMENT O) RI))LE MATERIAL SHALL BE 'ONE IN A MANNER TOCREATE A SMOOTH PRO)ILE, :ITH NO ABR8PT ´J8MPµ TRANSITIONBET:EEN THE 8PSTREAM POOL-*LI'E AN' THE RI))LE, AN' LI.E:ISENO ABR8PT ´'ROPµ TRANSITION BET:EEN THE RI))LE AN' THE'O:NSTREAM R8N-POOL THE )INISHE' CROSS SECTION O) THERI))LE MATERIAL SHALL *ENERALL< MATCH THE SHAPE AN''IMENSIONS SHO:N ON THE RI))LE T<PICAL SECTION :ITH SOME9ARIABILIT< O) THE THAL:E* LOCATION AS A RES8LT O) THE SMALLPOOLS AN' LO*S5THE EN' O) RI))LE CONTROL POINT MA< TIE IN TO ANOTHERIN-STREAM STR8CT8RE LO* SILL , J-HOO., ETC NO LO*S SHO8L'BE INCL8'E' :ITHIN THE )OOTPRINT O) THE PROPOSE' STR8CT8REBE*IN RI))LECONTROL POINTT<PICAL RI))LENTSPOOL*LI'E)LO:A
ALAR*E COBBLESMALL BO8L'ERS)LO:1% - 2% T<PPRO)ILECROSS SECTION A-A
)LO:9ARIES PER PRO)ILEEN' RI))LE CONTROL POINTPROPOSE' TOPO) BAN.BE*IN RI))LECONTROL POINT4 - 6 LO*STOP O) BAN.PROPOSE' TOE O) BAN.*RA'E CONTROL ROC.5050 MI; O) CLASS A AN'B RIPRAP4 - 6 LO*S40
T<PLAR*E COBBLESMALLBO8L'ERS, T<PRI))LE MATERIALSEE TABLE 1POOLR8NCHANNELBOTTOM :I'TH40
T<PNOTES1RI))LE *RA'E CONTROL STR8CT8RES SHALL BE INSTALLE' INNE:L< *RA'E' CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECI)IE' ON THE PLANSHEETS2ELE9ATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE 'ESI*NATE' AT THEBE*INNIN* AN' EN' O) RI))LE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART O)THE PRO)ILE O) THE CHANNEL S8R9E< O) CONTROL POINTSSHALL BE RE48IRE' TO ESTABLISH ACC8RATE RI))LEINSTALLATION :ITHIN A TOLERANCE O) “02
3*RA'E CONTROL ROC. SHALL BE COMPRISE' O) A 5050 MI; O)CLASS A AN' B RIPRAP *RA'E CONTROL ROC. SHALL BE PLACE'S8CH THAT THE A''ITION O) THE SPECI)IE' THIC.NESS O)RI))LE MATERIAL SHALL ACHIE9E THE 'ESI*NATE' *RA'ES4RI))LE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISE' O) ROC.S AN' LO*STHE ROC. MATERIAL COMPOSITION SHALL MATCH TABLE 1 RI))LEMATERIAL SHALL BE E;CA9ATE', STOC.PILE', AN' RE-8SE')ROM ABAN'ONE' CHANNEL SECTIONS ROC. RI))LE MATERIALOBTAINE' O))SITE SHALL BE SLI*HTL< RO8N'E', ´RI9ER-T<PEµROC., 8NLESS OTHER ROC. CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE)OR THE CHANNEL5SPACIN* AN' N8MBER O) LO*S SHO8L' BE BASE' ON RI))LELEN*TH AN' MA< 9AR< BASE' ON LO* A9AILABILIT< LO*SSHO8L' BE SPACE' E48ALL< AN' ANCHORE' TO THE CHANNELBE' :ITH BO8L'ERS6THE PLACEMENT O) *RA'E CONTROL ROC. AN'OR RI))LEMATERIAL SHALL BE 'ONE IN A MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTHPRO)ILE, :ITH NO ABR8PT ´J8MPµ TRANSITION BET:EEN THE8PSTREAM POOL-*LI'E AN' THE RI))LE, AN' LI.E:ISE NOABR8PT ´'ROPµ TRANSITION BET:EEN THE RI))LE AN' THE'O:NSTREAM R8N-POOL THE )INISHE' CROSS SECTION O)THE RI))LE MATERIAL SHALL *ENERALL< MATCH THE SHAPE AN''IMENSIONS SHO:N ON THE RI))LE T<PICAL SECTION :ITH SOME9ARIABILIT< O) THE THAL:E* LOCATION AS A RES8LT O) THESMALL POOLS AN' LO*S7THE EN' O) RI))LE CONTROL POINT MA< TIE IN TO ANOTHERIN-STREAM STR8CT8RE LO* SILL , J-HOO., ETC NO LO*SSHO8L' BE INCL8'E' :ITHIN THE )OOTPRINT O) THE PROPOSE'STR8CT8RE8THE CONSTR8CTE' RI))LE SHALL BE .E<E' IN TO THE STREAMBAN.S AN'OR BE' AS 'ESI*NATE' B< THE 'ESI*NER THE .E<SHALL E;TEN' BE<ON' THE TOP O) BAN. )OR THE LEN*TH O)THE RI))LE :HERE PRESER9ATION O) E;ISTIN* STREAM BAN.9E*ETATION IS A PRIORIT< A .E< MA< NOT BE 8SE' OR THE'IMENSIONS MA< BE A'J8STE' TO LIMIT 'IST8RBANCERI))LE MATERIALSEE TABLE 1*RA'E CONTROL ROC.5050 MI; O) CLASS A AN'B RIPRAPRI))LE *RA'E CONTROLNTSA
ASMALL POOLLAR*E COBBLESMALL BO8L'ERS4 - 6 LO*SANCHOR BO8L'ERANCHOR BO8L'ERPOOL*LI'E10
MIN05
MIN
FILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Bcarroll
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:
PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NC
DETAILS
PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
5/11/2020
PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND60506BPBBRCSCFAFMT<PICAL PLAN 9IE:CHANNEL TOPO) BAN.CHANNEL BOTTOMO) BAN.COIR MATTIN*)LO:NTSNOTES1O9ER E;CA9ATE THE O8TSI'E BEN' O) THE CHANNEL PLACE LAR*ER BRANCHESAN' LO*S IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN LOC. IN PLACE :ITH )ILL CO9ERIN* 6 INTO 12 IN O) THE LAR*ER BRANCHESSMALL LO*S2PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AN' BR8SH O9ER THE LAR*ER BRANCHESSMALLLO*S HAR':OO' SPECIES ONL< AN' COMPACT LI*HTL< TO*ETHER BAC.)ILLAN' COMPACT TO LOC. IN PLACE3PLACE LI9E C8TTIN*S O9ER THE SMALL BRANCHES AN' BR8SH SEE TABLE ONPLANTIN* SHEET )OR ACCEPTABLE LI9E C8TTIN* AN' LI9E STA.E SPECIES AN'COMPOSITION C8TTIN*S SHO8L' BE RINSE' AT C8TTIN* POINT TO ALLO:BETTER ROOTIN*4INSTALL EROSION CONTROL COIR MATTIN* O9ER COMPACTE' SOIL PER'IRECTION O) EN*INEER COIR MATTIN* SHO8L' BE .E<E' INTO TOP O) BAN.5INSTALL 1 TO 3 RO:S O) LI9E STA.ES ABO9E THE LI9E C8TTIN*S LA<ER PER'IRECTION O) EN*INEER6LI9E C8TTIN*S SHO8L' NOT E;TEN' PAST 13 O) CHANNEL BOTTOM :I'THAASECTION A-ASMALL LO*S AN'ORLAR*E BRANCHES :ITH AMIN 'IAMETER O) 4SMALL BRANCHESAN' BR8SHCOMPACTE' SOIL LI)TTOP O) BAN.LI9E STA.ES14 MA; POOL 'EPTH14 MA; POOL 'EPTHLI9E C8TTIN*SINSTALL COIR MATTIN* PER 'ETAILSEE ':* '1MIN 20
6TOE PROTECTIONLAR*ER CHANNELS.E< COIR MATTIN*INTO BAN.T<PICAL PLAN 9IE:CHANNEL TOPO) BAN.CHANNEL BOTTOMO) BAN.COIR MATTIN*)LO:BR8SH TOE POOL 'EPTH  15 )TNTS1O9ER E;CA9ATE THE O8TSI'E BEN' O) THE CHANNEL INSTALL SMALLERBRANCHES AN' BR8SH AN' COMPACT LI*HTL< TO*ETHER BAC.)ILL AN'COMPACT TO LOC. IN PLACE2PLACE LI9E C8TTIN*S O9ER THE SMALL BRANCHES AN' BR8SH SEE TABLE ONPLANTIN* SHEET )OR ACCEPTABLE LI9E C8TTIN* AN' LI9E STA.E SPECIES AN'COMPOSITION C8TTIN*S SHO8L' BE RINSE' AT C8TTIN* POINT TO ALLO:BETTER ROOTIN*3INSTALL EROSION CONTROL COIR MATTIN* O9ER COMPACTE' SOIL PER'IRECTION O) EN*INEER COIR MATTIN* SHO8L' BE .E<E' INTO TOP O) BAN.4INSTALL 1 TO 3 RO:S O) LI9E STA.ES ABO9E THE LI9E C8TTIN*S LA<ER PER'IRECTION O) EN*INEERAASECTION A-ASMALL BRANCHESAN' BR8SHCOMPACTE' SOIL LI)TTOP O) BAN.LI9E STA.ES14 MA; POOL 'EPTHLI9E C8TTIN*SINSTALL COIR MATTIN* PER 'ETAILSEE ':* '1MIN 20
6.E< COIR MATTIN*INTO BAN.N:SMIN50
MIN50
BR8SH TOE POOL 'EPTH ! 15 )TTOP O) BAN.POINT RE)ERENCE'IN STR8CT8RETABLE TOLERANCE “01
POOLPOOL)LO:BR8SH TOESEE SHEET '6AN*LE' LO* STEP POOLNTSTOP O) BAN.)OOTER LO*HEA'ER LO*POINT RE)ERENCE'IN STR8CT8RETABLE TOLERANCE “01
NOTES1LO*S SHALL BE O) A MINIM8M O) 18
IN LEN*TH AN' 12 IN 'IAMETER AN' RELATI9EL< STRAI*HTHAR':OO', RECENTL< HAR9ESTE'2COARSE A**RE*ATE BAC.)ILL SHALL CONSIST O) AN E48AL MI; O) S8R*E STONE, CLASS A RIPRAP, AN'CLASS B RIPRAP3A SIN*LE LO* MA< BE 8SE' IN LIE8 O) A HEA'ER)OOTER LO* COMBINATION, I) 'IAMETER IS 2; MINIM8M'IAMETER AN' APPRO9E' B< 'ESI*NER4)ILTER )ABRIC SHALL E;TEN' )ROM 8PSTREAM LO* 'ROP AN' BE 8SE' TO SEAL THE *APS BET:EEN THELO*S AN' THE STREAM BE', 8N'ER THE COARSE BAC.)ILL MATERIAL THERE SHALL BE NO )ILTER )ABRIC9ISIBLE IN THE )INISHE' :OR. E'*ES SHALL BE )OL'E', T8C.E', OR TRIMME' AS NEE'E'5COARSE BAC.)ILL SHALL BE PLACE' TO A THIC.NESS E48AL TO THE 'EPTH O) THE HEA'ER LO*S *RA'ECONTROL STONE SHO8L' BE PLACE' AT A THIC.NESS O) THE )OOTER LO*S6'8C.BILL ANCHORS :ITH *AL9ANIZE' CABLE ATTACHE' MA< BE 8SE' TO SEC8RE LO*S INTO THE STREAMBE' AN'OR BAN.S )LAT SI'E' BO8L'ERS CAN BE 8SE' IN LIE8 O) THE LO* IN9ERT'8C.BILL ANCHORS<STEMPLAN 9IE:SECTION A-A
4
MIN T<PHEA'ER LO*A
A2 - 4%15-30%POOLPOOL)LO:COARSE A**RE*ATEBAC.)ILL SEE NOTE 2POINT RE)ERENCE'IN STR8CT8RETABLE TOLERANCE “01
BAN.)8LLHEA'ER LO*)OOTER LO*)ILTER )ABRICPRO)ILE5
MIN T<PPOOLA*RA'E CONTROL STONE5050 MI; O) CLASS
B
AN'CLASS
I
RIPRAP15
MIN T<P
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: SAW-2018-00094 County: Madison U.S.G.S. Quad: Sams Gap
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: RES / Attn.: Matt DeAnEelo
Address: 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone Number: 757-202-4471
Size (acres): 20.3 acre portion of larger tract Nearest Town: Mars Hill
Nearest Waterway: UTs Puncheon Fork and
Puncheon Fork Coordinates: 35.95769 N 82.53230 W
River Basin/ HUC: Upper French Broad (06010105)
Location description: The project site is located on a tract of land INs 9852-31-9900 9852-43-3188 9852-42-5291,
9852-52-0115 9852-51-1453 and 9852-50-5995 at 4539 Puncheon Fork Road in Mars Hill Madison County. North
Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Al]ply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. 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 farther instruction.
There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely
an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction overall of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area,
which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have
the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the
Corps.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described 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 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 waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described 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.
We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation
that can be verified by the Corps.
The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon

completion. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA
jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . 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 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 to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or 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 David Brown at
828-271-7980, ext. 4232 or [e-mail].
C. Basis for Determination:
See attached preliminary jurisdictional determination form.
D. Remarks:
The potential waters of the U.S., at this site, were verified on -site by the Corps on April 3, 2019, and are as
approximately depicted on the attached Potential Wetland or Non -Wetlands of the U.S. Map —Puncheon Fork Mitigation
Project (dated April 9, 2019) submitted by RES.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate
participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to
this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you
will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
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, N/A (Preliminary -JD).
Pa

* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official.
David Brown
Issue Date of JD: May 2, 2019 Expiration Date: N/A Preliminary JD
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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
htt ://coT sma u.usace.armv.miVcm a ex/f?=136:4:0.
Copy furnished:
James Bertram, Burnette, 840 Bruce Road, Mars Hill, NC 28754
John and Marsha McKay, 4 Bear Claw Trail, Candler, NC 28715

Blank Page

Vv�
Ai.
of,
oz
END
. if
4

Ar
NOTIFICATION 0 F ADi►M'ISTRATIVE APPFA1, 0Ty1*10N4 AND PROC4;a
licant. U S / Attn.: Matt DeAngelo File Number: SAW-2018-00094 2, 2019
Attached
_
is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
E
®
SECTION i - The following identifies your -rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of -the above decision.
Additional information maybe found at htt armv.milfiv� issio3�slCivil WorkslReAi�lata Pro anaandPenr:its.as or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may acceptor object to the permit.
0 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 H of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section H 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.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD.
The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps
district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION 11-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 ]NFORIVJATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeA process you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: David Brown CESAD-PDO
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
828-271-7980, ext. 4232 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 investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn.: David Brown, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JD: May 2, 2019
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
RES / Attn.: Matt DeAngelo
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
CESAW-RG-A, SAW-2018-00094, RES Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The project site is located on a tract of land (PINs 9852-31-9900, 9852-43-3188, 9852-42-5291, 9852-52-0115,
9852-51-1453, and 9852-50-5995) at 4539 Puncheon Fork Road in Mars Hill, Madison County, North Carolina.
State: NC County/parish borough: Madison City: Mars Hill
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): 35.95769 N, 82.53230 W
Universal Transverse Mercator: N/A
Name of nearestwaterbody: UTs Puncheon Fork and Puncheon Fork
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: May 2, 2019
Field Determination. Date(s): April 3, 2019
Use the table below to document aquatic resources and/or aquatic resources at different sites
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION
Centered Coordinates
Estimated Amount of
Geographic
Site Number
(decimal degrees)
Aquatic Resource in
Type of Aquatic
Authority to Which
Review Area
Resources
Aquatic Resource
Latitude Longitude
(linear feet or acre)
"May Be" Subject
f Wetland
Section 404
WA
35.9541113
-82.5280754
0.2523 ac
Q Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
WB
35.9542426
-82.5277874
0.3035 ac
Wetland
Section 404
0.0069 ac
Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
WC
35.9551138
-82.5286197
-82.5280608
Wetland
Non -wetland Waters
Section 404
[ Section 10/404
WD
35.9544582
0.6064 ac
Wetland
Non -wetland Watersl
Section 404
Section 10/404
Section 404
Section 10/404
Section 404
Section 10/404
WE
35.9548566
-82.5286814
0.0325 ac
0.0076 ac
Wetland
Non -wetland Waters
Wetland
Non -wetland Waters
WF
35.9553382
-82.529125
WG
35.9559382
-82.5291555
0.2146 ac
Wetland
�i] Non -wetland Waters
Section 404
0 Section 10/404

Wetland ® Section 404
WH
35.9565985
-82.5303428
0.0195 ac
Q Non -wetland Waters ❑ Section 10/404
Wetland Section 404
W1
35.9567684
-82.5307249
0.0838 ac
Non -wetland Waters 0 Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WJ
35.9570722
-82.5311029
0.0137 ac
Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WK
35.9576654
-82.5320999
0.2201 ac
Non -wetland Waters]
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WL
35.9575439
-82.5315882
0.012 ac
Q Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WM
35.9573701
-82.5319468
0.031 ac
Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WN
35.9573832
-82.5323515
0.0123 ac
Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WO
35.9579185
-82.5320127
0.079 ac
Q Non -wetland Waters]
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WP
35.9587635
-82.5325827
0.0113 ac
[� Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WQ
35.9596281
-82.5329946
0.0776 ac
Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WR
35.9605067
-82.5342527
0.0765 ac
E]
Non -wetland Waters,]
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WS
35.960687
-82.5334241
0.0394 ac
Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
® Section 404
WT
35.9615505
-82.533764
0.0107 ac
Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WU
35.957709
-82.532471
0.0657 ac
Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WV
35.95991
-82.53276
0.0043 ac
[� Non -wetland Waters
� Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
JB1
35.96181
-82.533874
696 if
19 Non -wetland Waters]
Section 10/404
Wetland
f Section 404
JB2
35.960244
-82.533436
598, if
Non -wetland Waters
El Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
JB3
35.959693
-82.532802
654 if
Non -wetland Waters
_M
p Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
JB4
35.957254
-82.533724
1,5021f
to Non -wetland Waters
0 Section 10/404
D Wetland
Section 404
JBS
35.956963
-82.531059
1,8181E
Non -wetland Waters
Wetland
Section 10/404
Section 404
JB6
35.954935
-82.528666
991 if
Non -wetland Waters
[ Section 10/404
]
Wetland
Section 404
JB7
35.957692
-82.532422
173 if
]�
Non -wetland Watersl
Section 10/404
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:
SUPPORTING DATA
Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply) - Checked items should be included in subject file.
Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of preliminary JD requester: RES
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of preliminary JD requester. RES
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rational:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps..
USGS map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Sams Gap.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey.
Citation: Madison County, NC
National wetlands inventory (NWI) map(s). Cite name:
M State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) / Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Google Earth Pro, Oct. 2015, Nov. 2013, Oct. 2010, Apr. 2010, Jun. 2008,
Jun. 2007, Jun. 2005, Apr. 1998, and Apr. 1993
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:

Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): The site contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Eastern
Mountain and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). These wetlands are abutting to stream channels located at the site and
flow into the channels. Wetland hydrology is enhanced with the abutting stream channels via normal down gradient
flows and periods of high water.
The streams on the site are UTs Puncheon Fork and Puncheon Fork, which exhibit physical ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) indicators including, break in slope; developed bed and bank; changes in sediment texture and soil
character; natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; absence of vegetation; leaf litter washed away; sediment
deposition and sorting; presence of aquatic life; water staining; presence of debris; and scour. Some of the streams are
depicted as solid blue lines on the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map Sams Gap and the most current Natural
Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey for Madison County. Solid blue line features on these mapping
conventions typically represent perennial streams.
The UTs Puncheon Fork flow into Puncheon Fork, which flows into Big Laurel Creek, and then into the French
Broad River, a traditional navigable water and designated Section 10 water. The French Broad River merges with the
Holston River to form the Tennessee River. The Tennessee River flows into the Ohio River then to the Mississippi
River before entering the Gulf of Mexico.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and
should not be relied upon for later ,jurisdictional determinations.
David Brown, May 2, 2019 RES / Attn:• Matt DeAngelo
Signature and date of Regulatory (per Agent Authorization)
staff member completing Signature and date of person requesting
preliminary JD preliminary JD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)
Two copies of this Preliminary JD Form have been provided Please sign both copies. Keep one signed copy for your record
and return a signed copy to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office by mail or e-mail.
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC28801-5006
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.
10

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
February 28, 2018
Steve Kichefski
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Re: RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, French Broad Holston River Basin,
SAW 2016-02357, Buncombe, Henderson, and Madison Counties, ER 17-0002
Dear Mr. Kichefski:
Thank you for your email of January 29, 2018, concerning the above project.
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,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

May 21, 2019

Matt DeAngelo
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Dear Mr. DeAngelo:

Subject: Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project - Scoping; Madison County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-19-221

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence dated May 2, 2019 wherein you solicit comments regarding potential impacts to
federally protected species that may result from the proposed project. 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 the information provided, the proposed project aims to provide up to 3,037 stream
mitigation units (cold water) by stabilizing/restoring degraded aquatic and riparian habitats near
Swiss, North Carolina. The proposed work would entail livestock exclusion, establishment of a
riparian buffer, 15-acre conservation easement, and stream restoration/enhancement work.

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

Based on Service records and the information provided, no other federally protected species
and/or their respective habitats occur within the project area and we require no further action at
2

this time. Please be aware that in accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of the
appropriate federal agency or its designated representative to review its activities or programs
and to identify any such activities or programs that may affect endangered or threatened species
or their habitats. If it is determined that the proposed activity may adversely affect any species
federally listed as endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be
initiated.

We offer the following recommendations in the interest of protecting this and other 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 sediment bed load while maintaining channel features and neither degrading nor
aggrading. Alterations to the dimension, pattern, or profile of the stream channel as well as
changes to streambank vegetation, floodplains, hydrology, or sediment input can significantly
alter this equilibrium. We understand that this stream reach is highly modified, and restoring the
site to a natural state may not be feasible. Still we offer the following recommendations:

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. 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. 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.

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
3

conditions. 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. 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 as they trap animals and can persist in the environment beyond
their intended purpose. 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 and surrounded with silt fencing).

If you have not done so already, we encourage you to contact the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission regarding potential impacts to state-protected natural resources.

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 4-2-19-221.

Sincerely,

- - original signed - -

Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South. Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
May 2, 2019
Mrs. Janet Mizzi
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Project Scoping for Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project in Madison County
Dear Mrs. Mizzi,
Resource Environmental 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 Puncheon
Fork Mitigation Project. The proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 5,852
linear feet of stream and two acres of wetland. The Site is currently in agricultural use, specifically as pasture.
The USFWS database (updated 27 June 2018) lists one threatened and one endangered species for Madison
County, North Carolina: Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) and Gray bay (Myotis
grisescens). Potential habitat may exist on-site for these bats. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database was consulted to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species
were mapped within one mile of the project site. Results from NHP on May 2, 2019, indicated that there were
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.
Additionally, the new online consultation process for NLEB will be utilized to make a biological opinion for
NLEB.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered and threatened
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the earthwork and planting of a stream and wetland
restoration project on the subject property. A detailed project description along with maps showing the location
and approximate limits of the conservation easement are enclosed.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to my attention
at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any questions that you may have
concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Matt DeAngelo | Ecologist II
PUNCHEON FORK SITE
Project Description
The Puncheon Fork Site (the “Site”) is located in Madison County approximately five miles northwest of
Swiss, NC. The GPS coordinates of the site are 35.954868 °N and -82.531369 °W. The Site is contained in
five parcels totaling approximately 15 acres of conservation easement. The Site is located within a rural
area, and land use within the project area is comprised primarily of agricultural and forested land uses.
The Site is located within the French Broad River Basin (8-digit USGS HUC 06010105, 12-digit USGS
HUC 060101050004), and involves the restoration and enhancement of four unnamed tributaries that
have been disturbed by agricultural activities and cattle grazing. The conceptual design presents the
opportunity to provide up to 3,037 cold stream mitigation units (SMU). This proposed Site will result in
significant ecological impacts including the reduction of nutrient inputs via livestock exclusion and the
reduction of sediment inputs from eroding stream banks by restoring the stream channel pattern,
dimension, and profile in stream to reference reach conditions.
Existing Reach Conditions
In general, all or portions of the project streams do not function to their full potential. Current conditions
demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from agriculture, historic land uses, and
livestock. Morphological parameters for Restoration and Enhancement I reaches are located in Table 3.  
Reach JB1
Reach JB1 is in the northwest portion of the project and flows south to a confluence with JB2. This reach
has minimal riparian buffer upstream and virtually no buffer downstream as it winds through a valley
bottom. The banks and substrate appear relatively stable, but are not fully functioning from a lack of
sufficient buffer and livestock intrusion. Existing land use surrounding the reach is predominantly pasture.
The drainage area is 123 acres.
Reach JB2
Reach JB2 begins in the northwest section of the property and flows to the southeast to a confluence with
JB1. The channel shows localized areas of active erosion and impact from livestock. This reach shows
similar conditions to JB1 with the addition of numerous failing or degrading stream crossings. Existing land
use is pasture with minimal trees along the banks. The drainage area at the downstream end is 112 acres.
Reach JB3-A/B/C
Reach JB3 begins at the confluence of JB1 and JB2 and flows south to an easement break before becoming
Reach JB5. JB3-A and JB3-C show relatively healthy stream banks and substrate, but lack a sufficient
riparian buffer and allow livestock access. JB3-B lacks a sufficient riparian buffer and has significant bank
erosion, including a forming headcut, from livestock access. Existing land use surrounding the reach is
active pasture. The drainage area is 261 acres.
Reach JB4-A/B/C
Reach JB4 begins on the western side of the project and flows east to a confluence with JB5. Portions of
JB4-A and JB4-C have a relatively thin buffer with a minimally impacted channel. JB4-B is similar, but
showing slightly more bank erosion. Existing land use surrounding the reach is active pasture and allows
livestock access to the channel. The drainage area is 34.5 acres.
Reach JB5-A/B/C
Reach JB5 begins in the middle of the project and forms the main channel, flowing southeast to a confluence
with JB6. The upstream portions of the reach, JB5-A and JB5-B, show a relatively thick rhododendron
buffer that appears to keep livestock impact limited. JB5-A does however show minimal bank erosion in
the areas where livestock can access the channel. Channel substrate and banks appear healthy and function
aside from localized erosion. JB5-C also has an apparently healthy bed substrate, but lacks a sufficient
riparian buffer and allows livestock access. Resulting access shows signs of bank erosion through JB5-C.
The drainage area is 334 acres.
Reach JB6
Reach JB6 begins at the culvert crossing under Puncheon Fork Road and flows southeast. All other
reaches drain into JB6 via a confluence with JB5 shortly downstream from the culvert crossing. This
reach has a very limited riparian buffer and shows localized bank erosion throughout. Existing land use
surrounding the reach is active pasture. The drainage area is nearly 874 acres.
Vegetation
The Site is characterized primarily by agricultural land, including pasture and some areas of disturbed
riparian forest. Many of the streams on-site lack sufficient riparian buffers, while some reaches are devoid
of buffers altogether. Vegetation associated with these areas is primarily composed of herbaceous
vegetation interspersed with trees. Exotic invasive species are also present in some areas. In general, these
riparian zones are disturbed due to regular land management activities related to cattle production. The Site
also includes stream channels with sufficiently sized riparian buffers that demonstrate more developed
vegetation strata and higher biodiversity. However, these areas are still disturbed by frequent cattle access
and presence of exotic invasive species.
Tree species present throughout the Site include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), Eastern hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus).
Understory species include rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), and common rush (Juncus effuses).
Stream Restoration and Enhancement
Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches demonstrate significant habitat
degradation as a result of impacts from agricultural land use. Additionally, the riparian buffers are in poor
condition throughout much of the project area.
Stream restoration efforts will be accomplished through a combination of analytical and reference reach-
based design methods. The result will be a combination of Priority Level I Restoration and Enhancement
Levels I, II, and III for the project area. The cross-section geometry, planform, and profile will be modified
to restore appropriate capacity and sinuosity to the channelized streams. The Priority Level I stream
restoration will incorporate the design of a single-thread meandering channel, with parameters based on
data taken from appropriate regional curve tables for the Mountains of North Carolina and from reference
sites and hydrologic analyses.
Priority Level I Restoration is proposed for Reach JB5-C. The design approach will include meandering
the proposed channel within the natural valley, grading the currently incised banks, and excavating a
floodplain bench to allow the channel to access the floodplain during heavy precipitation events. A
minimum 30-foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation and a fence will be
installed to exclude all livestock.
Stream Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reaches JB3-B, JB4-B, and JB6. The design approach on this
reach will focus on bank stabilization, riparian buffer restoration, and cattle exclusion. Stabilization
activities will include installing grade control structures, woody debris structures, and live-stake plantings
to improve hydraulic efficiency and aquatic habitat. All disturbed areas within the proposed buffer will be
planted with native riparian vegetation to a width of at least 30 feet from the stream’s top of bank and
fencing will be installed to exclude all livestock.
Stream Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reaches JB1, JB2, JB3-A/C, JB4-A/C, and JB5-A. The
design approach on these reaches will focus on improving the riparian buffer through native vegetation
planting and treatment of invasive species, incorporating minimal grading to address minor erosional areas,
and installing fencing to exclude all livestock from streams.
Stream Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach JB5-B. The channels are moderately stable throughout
the proposed reach and are protected by relatively intact buffers but may still allow occasional access to
livestock. Therefore, a fence will be installed to establish a permanent minimum 30-foot buffer and to
exclude livestock. Additional planting may be implemented to increase the buffer biodiversity.

0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easemen t
©Date: 12/20/2017
Drawn by: ATP
Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\DOT RFP Jan 2018\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Figure 1 - Vicinity - Fork.mxdPuncheon Fork Site
JB2112 ac
JB435 ac
JB5 334 ac
Entire Site1248 ac
JB1123 ac
JB6874 acJB3 261 ac
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Map
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Areas
©Date: 12/20/2017
Drawn by: ATP
Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\DOT RFP Jan 2018\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Figure 2 - USGS - Fork.mxd
0 400200
Feet
Figure 3 - Aerial Map
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
©Date: 12/18/2017
Drawn by: ATP
Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\DOT RFP Jan 2018\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Figure 3 - Aerial - Fork.mxd
JB2
JB6JB5-B
JB4-A
J
B5
-AJ
B
1
JB
5-C
J
B
3
-
B
JB4-B
J
B3
-AJ B 4 -CJB3-C0 400200
Feet
Figure 8 - Conceptual M ap
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Restoration
Enha nce ment I
Enha nce ment II
Enha nce ment III
Proposed Easement (14.94 ac)
Proje ct Parcels
Parcels
©Date: 1/2/2018
Drawn by: ATP
Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\DOT RFP Jan 2018\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Figure 8 - Conceptual - Fork.mxdReach Approach Length Ratio SMU Adjusted SMUJB1Enhancement II 631 2.5:1 252 275JB2Enhancement II 603 2.5:1 241 241JB3-A Enhance ment II 284 2.5:1 114 131JB3-B Enhance me nt I 237 1.5:1 158 182JB3-C Enhance ment II 191 2.5:1 76 88JB4-A Enhance ment II 610 2.5:1 244 266JB4-B Enhance me nt I 454 1.5:1 303 339JB4-C Enhance ment II 205 2.5:1 82 82JB5-A Enhance ment II 457 2.5:1 183 210JB5-B Enhance me nt III 658 5:1 132 147JB5-C Re storati on 334 1:1 334 391JB6Enhancement I 894 1.5:1 596 685Total5,558 2,714 3,037
Proposed Crossing
Proposed CrossingProposed Crossing
Proposed Crossing
Proposed Crossing
Proposed Crossing
Proposed Crossing
M!M!M!M!M!M!M!M!M!M!M!M!WU
WV
WA
WB
WD
WC
WE
WF
WG
WH
WI
WJ
WK
WL
WM
WN WO
WP
WQ
WR
WS
WTJB2
JB6JB5 J B 1
JB7JB6JB3JB41
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Legend
Proposed Easem ent
Puncheon Fork Study Area (22.62 ac)
Potential Wetland Water of the U .S.
Potential Non-wetland Water of the U.S.
M!Wetland Datapoint
M!Upland Datapoint
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\JD\WOUS_JD_Updated.mxdDate: 5/13/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MDD
1 inch = 200 feet
PotentialWetland or Non-Wetland Watersof the U.S. Map
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
0 200100
Feet©Fe ature ID Le ngth (LF)JB1 696JB2598JB3654JB41502JB51818JB6991JB7173Total6,432
Fe ature ID Are a (acre s)W A 0.254WB0.377WC0.606WD0.006WE0.033WF0.008WG0.215WH0.019WI0.084WJ0.014WK0.220WL0.012WM0.031WN0.012WO0.079WP0.011WQ0.078WR0.077WS0.039WT0.011WU0.066WV0.004Total2.254
Potential Non-We tland Wate rs of the U.S.
Pote ntial Wetland Wate rs of the U.S

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]
May 30, 2019

Matt DeAngelo
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

SUBJECT: Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project (French Broad 05 Umbrella Bank)

Dear Mr. DeAngelo:

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) received your May 2,
2019 letter regarding plans for a stream mitigation project on Puncheon Fork and unnamed tributaries in
Madison County. I attended a site visit on January 30, 2018. You requested request that we 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. Our comments on this project are offered for
your consideration under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).

The project is proposed as a mitigation project and will involve enhancement and restoration on 5,852 ft
of stream that will result in 3,037 ft of coldwater stream mitigation.

Project activities should be avoided during the trout moratorium period of January 1 to April 15 in order
to minimize impacts to Rainbow Trout reproduction. We recommend that riparian buffers that are to be
reestablished be as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner needs. NCWRC generally
recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to maximize the benefits of buffers,
including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland runoff, and wildlife habitat.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me at (828) 803-
6054 if you have any questions about these comments.

Sincerely,

Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
ID#* 20180067 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 05/22/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 5/22/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Kasey Carrere
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20180067
Existing IDr
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Puncheon Fork
County: Madison
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Mitigation Plan FINAL PuncheonFork
114.67MB
(SAW201800094).pdf
Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Kasey Carrere
Signature:*

3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Todd Bowers
USEPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Andrea Leslie
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Rd. Building B
May 22nd, 2020
Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801
Todd Tugwell &
Kimberly Browning
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Ste 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Mac Haupt & Erin Davis
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 Marion, NC 28752
Re: Puncheon Fork Final Mitigation Plan Submittal (SAW-2018-00094)
Dear Sir/Madam,
On behalf of Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) & Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (a RES affiliate), I
am pleased to submit the Final Mitigation Plan for the Puncheon Fork Site, an instrument modification of the RES
French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank. A prospectus was submitted in January 2018, put on public notice on
January 29, 2018, and issued an initial evaluation letter on July 26, 2018. The draft mitigation plan was submitted in
August 2019.
The attached plan includes minor modifications from the draft mitigation plan to incorporate suggestions from the
IRT Draft Plan Comment Memo dated on March 31, 2020. The minor alterations and updates are detailed below:
•The final mitigation plan presents 2,835.333 SMUs (3,157.333 in the draft mitigation plan);
•The project conservation easement has been reduced to 13.15 acres because of an unsuccessful negotiation
with the adjacent landowner about the powerline relocation. Reach JB1 has been reduced by 56 ft to avoid
the utility easement and all other maps have been updated with the new conservation easement;
•A reduction of wetland credits has occurred due to the ratio reduction from 2:1 to 2.5:1 for WH, WI, WJ,
WL, WM, WN and WO. The total number of WMUs reduced from 1.002 WMUs to 0.977 WMUs.
We look forward to discussing this project with you in more detail as your review progresses.
Sincerely,
Brad Breslow
Regulatory Manager

CESAW-RG/Kichefski March 31, 2020

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

Action ID No. SAW-2018-00094

SUBJECT: Draft Plan Comment Memo for RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Banking
Instrument – Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site

Mac Haupt & Erin Davis - NCDWR:

1. Page 6, Section 3.3 – Regarding the statement that “the area will likely remain in agriculture
use”, were available local government and state transportation planning documents for the
project vicinity reviewed and/or agencies consulted concerning potential future projects?
2. Page 16, Section 3.6 – Was NC WAM completed for existing wetlands? If so, please include
rating sheets. If not, please include wetland determination data sheets previously submitted
for the USACE JD.
3. Page 8, Section 3.5 - There are multiple crossings that propose to retain existing culvert
structures (e.g. JB1, JB6). Please include a brief description of the current condition of these
structures. Inclusion of photos of the structures would also be helpful.
4. Page 17, Section 3.7 – This Project is highly fragmented by crossings, which impacts the
potential functional uplift. Can Hoot & Holler Road be utilized to eliminate the other JB1
culvert crossing? Also, why is a new ford crossing being proposed when the area can be
accessed by going through the upgraded existing ford crossing and then the upgraded culvert
crossing at JB4-B?
5. Page 22, Section 6.1 & Page 31, Table 13
a. JB1 & JB2-B – Based on the IRT Site Visit Memo (2/5/18), Enhancement II at 2.5:1
was agreed upon for both of these reaches. However, 1.5:1 is being proposed. Based
on the scope of work presented, DWR feels 2.5:1 is still the appropriate ratio.
b. JB5-C & JB6-A – Since only spot bank grading (15-16%), a few instream structures,
and one-sided planting is proposed, DWR feels 2.5:1 is a more appropriate ratio.
c. JB7 – Based on scope of work presented, which is similar to JB5-B, DWR feels 5:1 is
a more appropriate ratio.
6. Page 27, Section 6.1 Wetland –
a. In Section 3.6 all the wetlands were described as PEM, with a few trees in WQ and
WV. However, based on Figure 10, eight of the wetland areas (WH through WO) will
only be supplemental planted and not monitored for vegetative success. Without veg
plot data to demonstrate vegetative success, DWR would expect less functional uplift
compared to full planted areas and recommends a ratio of 2.5:1.
b. Proposed spot bank grading along JB4-C and JB6-A could improve floodplain
connectivity and enhance hydrology in abutting wetlands WK and WC. DWR
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
believes installation of wetland gauges in these areas would be beneficial to
demonstrating functional uplift.
7. Page 28, Section 6.2 – Are the alternative livestock watering facility locations known? If so,
what is the minimum anticipated distance of the watering facilities to the project stream?
8. Page 28, Section 6.3 Plant Restoration –
a. Volunteer stems can be counted provided they are native to the site and from the
approved planting list included in the Mitigation Plan. Red maple is not on the
approved planting list and should not be counted toward vegetative success.
However, in certain cases the IRT may allow certain native species not on the
planting list (a low percentage) to be counted towards success.
b. Please note that planting beyond the 2016 IRT Guidance date of March 15th is not
recommended and may result in an extended monitoring period being required.
9. Page 29, Table 12 – Of the bare root species proposed, only two are FAC and none are
FACW. DWR recommends including additional wetland trees (and/or shrubs) for planting in
the wetland enhancement areas. Also, it would be helpful to have a wetland indicator status
column included in the table.
10. Page 29, Section 6.3 Invasives Management - Please amend the first sentence to denote that
treatment of invasive species will be required within the entire easement. Also, please list
existing invasive species that were identified during site reconnaissance.
11. Page 30, Section 6.4 – “Although there is one planting zone, certain targeted species will be
planted in the appropriate target community location.” If there are multiple target
communities for this site, please include types and locations in Section 6.3. At a minimum
DWR would like to see a separate planting zone for the proposed wetland enhancement areas
from the upland stream buffer areas.
12. Page 33, Section 7.2 – See comment #8a above.
13. Page 34, Section 8 – Please revise NC IRT monitoring “template” to guidance (or similar).
14. Page 34, Section 8.2 – Please also include visual monitoring photos at proposed crossings.
15. Page 34, Section 8.5 – DWR recommends treating invasives at a minimum annually rather
than a “case-by-case” basis.
16. Page 36, Table 14 – DWR would prefer quarterly inspection of stage recorders to reduce the
risk of data loss due to instrument malfunction.
17. Page 38, Section 10 – When will sending property owner annual reports not be possible?
18. Figure 1 – DWR requests the stage recorders on JB4-B and JB6-A be shifted upstream closer
to the proposed cross sections.
19. Sheet E1 – Note #7 – Neither brush toe, log vane or log toe are being proposed for this
project. Brushy toes and woody material is also mentioned in Section 4.1 Biology, as well as
in the IRT meeting minutes. If feasible, DWR would like more wood incorporated in the
design and generally prefers brush over log toe structures.
20. Sheet F1 –
a. It appears new fence is proposed to cross the utility easement south of Hoot & Holler
road along JB1, is this correct? Has coordination with the utility company been
conducted?
b. Please show proposed locations of gates for site access by regulatory and stewardship
staff.
Sheet P1 – See Comment #9 and #11 above.

Steve Kichefski – USACE

1. It is recommended to treat pasture grass if not already planned as part of the project.
2. As discussed during the initial site visit, the number of crossings for this project are too high
and sometimes too wide (such as the barn area along JB3) compared to the project
length/uplift. We recommend further reducing of the number of crossings. Also, make sure
the final plan and pcn note detail for each crossing to include: Whether there is an existing
crossing present or it will be a newly proposed crossing, crossing type, its current and
proposed size/length, current and proposed crossing condition (such as appropriately buried
for aquatic life passage, appropriate dimension compared to stream dimensions, etc.),
purpose of crossing for permit evaluation (such as agricultural crossing, residential, etc.) and
pictures of each crossing is recommended to document existing conditions.
3. Make sure that the WRC recommendations are considered for project planning/construction,
especially the trout moratorium.
4. Please consider the USFWS comments in your project planning/construction. Although not
required, the USFWS service has recommended a moratorium with regards to the northern
long-eared bat that “…you avoid any associated tree clearing activities during the maternity
roosting season from May 15-August 15 if possible.”
5. Section 12, page 4: Fertilizing of vegetation is intended to be allowed once at planting and
not in a routine manner. Please refer to the October 2016 guidance on page 6 (item 14) for
reference.
6. Section 3.7, page 17: Under constraints please remove/correct the line about the proximity to
the Taylorsville airport.
7. Section 6.3: Include a list of invasive species identified for treatment within the CE and
provide brief description on presence of those species adjacent but outside the CE.
8. The Corps appreciates efforts to target community types and plant species more characteristic
of that community type. Provide separate planting zone descriptions and species lists
(including wetland indicator status) for the wetland enhancement areas. Are those areas also
targeted as Acidic Cove Forest? Of the species list provided, will most be able to adapt to the
level of hydrology present/expected?
9. Table 15, page 40: It appears that the incorrect credit release table has been included. Refer
to the Oct 2016 guidance for the appropriate table.
10. Multiple stream reaches were proposed with different approaches and ratios than discussed
during the project site visit. Based on the scope of work presented for these reaches some
credit ratios proposed seem more appropriate at different ratios.
a. JB2-B: This reach was changed from an EII to an EI approach and seems to have
minimal work to justify the 1.5:1 ratio EI ratio proposed.
b. JB3-B & JB4-A: These reaches have minimal structures, bank work or planting
done, but the Corps appreciates the additional buffer acquired along the left bank.
Especially for JB4-A to address the active erosion in this area, as discussed during
the site visit.
c. JB4-B: This reach was changed from an EI discussed during the site visit to an R
approach. What changed along this reach to determine the need to rebuild the
single thread channel in place, instead of the heavy left bank work and alternating
benching?
d. JB5-A and JB7: A 4:1 ratio seems more appropriate for both of these reaches
based on the limited uplift proposed from minimal channel work (boulder
cloisters) and supplemental planting. Seems the cattle exclusion will be doing
most of the uplift for these reaches.
e. JB6-A: Although the EI approach proposed was consistent with discussions
during the site visit, the work proposed for channel uplift seems more consistent
with an EII approach at a 2.5:1 ratio.
f. Boulder cloisters are proposed throughout the project to add more bedform
diversity. Take care during construction to ensure that these structures do not
increase lateral instability, especially on some of the narrower reaches.

Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office

1

MEMORANDUM

3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919.209.1062 tel.
919.829.9913 fax
TO: NCIRT
FROM: Kasey Carrere - RES
DATE: May 22nd, 2020
RE: Response to Draft Plan Comment Memo for RES French Broad 05 Umbrella
Mitigation Banking Instrument – Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Action ID No. SAW-2018-00094

Notes:

After an unsuccessful negotiation to relocate the northernmost powerline associated with reach
JB1, the Project conservation easement boundary has shifted 56 feet downstream to avoid the
utility easement altogether. Therefore, the final mitigation plan, figures, and plan sheets have
been updated accordingly. The new easement area is 13.15 acres and the new length of JB1 is
226 LF. The total amount of SMUs for the entire Project reduced from 3,157.333 to 2,835.550
for a total reduction of 321.783 SMUs.

Tables in the Final Mitigation Plan have been renumbered due to the addition of a new table
(Table 8) in response to comments regarding crossings.

Due to revised mitigation approaches (i.e. Enhancement I to Enhancement II) as discussed in the
following comment responses, the proposed number of monitoring cross sections has been
reduced to 12.

Mac Haupt & Erin Davis - NCDWR:

1. Page 6, Section 3.3 – Regarding the statement that “the area will likely remain in agriculture
use”, were available local government and state transportation planning documents for the
project vicinity reviewed and/or agencies consulted concerning potential future projects?
Based on discussions with the landowner, the property outside the easement is planned to
remain in agriculture. No agencies or local government were contacted about other adjacent
parcels.

2

2. Page 16, Section 3.6 – Was NC WAM completed for existing wetlands? If so, please include
rating sheets. If not, please include wetland determination data sheets previously submitted
for the USACE JD.
NC WAM was not performed for existing wetlands; however, 12 wetland determination
data sheets were completed (7 wetland and 5 upland) during the detailed wetland
delineation. These have been included in Appendix B following the PJD Confirmation
Package. Language has been included in Section 3.6 to include this reference.

3. Page 8, Section 3.5 - There are multiple crossings that propose to retain existing culvert
structures (e.g. JB1, JB6). Please include a brief description of the current condition of these
structures. Inclusion of photos of the structures would also be helpful.
Unfortunately, RES does not have photos of the JB1 culvert that is to be retained. We do
have a few photos of the JB6 culvert as well as several others (Appendix C). As you will
see in the photo and design plans, the JB6 culvert has limited cover and the upstream face
has areas of instability that RES plans to stabilize by lining the upstream face of the culvert
with stone and by installing a boulder toe along the left upstream bank. The JB1 culvert to
be retained does not show significant instability; however, the pipe is rusted and has limited
cover. RES has proposed to retain the culvert since it does not show signs of instability and
although it has limited cover it is predominantly used for cattle crossings and is therefore
not regularly subject to large loads. RES has also proposed grade control directly up and
downstream of this crossing to protect the easement and confine any future instability to
the easement break.

4. Page 17, Section 3.7 – This Project is highly fragmented by crossings, which impacts the
potential functional uplift. Can Hoot & Holler Road be utilized to eliminate the other JB1
culvert crossing? Also, why is a new ford crossing being proposed when the area can be
accessed by going through the upgraded existing ford crossing and then the upgraded
culvert crossing at JB4-B?
This ford crossing was requested by the landowner; however, RES was able negotiate the
removal of the ford from the project. The landowner still insists the easement break remain
to provide the option of a crossing in the future.

5. Page 22, Section 6.1 & Page 31, Table 13
a. JB1 & JB2-B – Based on the IRT Site Visit Memo (2/5/18), Enhancement II at 2.5:1
was agreed upon for both of these reaches. However, 1.5:1 is being proposed. Based
on the scope of work presented, DWR feels 2.5:1 is still the appropriate ratio.
The crediting for this reach has been revised to reflect an Enhancement II approach
at 2.5:1.

b. JB5-C & JB6-A – Since only spot bank grading (15-16%), a few instream
structures, and one-sided planting is proposed, DWR feels 2.5:1 is a more
appropriate ratio.
The credit ratio of 1.5:1 was maintained for these reach and the following treatment
changes were made:
- 3 log sills were added to the JB5-C and 2 log sills were added to JB6-A
- All JB5-C stone toe was changed to brush toe and the length of toe protection

3

was increased to 114 lf.
- 94 lf of brush toe was added to JB6-A in addition to the stone toe that was
retained.

c. JB7 – Based on scope of work presented, which is similar to JB5-B, DWR feels 5:1
is a more appropriate ratio.
Based on comment 9d from USACE the credit ratios for JB5-A and JB7 were
reduced to 4:1.

6. Page 27, Section 6.1 Wetland –
a. In Section 3.6 all the wetlands were described as PEM, with a few trees in WQ and
WK. However, based on Figure 10, eight of the wetland areas (WH through WO) will
only be supplemental planted and not monitored for vegetative success. Without veg
plot data to demonstrate vegetative success, DWR would expect less functional uplift
compared to full planted areas and recommends a ratio of 2.5:1.
It is true that all wetlands (minus WQ and WK, which have a few trees) are currently
PEM and do not contain trees. As for WK, which is 0.220 acres, a portion of the area
is completely devoid of trees and will be fully planted as indicated by the planted area
in Figure 10. Currently, the rest of WK only contains a few yellow birch trees, but the
area will still be planted, though at a slightly lesser density. With that said, RES fully
intends to monitor vegetation in WK with a vegetation plot, as is indicated in Figure
10 and believes that a 2 to 1 ratio is still justified.

As for WH through WO (minus WK), individually, they are mostly very small and
occur as toeslope seeps, and collectively, only make up a total of 0.251 acres. It is true
that these areas will only be planted with supplemental trees and that detailed
vegetation may not be collected for each wetland. However, as is typical across all
projects, RES will visually monitor the entire site each year and any areas with low-
stem density will be documented and may warrant adaptive management (replanting).
With that said, RES will accept the reduced ratio of 2.5 to 1 in wetlands WH, WI, WJ,
WL, WM, WN, and WO due to potential lack of detailed vegetation monitoring.
Regardless, it is noteworthy that cattle exclusion will certainly provide great functional
uplift in all wetlands within the Project. Section 6.1 has been revised to discuss the
reduced crediting in these wetlands. With these changes, the new wetland credit total
is 0.977 WMU. Accordingly, the Final Mitigation Plan has been updated throughout.

b. Proposed spot bank grading along JB4-C and JB6-A could improve floodplain
connectivity and enhance hydrology in abutting wetlands WK and WC. DWR
believes installation of wetland gauges in these areas would be beneficial to
demonstrating functional uplift.
RES does expect these wetlands to benefit from improved hydrology as a byproduct of
stream restoration and enhancement activities; however, as outlined in Section 6.2,
RES does not intend to monitor hydrology, nor have wetland success depend on it.

4

7. Page 28, Section 6.2 – Are the alternative livestock watering facility locations known? If
so, what is the minimum anticipated distance of the watering facilities to the project stream?
Yes. The livestock watering facility will be installed approximately 100 feet west
of JB3-A outside of the conservation easement.

8. Page 28, Section 6.3 Plant Restoration –
a. Volunteer stems can be counted provided they are native to the site and from
the approved planting list included in the Mitigation Plan. Red maple is not on
the approved planting list and should not be counted toward vegetative success.
However, in certain cases the IRT may allow certain native species not on the
planting list (a low percentage) to be counted towards success.
Red maple has been added to the planting list as an appropriate volunteer
species but will not be planted. As explained in Section 6.3, red maple is an
appropriate species for the target community and volunteers may be counted
toward success as long as they do not outcompete the other proposed species.

b. Please note that planting beyond the 2016 IRT Guidance date of March 15th is
not recommended and may result in an extended monitoring period being
required.
It is RES’ full intention to plant in the winter, but with the trout moratorium
from Jan. 1st – April 15th, construction and planting timing will be challenging.
However, based on conversations with WRC, planting activities may occur
during the trout moratorium.

9. Page 29, Table 12 – Of the bare root species proposed, only two are FAC and none are
FACW. DWR recommends including additional wetland trees (and/or shrubs) for planting
in the wetland enhancement areas. Also, it would be helpful to have a wetland indicator
status column included in the table.
Upon further examination of Schafale’s NC community types and the Project site’s
characteristics, especially floodplain wetlands, the target community type has been changed
to Montane Alluvial Forest (Small Stream Subtype). This community incorporates much of
the Acidic Cove Forest species with the inclusion of floodplain and wetland species typical
of small mountain stream systems. Therefore, the planting plan has been updated
accordingly and now includes floodplain/wetland species: American sycamore (FACW),
river birch (FACW), and hazel alder (OBL) have been added, while sweet birch, sugar
maple, and blackgum have been removed. Also, a column for wetland indicator status has
been added to the table.

10. Page 29, Section 6.3 Invasives Management - Please amend the first sentence to denote
that treatment of invasive species will be required within the entire easement. Also, please
list existing invasive species that were identified during site reconnaissance.
The first sentence has been revised accordingly. Also, as mentioned in Section 3.2, the
only existing invasive species currently identified onsite is multiflora rose; however,
Section 6.3 has also been revised to mention this species again.

5

11. Page 30, Section 6.4 – “Although there is one planting zone, certain targeted species will be
planted in the appropriate target community location.” If there are multiple target
communities for this site, please include types and locations in Section 6.3. At a minimum
DWR would like to see a separate planting zone for the proposed wetland enhancement areas
from the upland stream buffer areas.
Upon further examination of Schafale’s NC community types and the Project site’s
characteristics, especially floodplain wetlands, the target community type has been changed
to Montane Alluvial Forest (Small Stream Subtype). This community incorporates much of
the Acidic Cove Forest species with the inclusion of floodplain and wetland species typical
of small mountain stream systems. Therefore, the planting plan has been updated
accordingly and now includes floodplain/wetland species (i.e. American sycamore, river
birch, and hazel alder). RES fully believes that this is the appropriate community type and
that this diverse mix of species will do well throughout the site, including the wetland areas,
thus justifying one “planting zone.” The mitigation plan has been revised accordingly
throughout. Additionally, in Section 6.4 the sentence “Although there is one planting zone,
certain targeted species will be planted in the appropriate target community location.” has
been removed to avoid confusion, as the new planting plan is designed to incorporate the
entire site.

12. Page 33, Section 7.2 – See comment #8a above.
See #8a response.

13. Page 34, Section 8 – Please revise NC IRT monitoring “template” to guidance (or similar).
The first sentence has been revised to say, “Annual monitoring data will be reported according
to NC IRT monitoring guidance.”

14. Page 34, Section 8.2 – Please also include visual monitoring photos at proposed crossings.
RES agrees to take photos at each crossing during monitoring. To clarify, the following
sentence has been included in Section 8.2, “Specifically, fixed image locations will occur at
each monitoring device; including each cross section, stage recorder, and vegetation plot, as
well as at each crossing.”

15. Page 34, Section 8.5 – DWR recommends treating invasives at a minimum annually rather
than a “case-by-case” basis.
RES agrees to treat invasives, when present, annually. The last sentence of Section 8.5 has
been revised to say, “Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and treated annually so
that none become dominant or alter the desired community structure of the Project.”

16. Page 36, Table 14 – DWR would prefer quarterly inspection of stage recorders to reduce the
risk of data loss due to instrument malfunction.
RES agrees that it is best practice to download stage recorders quarterly, and it is our full intent
to do so. Table 14 now Table 15 has been updated accordingly.

17. Page 38, Section 10 – When will sending property owner annual reports not be possible?
This language has been removed from the sentence in Section 10.

6

18. Figure 1 – DWR requests the stage recorders on JB4-B and JB6-A be shifted upstream closer
to the proposed cross sections.
RES believes this comment was meant for Figure 10 (Monitoring Plan). Thus, the proposed
stage recorders on JB4-B and JB6-A have been moved upstream closer to the proposed cross
sections.

19. Sheet E1 – Note #7 – Neither brush toe, log vane or log toe are being proposed for this project.
Brushy toes and woody material is also mentioned in Section 4.1 Biology, as well as in the IRT
meeting minutes. If feasible, DWR would like more wood incorporated in the design and
generally prefers brush over log toe structures.
Most rock structures (stone toe and rock step pools) have been changed to wood structures
(brush toe and log step pools). In addition to this change, a log vane is proposed on Reach JB2
at station 4+37. Also, please note that while not always shown in plan view the log sill detail
requires brush toe be installed in the downstream pool.

20. Sheet F1 –
a. It appears new fence is proposed to cross the utility easement south of Hoot & Holler
road along JB1, is this correct? Has coordination with the utility company been
conducted?
RES is currently in coordination with the utility companies and has proposed a gate at
the power easement to provide access. Proposed gates are shown on sheet F1.

b. Please show proposed locations of gates for site access by regulatory and
stewardship staff
Proposed gate locations can be found on sheet F1.

21. Sheet P1 – See Comment #9 and #11 above.
Sheet P1 has been updated to reflect the new planting approach outlined in the responses above.

Steve Kichefski – USACE

1. It is recommended to treat pasture grass if not already planned as part of the project. As
discussed during the initial site visit, the number of crossings for this project are too high
and sometimes too wide (such as the barn area along JB3) compared to the project
length/uplift. We recommend further reducing of the number of crossings. Also, make sure
the final plan and pcn note detail for each crossing to include: Whether there is an existing
crossing present or it will be a newly proposed crossing, crossing type, its current and
proposed size/length, current and proposed crossing condition (such as appropriately buried
for aquatic life passage, appropriate dimension compared to stream dimensions, etc.),
purpose of crossing for permit evaluation (such as agricultural crossing, residential, etc.)
and pictures of each crossing is recommended to document existing conditions.
RES intends to treat pasture grasses prior to construction. The sentence “Prior to
construction activities, existing pasture grasses will be treated.,” has been added to the Soil
Restoration section within Section 6.3 to clarify. As discussed in the response to NCDWR
comment #4, RES has removed a proposed ford on JB5 but the landowner did not agree to

7

remove the easement break.

A new table (Table 8) has been added to Section 3.7 of the mitigation plan to summarize
the existing and proposed crossings on the site. The plan and profile geometry of these
crossings can be found on the design plans in Appendix D and are also identified on Figures
8 & 9. Additionally, available photos of existing crossings have been added to Appendix
C and are referenced in Section 3.7.

2. Make sure that the WRC recommendations are considered for project
planning/construction, especially the trout moratorium.
RES will adhere to WRC recommendations. No construction is anticipated to occur during
the trout moratorium.

3. Please consider the USFWS comments in your project planning/construction. Although not
required, the USFWS service has recommended a moratorium with regards to the northern
long-eared bat that “…you avoid any associated tree clearing activities during the maternity
roosting season from May 15-August 15 if possible.”
RES will make its best effort to adhere to the NLEB tree clearing moratorium as much as is
practicable. However, with the trout moratorium from Jan. 1st – April 15th, construction and
planting timing will be challenging. However, RES will ultimately find an appropriate
timeline.

4. Section 12, page 41: Fertilizing of vegetation is intended to be allowed once at planting and
not in a routine manner. Please refer to the October 2016 guidance on page 6 (item 14) for
reference.
Fertilization will not be performed on a routine basis, and this reference has been removed
from Table 16, Section 12.

5. Section 3.7, page 17: Under constraints please remove/correct the line about the proximity
to the Taylorsville airport.
Sentence has been removed.

6. Section 6.3: Include a list of invasive species identified for treatment within the CE and
provide brief description on presence of those species adjacent but outside the CE.
As mentioned in Section 3.2, the only existing invasive species currently identified onsite
is multiflora rose; however, Section 6.3 has also been revised to mention the presence of
this species within and adjacent to the site. Currently, this the only species RES anticipates
needing to treat; however, as is typical across all projects, any nuisance invasive species
will be monitored and treated as they appear.

7. The Corps appreciates efforts to target community types and plant species more
characteristic of that community type. Provide separate planting zone descriptions and
species lists (including wetland indicator status) for the wetland enhancement areas. Are
those areas also targeted as Acidic Cove Forest? Of the species list provided, will most be
able to adapt to the level of hydrology present/expected?
Upon further examination of Schafale’s NC community types and the Project site’s

8

characteristics, especially floodplain wetlands, the target community type has been changed
to Montane Alluvial Forest (Small Stream Subtype). This community incorporates much of
the Acidic Cove Forest species with the inclusion of floodplain and wetland species typical
of small mountain stream systems. Therefore, the planting plan has been updated
accordingly and now includes floodplain/wetland species: American sycamore (FACW),
river birch (FACW), and hazel alder (OBL) have been added, while sweet birch, sugar
maple, and blackgum have been removed. Also, a column for wetland indicator status has
been added to the table.

RES fully believes that this is the appropriate community type and that this diverse mix of
species will do well throughout the site, including the wetland areas, thus justifying one
“planting zone.” The mitigation plan has been revised accordingly throughout.
Additionally, in Section 6.4 the sentence “Although there is one planting zone, certain
targeted species will be planted in the appropriate target community location.” has been
removed to avoid confusion, as the new planting plan is designed to incorporate the entire
site.

8. Table 15, page 40: It appears that the incorrect credit release table has been included. Refer
to the Oct 2016 guidance for the appropriate table.
The credit release table has been corrected.

9. Multiple stream reaches were proposed with different approaches and ratios than discussed
during the project site visit. Based on the scope of work presented for these reaches some
credit ratios proposed seem more appropriate at different ratios.
a. JB2-B: This reach was changed from an EII to an EI approach and seems to have
minimal work to justify the 1.5:1 ratio EI ratio proposed.
Reach has been changed to an EII approach

b. JB3-B & JB4-A: These reaches have minimal structures, bank work or planting
done, but the Corps appreciates the additional buffer acquired along the left bank.
Especially for JB4-A to address the active erosion in this area, as discussed during
the site visit.
Due to steep slopes the bank and slope stabilization proposed for both reaches will
require significant work well beyond what is typically required.

c. JB4-B: This reach was changed from an EI discussed during the site visit to an R
approach. What changed along this reach to determine the need to rebuild the single
thread channel in place, instead of the heavy left bank work and alternating
benching?
The channel bed of this reach is currently driven by backwater effects from the
partially functioning, undersized 24” culvert. When RES replaces this with a buried
48” culvert there will be a drastic change in the hydraulics of the channel which
would lead to bed instability even if the banks have been graded back.

9

d. JB5-A and JB7: A 4:1 ratio seems more appropriate for both of these reaches based
on the limited uplift proposed from minimal channel work (boulder cloisters) and
supplemental planting. Seems the cattle exclusion will be doing most of the uplift
for these reaches.
Both reaches have been changed to crediting ratio of 4:1.

e. JB6-A: Although the EI approach proposed was consistent with discussions
during the site visit, the work proposed for channel uplift seems more consistent
with an EII approach at a 2.5:1 ratio.
The credit ratio of 1.5:1 was maintained for this reach and the following treatment
changes were made:
- 2 log sills were added to the reach
- 94ft of brush toe was added to the reach.

f. Boulder cloisters are proposed throughout the project to add more bedform
diversity. Take care during construction to ensure that these structures do not
increase lateral instability, especially on some of the narrower reaches.
RES will monitor placement of boulder clusters to ensure they do not promote
increased lateral instability
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).

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN

Puncheon Fork Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Madison County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID: SAW-2018-00094

French Broad River Basin
HUC 06010105

Prepared by:

Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1055

May 2020

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan ii May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Table of Contents
 PROJECT INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1 
 Project Components ................................................................................................................ 1 
 Project Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 1 
 WATERSHED APPROACH ............................................................................................................... 2 
 Site Selection ........................................................................................................................... 2 
 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 4 
 Watershed Summary Information ........................................................................................... 4 
Drainage Area and Land Cover ........................................................................................................... 4 
Surface Water Classification ................................................................................................................ 4 
 Landscape Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 4 
Physiography and Topography ............................................................................................................ 4 
Soils .............................................................................................................................................. 5 
Existing Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 6 
 Land Use – Historic, Current, and Future ............................................................................... 6 
 Regulatory Considerations ...................................................................................................... 6 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass ......................................... 6 
Environmental Screening and Documentation .................................................................................... 6 
Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................................... 6 
Trout Waters ........................................................................................................................................ 7 
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 7 
 Reach Summary Information .................................................................................................. 8 
Existing Channel Morphology ............................................................................................................. 9 
Channel Classification ....................................................................................................................... 16 
 Existing Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 16 
 Potential Constraints ............................................................................................................. 17 
 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ............................................................................................. 19 
 Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements ............................................................. 19 
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................... 19 
Hydraulic ........................................................................................................................................... 19 
Geomorphology ................................................................................................................................. 19 
Physicochemical ................................................................................................................................ 20 
Biology ............................................................................................................................................ 20 
 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................. 21 
 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ........................................................................................................... 23 
 Design Parameters ................................................................................................................. 23 
Stream Restoration Approach ............................................................................................................ 23 
Wetland Enhancement Approach ...................................................................................................... 28 
 Sediment Control Measures .................................................................................................. 29 
 Vegetation and Planting Plan ................................................................................................ 29 
Plant Community Restoration ............................................................................................................ 29 
On-Site Invasive Species Management ............................................................................................. 30 
Soil Restoration .................................................................................................................................. 31 
 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 31 
 Determination of Credits ....................................................................................................... 31 
 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 34 
 Stream Restoration Success Criteria ..................................................................................... 34 
Bankfull Events .................................................................................................................................. 34 
Cross Sections .................................................................................................................................... 34 
Digital Image Stations ....................................................................................................................... 34 
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan iii May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

 Vegetation and Wetland Success Criteria ............................................................................. 34 
 MONITORING PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 35 
 As-Built Survey ..................................................................................................................... 35 
 Visual Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 35 
 Hydrology Events ................................................................................................................. 35 
 Cross Sections ....................................................................................................................... 35 
 Vegetation Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 35 
 Scheduling/Reporting ............................................................................................................ 36 
 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................................................................. 38 
 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................................... 39 
 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................... 40 
 MAINTENANCE PLAN ................................................................................................................... 42 
 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ........................................................................................................... 43 
 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 44 

List of Tables
Table 1. Puncheon Fork Project Components Summary ............................................................................ 1 
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information .................................................................................. 3 
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information..................................................................................... 4 
Table 4. Mapped Soil Series ....................................................................................................................... 5 
Table 5. Regulatory Considerations ............................................................................................................ 7 
Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ............................................................................. 8 
Table 7. Summary of Stream Parameters .................................................................................................. 16 
Table 8. Crossings ..................................................................................................................................... 18 
Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements ...................................................................................... 22 
Table 10. Peak Flow Comparison ............................................................................................................. 27 
Table 11. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses .......................................................... 28 
Table 12. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities ............................................................... 28 
Table 13. Proposed Plant List ................................................................................................................... 30 
Table 14. Mitigation Credits ..................................................................................................................... 32 
Table 15. Monitoring Requirements ......................................................................................................... 37 
Table 16. Credit Release Schedule ........................................................................................................... 41 
Table 17. Maintenance Plan ...................................................................................................................... 42 

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan iv May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – USGS Map
Figure 3 – Landowner Map
Figure 4 – Landuse Map
Figure 5 – Soils Map
Figure 6 – Historical Aerials Map
Figure 7 – FEMA Map
Figure 8 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 9 – Conceptual Plan Map
Figure 10 – Monitoring Plan Map

Appendices

Appendix A - Site Protection Instrument
Appendix B - Baseline Information and Correspondence
Appendix C - Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Information
Appendix D - Plan Sheets

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 1 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Project Components
The Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project (Project) (SAW-2018-00094), a project within the RES French
Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, is located within a rural watershed in Madison County, North Carolina
approximately five miles northwest of Swiss, NC. The Project lies within the French Broad River Basin,
and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 060101051001 (Figure
1). The Project is being designed to help meet compensatory mitigation requirements for stream and
wetland impacts in the HUC 06010105. The Project is in the Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
of the Blue Ridge ecoregion.

The Project area is comprised of a 13.15-acre easement involving Puncheon Fork and three of its unnamed
tributaries as well as a segment of Hampton Creek, which all drain into Upper Big Laurel Creek and,
eventually, the French Broad River. The stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in
Table 1 and Figure 9. The Project is accessible from Puncheon Fork Road. The GPS coordinates of the
site are 35.960276°N, -82.533400°W.
Project Outcomes
The streams and wetlands proposed for restoration and enhancement have been significantly impacted by
long-term agricultural practices, specifically livestock husbandry, which has contributed to degraded stream
channels and the lack of riparian wetland and buffer vegetation throughout the Project. Proposed
improvements to the Project will help meet the river basin needs expressed in the 2009 DMS French Broad
River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) Report as well as ecological improvements to the riparian
corridor within the easement.

Through stream restoration and enhancement and wetland enhancement, the Project presents 5,599 LF of
proposed stream, generating 2,835.550 Cold Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and 1.993 acres of wetlands,
generating 0.977 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU) (Table 1). The February 5, 2018 French Broad
Umbrella Bank IRT Meeting Minutes were carefully considered in the preparation of this Mitigation Plan.
(Appendix B).

Table 1. Puncheon Fork Project Components Summary
Stream Mitigation
Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Cold SMU
Restoration 423 1:1 423.000
Enhancement I 2,022 1.5:1 1,348.000
Enhancement II 2,057 2.5:1 822.800
Enhancement II 671 4:1 167.750
Enhancement III 370 5:1 74.000
Total 5,543 2,835.550
Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Approach Area (acres) Ratio WMU
Enhancement 1.742 2:1 0.875
Enhancement 0.251 2.5:1 0.102
Total 1.993 0.977
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 2 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

WATERSHED APPROACH
The DMS French Broad RBRP Report identified several restoration needs for the entire French Broad River
Basin, as well as for HUC 06010105. The Project is within the Upper Big Laurel Creek watershed (HUC
060101051001) and will provide mitigation credits to offset unavoidable impacts to cold stream resources
within the French Broad 05 River Basin (HUC 06010105). The Upper Big Laurel Creek watershed exhibits
both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration due to the watershed
encompassing cultivated cropland, agricultural land and increasing urban areas.

Goals outlined in the 2009 RBRP for the basin include:

1. Implement wetland and stream restoration projects that reduce sources of sediment and nutrients
by restoring riparian buffer vegetation, stabilizing banks, excluding livestock, and restoring
natural geomorphology, especially in headwater streams;

2. Restore and protect habitat for priority fish, mussel, snail, and crayfish species in the basin;

3. Cooperate with land trusts and resource agencies to help leverage federal and state grant funding
for watershed restoration and conservation; and

4. Protect high quality habitats, especially those prioritized by the Natural Heritage Program as
Significant Natural Heritage Areas.

Goals outlined in the 2009 RBRP specific for the French Broad 05 River (06010105) include:

5. Focus restoration efforts in the Mud Creek and South Hominy Creek LWP areas; and

6. Work with local partners to improve management of stormwater runoff, controlling both
stormwater volume and pollutants, and promote low impact development techniques to lessen
impacts of new development, especially in the expanding areas of Asheville, Black Mountain,
Fletcher, and Hendersonville.
Site Selection
The Project will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the RBRP by stabilizing eroding
stream banks, increasing floodplain access, reducing sediment and nutrient loads, and restoring and
enhancing forested wetlands and buffers along streams. 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 two of the six goals outlined in the 2009 French Broad RBRP. Goal 1 will be
addressed by reconstructing natural stream channels, stabilizing eroding stream banks, installing instream
structures, restoring and enhancing forested buffers and wetlands, and excluding livestock from streams
and wetlands. The Project will also protect and improve high quality habitats, specifically the aquatic
habitats of Puncheon Fork which has been designated as Trout Water (Tr) and Outstanding Resource Water
(ORW) by the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), by restoring and enhancing streams and
establishing a permanent conservation easement (Goal 4).

The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes parcels in
Madison County with the following ownership: (Table 2 & Figure 3). The Wilmington District
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 3 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Conservation Easement model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instrument. Once
finalized, a copy of the land protection instrument(s) will be included in Appendix A.

Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record Tax Parcel ID# (PIN)
James Bertran Burnette
9852-43-3188
9852-42-5291
9852-51-1453
9852-50-5995
(Madison County)
John K. and Marsha McKay 9852-31-9900
(Madison County)

Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX), acting as the Bank Sponsor, will establish a Conservation
Easement, and will monitor the Project for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation Plan provides
detailed information regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual monitoring
activities, for review and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). Upon approval of the Project
by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S). UP2S will be responsible for
periodic inspection of the Project to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the
deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.

The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the Conservation Easement will allow for the implementation of an
initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the Bank
Sponsor. The Conservation Easement will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance of
the Project during the initial monitoring phase. These activities will be conducted in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the approved Mitigation Plan for the Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project. The
Puncheon Fork Project will be authorized under the RES French Broad Umbrella Mitigation Bank made
and entered into by EBX, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NC Division of Water Resources.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 4 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Watershed Summary Information
Drainage Area and Land Cover
The Project area is comprised of Puncheon Fork and three of its unnamed tributaries as well as a segment
of Hampton Creek, which all drain into Upper Big Laurel Creek and, eventually, the French Broad River.
The total drainage area for the Project is 1,240 acres (1.94 mi2) (Table 3): The drainage area of Reach JB1
is 122 acres (0.19 mi2); Reach JB2 is 112 acres (0.17 mi2); Reach JB3 is 257 acres (0.40 mi2); Reach JB4
is 35 acres (0.05 mi2); Reach JB5 is 334 acres (0.51 mi2); Reach JB6 is 1,240 acres (1.94 mi2); and Reach
JB7 has an indiscernible drainage area because it is predominantly groundwater driven. Primary land use
within the drainage area is forest (86%), with localized areas of development (6%), pasture (6%), and paved
and unpaved roads (2%) (Figure 4). Historic and current land-use within the immediate Project area have
allowed cattle direct access to the streams. These activities have negatively impacted both water quality
and stream stability in Project streams.
Surface Water Classification
Puncheon Fork and its receiving waters have been classified by NCDWR as Class C, Trout Waters (Tr),
and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). Class C waters are protected for uses such as secondary
recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, 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. Trout waters is a supplemental classification intended to protect freshwaters which
have conditions which shall sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout on a year-
round basis. ORW are a subset of High Quality Waters intended to protect unique and special waters having
excellent water quality and being of exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance.
Puncheon Fork has an excellent bioclassification rating by DWR and is designated as public mountain trout
water by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).

Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information

Landscape Characteristics
Physiography and Topography
The Project is in the Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains level IV ecoregion within the Blue Ridge
level III ecoregion. This region of high elevation mountains consists of primarily Precambrian-age igneous
and high-grade metamorphic rocks. The crystalline rock types are mostly gneiss and schist, covered by
well-drained, acidic, loamy soils. Some small areas of mafic and ultramafic rocks also occur, producing
more basic soils. Elevations of this rough, dissected region are generally 1,200-4,500 feet. The southern
part of the region is wetter than the north. It is mostly forested, with chestnut oak (and formerly American
chestnut) dominating on most slopes and ridges. There are a few small areas of pasture, apple orchards,
Level IV Ecoregion 66d – Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
River Basin French Broad
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 06010105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 12-digit 060101051001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 06010105130010
DWR Sub-basin 04-03-04
DWR Surface Water Classification C; Tr, ORW
Project Drainage Area (acres) 1,240
Percent Impervious Area <1%
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 5 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Fraser fir Christmas tree farms, or minor cropland (Griffith et al. 2002). The topography of the project area
consists of steep mountainsides with relatively open valleys with elevations ranging from approximately
3,528 feet to 3,714 feet.
Soils
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey shows several mapping units across
the Project. Map units include six soil series. These soil series are described below and summarized in
Table 4.

Project soils within the Project easement are mapped by the NRCS as Ela loam, Tate loam, Toecane-
Tusquitee complex, and Buladean-Chestnut complex (Figure 5). Ela loam makes up approximately 20
percent of the easement and is very poorly drained and found on depressions on floodplains at zero to two
percent slopes. Tate loam makes up 25 percent of the easement area and is well drained and found on fans,
drainageways, and coves at two to 15 percent slopes. Toecane-Tusquitee complex makes up approximately
53 percent of the easement area and consists of both Toecane and Tusquitee soil series. Both of these series
range from bouldery to very bouldery, are well drained, and found on fans, coves, and drainageways on
mountain slopes with anywhere from eight to 30 percent slopes. Buladean-Chestnut complex makes up
only two percent of the site, specifically located on a steep, denuded slope, and consists of both Buladean
and Chestnut soil series. Both of these series are stony, well drained, and found on ridges and mountains
slopes with 30 to 50 percent slopes.

Table 4. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Percent
Hydric
Drainage
Class
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Landscape
Setting
EfA
Ela loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes,
frequently flooded
75% Very Poorly A/D Depressions on
floodplains
TaB Tate loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes 0% Well C Fans, coves, and
drainageways
TaC Tate loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes 0% Well B Fans, coves, and
drainageways
TrC
Toecane-Tusquitee
complex, 8 to 15
percent slopes,
bouldery
2% Well A
Fans, coves, and
drainageways on
mountain slopes
TsD
Toecane-Tusquitee
complex, 15 to 30
percent slopes, very
bouldery
0% Well A
Fans, coves, and
drainageways on
mountain slopes
BnE
Buladean-Chestnut
complex, basin, 30 to
50 percent slopes,
stony
0% Well A/B Ridges, mountain
slopes
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 6 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Existing Vegetation
Vegetation around the unbuffered reaches of the Project tributaries are primarily composed of pasture
grasses and scattered trees. All reaches have been grazed by livestock, including forested riparian areas,
and thus lack a well-developed understory and shrub strata. Dominant canopy species within the forested
riparian areas across the site include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), eastern hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis), eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), northern catalpa (Catalpa speciose), northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis). Understory species include, almost exclusively,
rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum). Though highly disturbed, herbaceous species include fescue
grass (Festuca sp.) and common rush (Juncus effuses). Invasive species, specifically multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), is also present in some areas.
Land Use – Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery and landowner interviews indicate that the Project has been used extensively for
agricultural purposes, and that the location of the streams have not changed in at least 63 years (Figure 6).

Currently the area remains in an agricultural community with neighboring forested property. Several
watershed characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and soil parameters have been
modified. Livestock currently have access to all stream reaches and are actively degrading the channels and
vegetation. Riparian buffers range from mature and wide to either very sparse, narrow, or non-existent. Soil
structure and surface texture have been altered from long-term active grazing.

The future land use for the Project area will include 13.15 acres of conservation easement that will be
protected in perpetuity. The Project easement will have 5,543 linear feet of functioning streams, a minimum
30-foot riparian buffer, 1.993 acres of forested wetland, and will exclude livestock with fencing. Outside
the Project, the area will likely remain in agricultural use.
Regulatory Considerations
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, both Puncheon Fork and
Hampton Creek are located within the mapped FEMA 100-year floodplain; however, no regulated floodway
is mapped (FEMA 2018) (Figure 7). A FEMA No-Rise Certification and Madison County Flood Plain
Development Permit will be required for this project as currently designed. No hydrologic trespass will
result from this project.
Environmental Screening and Documentation
To ensure that the project meets environmental screening, scoping letters were sent to the regulatory
agencies of the IRT (Appendix B).
Threatened and Endangered Species
The USFWS database (updated 27 June 2018) lists one threatened and one endangered species for Madison
County, North Carolina: Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) and Gray bay (Myotis
grisescens). Potential habitat for these bats may exist on site; however, no species have been observed to
date.

In addition to the USFWS database, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) GIS database was consulted
(May 2, 2019) 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
threatened or endangered species within a one-mile radius of the Project.

A letter was sent to the USFWS on May 2, 2019 requesting review and comment of possible issues with
respect to threatened and endangered species, and the USFWS’ Information for Planning and Consultation
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 7 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

(IPaC) system was used to conduct an online NLEB consultation on May 10, 2019. The NLEB online
consultation process generated a consistency letter that determined, “that any take of the northern long-
eared bat that may occur as a result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule.” Also,
RES received a letter from USFWS on May 21, 2019 that concurred with the consistency letter, but
recommended no tree clearing during the summer roosting season from May 15 through August 15, if
possible. USFWS further concluded that no other impacts to federally protected species are anticipated as
a result of the proposed project. All this correspondence is provided in Appendix B.
Trout Waters
As mentioned in Section 3.1, DWR has designated Puncheon Fork as Trout Water. Therefore, in accordance
with the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, a variance request will be submitted to the Land Quality
Section of the NC Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources in order to encroach on the designated
trout buffer zone during Project land-disturbing activities. This request will be submitted before the erosion
and sediment control plan is submitted.

Also, the NCWRC has designated Puncheon Fork as Hatchery Supported Trout Waters. Upon consultation
with NCWRC regarding fish and wildlife associated with the Project, NCWRC requested that Project
construction activities should be avoided during the trout moratorium period of January 1 to April 15 in
order to minimize impacts to Rainbow Trout reproduction. This correspondence is included in Appendix
B.
Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed
February 26, 2018) 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. On February 28, 2018 the SHPO
responded to the public notice (from January 29, 2018), stating that there will be no effect on historic
resources. Documentation is included in Appendix B.

Table 5. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes No Appendix B
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes No Appendix B
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix B
National Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes No Appendix B
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Yes Yes Appendix B
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act Yes No To be completed post-approval
Magnuson Stevens Act - Essential Fisheries
Habitat No N/A N/A

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 8 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Reach Summary Information
The Project area is comprised of a single easement area along Puncheon Fork (JB1, JB3, JB5, and JB6) and
three of its unnamed tributaries (JB2, JB4, and JB7) as well as a short segment of Hampton Creek (Upper
portion of JB6). The Project is split into fourteen reaches (Table 6; Figures 8, 9). Results of the preliminary
data collections are presented in Table 6. Morphological parameters are located in Appendix C.

Table 6. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach Drainage
Area (ac)
ABKF 1
(ft2)
BKF
Width
(ft)
BKF
Mean
Depth
(ft)
Width:Depth
Ratio
Bank
Height
Ratio
Entrenchment
Ratio Sinuosity Slope
(ft/ft)
JB1 122 3.5 8.4 0.4 20.0 1.2 1.5 1.04 0.060
JB2-A 100 2.5 4.9 0.5 9.6 2.7 1.9 1.08 0.066
JB2-B 112 2.3 4.6 0.5 9.2 1.4 2.1 1.04 0.066
JB3-A 254 3.4 5.0 0.7 7.5 2.3 2.5 1.09 0.043
JB3-B 257 3.8 6.2 0.6 10.2 1.5 1.2 1.07 0.043
JB4-A 22 0.7 2.9 0.2 12.5 3.8 1.6 1.09 0.090
JB4-B 29 1.5 3.3 0.5 7.1 2.1 1.1 1.09 0.074
JB4-C 35 1.9 4.5 0.4 10.3 1.9 1.4 1.15 0.045
JB5-A 271 8.0 10.0 0.8 12.4 1.4 2.5 1.08 0.043
JB5-B 324 8.2 12.3 0.7 18.5 2.2 3.4 1.02 0.030
JB5-C 334 12.5 15.6 0.8 19.5 1.1 >2.2 1.10 0.034
JB6-A 876 6.6 11.6 0.6 20.5 1.5 2.1 1.12 0.027
JB6-B 1240 7.0 11.2 0.6 18.0 1.5 2.1 1.08 0.022
JB7 N/A 1.6 5.6 0.3 19.7 2.2 1.5 1.06 0.032
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)
Note: These calculations are based on measured riffle cross sections

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 9 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Existing Channel Morphology
JB1
Reach JB1 begins at the northern limits of the project and flows south under Hoot and Holler Lane
and two additional farm crossings to its confluence with JB2. The reach is a B-type channel that
exhibits a large width to depth ratio upstream of Hoot and Holler Lane. The channel narrows to pass
through the 24” roadway culvert and maintains a width to depth ratio around 10 for the remainder of
the reach. The channel valley is moderately confined with a floodplain terrace found along the left
bank thought out the reach. The channel is subjected to continuous stress from livestock access;
however, much of the bed and banks are stable. Several knick points were observed downstream of
Hoot and Holler Lane but none appeared to be actively eroding. The buffer is non-existent for this
reach except for the right bank along the first 150 feet of the reach.

Reach JB1
Upstream of Hoot and Holler Lane

Reach JB1
Downstream of Hoot and Holler Lane

JB2
Reach JB2 begins in the northwestern portions of the project and flows southeast through an existing
farm crossing to its confluence with JB1. The reach begins just downstream of a perched private
drive ford crossing. This B-type channel is mildly entrenched, particularly the first 200 feet when
the reach is adjacent to the roadway fill slope of Hoot and Holler Lane. The channel lacks any real
buffer and is subjected to constant cattle pressure. Despite these stressors the channel appears stable
with limited erosion.

Reach JB2-A
Looking upstream at the private drive crossing
Reach JB2-B
Looking upstream

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 10 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

JB3
Reach JB3 begins downstream of the confluence of JB1 and JB2. The reach flows south paralleling
Puncheon Fork Road to its confluence with JB5. This channel is divided into two distinct sections
by a 5-foot headcut near the middle of the reach.

JB3-A
The upstream section, JB3-A, is a C-type channel that exhibits adequate floodplain attachment along
the right bank, while the left bank is impeded by the fill slope of Puncheon Fork Road. The channel
bed is stable with diverse bedform. The banks are intermittently bare and eroding due to cattle
pressure and limited buffer.

Reach JB3-A
Looking downstream
Reach JB3-A
Looking upstream

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 11 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

JB3-B
JB3-B, the section downstream of the headcut is an incised F-type channel with limited floodplain
connectivity. Although the channel is incised the bed is stabilized by the gravel substrate. The
banks are intermittently bare and eroding due to cattle pressure and limited buffer. A recreational
area, including a small pond is in the right overbank area and the fill slope of Puncheon Fork Road
is located along the left bank. Bank erosion has caused a large tree to fall from the left bank, just
downstream of the recreational area, creating a mid-channel debris jam which is promoting further
bank erosion.

Reach JB3-B
Looking downstream

Reach JB3-B
Looking upstream at the headcut

JB4
Reach JB4 begins in the western limits of the project and flows through two culvert crossings, past
its confluence with JB7 to its confluence with JB5. This channel is divided into three distinct sections
that are roughly separated by the 2 existing crossings.

JB4-A
The upstream sections of JB4 begins at the project boundary and is a B-type channel with a stable
bed that exhibits adequate bedform diversity. The reach has limited buffer and is subject to constant
livestock pressure. The right overbank area is a small functioning floodplain while the left overbank
is a steep, barren, slope that extends over 100 feet horizontally in some places. An existing culvert
crossing along this reach has failed and water is currently flowing around the culvert.

Reach JB4-A
Looking downstream
Reach JB4-A
Looking upstream
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 12 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

JB4-B
Begins downstream of the existing JB4-A crossing and extends to an existing 24” culvert crossing.
This reach is transitioning from the JB4-A B-type channel to an A-type channel as it moves down-
valley. Reach entrenchment increases as it moves down-valley and approaches a culvert crossing.
The crossing is undersized and partially buried creating a backwater condition which has caused
deposition in the downstream portion of the reach. Two groundwater seeps along the reach have
destabilized localized areas of the channel bank/overbank which are actively eroding.

Reach JB4-B
Looking downstream

Reach JB4-B
Looking at right bank

JB4-C
Begins downstream of the exiting 24” culvert crossing. This channel is moderately entrenched
particularly in the upstream portion of the reach where it has characteristics of both A and B-type
channels. As the channel moves down valley it enters the floodplain of JB5 and entrenchment is
significantly reduced, and it transitions to a B-type channel. Stable bedform with gravel substrate
was observed throughout the reach with isolated areas of instability noted near the culvert outlet.
Channel banks were actively eroding along much of the reach due to inadequate buffer and
livestock pressure.
Reach JB4-C
Looking downstream

Reach JB4-C
Looking upstream

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 13 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

JB5
JB5-A
Reach JB5-A begins downstream of JB3. The two reaches are separated by an easement break
intended to accommodate an existing ford crossing and a barn. The existing ford has degraded and
is a significant sediment source to the reach. The channel is a stable C-type channel with stable
bedform and adequate floodplain connectivity. The channel banks are predominantly stable with a
few areas of minor instability observed. The reach is subjected to significant livestock pressure and
has little to no buffer.

Reach JB5-A
Looking downstream

Reach JB5-A
Looking upstream

JB5-B
Reach JB5-B begins downstream of the confluence of JB5-A and JB4. This channel is a C-type
channel with stable bed and banks. The valley narrows through this section largely due to the
proximity of Puncheon Fork Road. The reach is subjected to significant livestock pressure and has
a limited buffer.

Reach JB5-B
Looking downstream

Reach JB5-B
Looking upstream

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 14 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

JB5-C
Reach JB5-C begins downstream of JB5-B and flows to its confluence with JB6. The channel is a
C-type channel with a predominantly stable bed. A debris jam has created a backwater effect for a
small portion of the reach. A significant sand deposit has accumulated here creating the potential
for a large sediment pulse when the debris jam dislodges. The channel banks are irregular and
eroding due to significant livestock pressure and lack of buffer.

Reach JB5-C
Looking downstream

Reach JB5-C
Looking upstream at debris jam

JB6
JB6-A
Reach JB6-A begins at the easement limits just downstream of a dual 72” culvert crossing on
Puncheon Fork Road. The reach flows south past its confluence with JB5 and flows to an existing
96” farm culvert crossing. The channel is a C-type channel with a stable bed. The channel banks are
irregular and eroding due to lack of buffer and livestock pressure. A powerline crosses the stream
just upstream of the easement and parallels the stream for the entirety of JB6. The crossing is
appropriately sized but not properly aligned which has caused some erosion on its upstream face.

Reach JB6-A
Looking downstream

Reach JB6-A
Looking at left bank

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 15 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

JB6-B
Reach JB6-B begins downstream of the 96” farm culvert crossing and flows south out of the
easement. This channel is a C-type channel with stable bed and banks. The reach is subjected to
significant livestock pressure and has no buffer.

Reach JB6-B
Looking downstream

Reach JB6-B
Looking upstream

JB7
Reach JB7 is a spring fed channel that begins west of JB5-A out of a linear wetland feature (Wetland
WU) and parallels JB5 until its confluence with JB4-C. This C-type channel is largely supported by
groundwater and is sized appropriately for its limited drainage area. The channel lacks any real buffer
and is subjected to constant cattle pressure. Due to limited peak flows these stressors have not
significantly degraded channel stability.

Reach JB7
Looking downstream
Reach JB7
Looking upstream

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 16 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent (JB7) and perennial (JB1, JB2, JB3, JB4, JB5, and JB6)
streams and are A-, F-, B-, and C-stream types as classified using the Rosgen stream classification system
(Rosgen, 1996). Stream determinations have been verified by the USACE in the issued preliminary
jurisdictional determination (PJD) (Appendix B). In addition, the NC Stream Assessment Method (NC
SAM) was completed for each reach of the Project and can be found in Appendix C. Table 7 summarizes
these stream parameters.
Table 7. Summary of Stream Parameters
Reach Hydrology
Status NC SAM Rating Rosgen Stream
Classification Reach Length (LF)
JB1 Perennial Low B4a 226
JB2-A Perennial Low B4a 224
JB2-B 78
JB3-A Perennial Low C4a 230
JB3-B F4b 329
JB4-A
Perennial Low
B4a 53
JB4-B B4a/A4 336
JB4-C 288
JB5-A
Perennial
Low
C4b
505
JB5-B Medium 370
JB5-C Low 640
JB6-A Perennial Low C3b 564
JB6-B 225
JB7 Intermittent Low C4/5 540
Existing Wetlands
A survey of existing wetlands was performed on January 22-23, 2019 and February 6-7, 2019. 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). Twenty-
two jurisdictional wetlands, ranging from 0.004 to 0.606 acres in size, are wholly or partially present within
the boundaries of the Project (Figure 8). Wetlands are labeled as WA (Wetland A) through WV (Wetland
V) and are described below. A PJD request was sent to the USACE on February 28, 2019, and a site visit
was carried out with David Brown on April 3, 2019. As requested after the site visit, revised materials were
submitted on April 9, 2019. The confirmed PJD was issued on May 2, 2019 (Appendix B). In addition,
Wetland Determination Data Sheets are also included in Appendix B while their associated location points
can be found on the “Potential Wetland and Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Map” in the PJD confirmation
package.

Floodplain Wetlands
The majority of the total wetland area is located in the most downstream (southeastern) portion of the
Project in the floodplain of Puncheon Fork where the valley flattens and broadens. The wetlands that
comprise this area include WA, WB, WC, WD, WE, and WG. The major hydrology source of these
wetlands is groundwater; however, flooding of Puncheon Fork does occur and surely contributes. In their
current state, these wetlands are Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetlands according to the Cowardin
Classification system and solely consist of herbs including soft rush (Juncus effuses), dwarf crabgrass
(Digitaria serotina), and pasture grasses, like fescue (Cowardin, L.M., 1979). As pastureland, these
wetlands are highly disturbed by cattle grazing and trampling that prevents any significant, natural
vegetative community to develop.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 17 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Seep/Spring Wetlands
The remaining wetlands throughout the Project (WF, WH through WV) are mostly small seeps and springs
that are generally located on hillsides and toe slopes. Their hydrology is controlled by groundwater that
appears to discharge almost year-round and have a nexus to the Project streams. They are all PEM wetlands
with herbs including some combination of soft rush (Juncus effuses), dwarf crabgrass (Digitaria serotina),
New York ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), and fescue, while WK and WQ contain a few yellow birch
(Betula alleghaniensis) trees. Like the other wetlands on the site, these are highly impaired due to cattle
grazing and trampling that prevents any significant, natural vegetative community to develop.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not depict any
wetland areas within the Project (Figure 8).
Potential Constraints
Many of the project reaches are paralleled by Puncheon Fork Road or Hoot and Holler Lane, limiting the
potential buffer width for much of the project. In addition to the roadways, several existing overhead utilities
are present within or adjacent to the proposed easement. RES is working with all concerned parties to
minimize utility impacts by relocating utilities outside of the easement and co-locating utilities with
proposed crossings. Seven easement breaks are proposed: six at existing stream crossings and one additional
break to accommodate potential future access to the surrounding parcel for the landowner. Table 8, below,
summarizes all existing and proposed crossings associated with the Project (also see Appendix D, Figure
8, and Figure 9), while available photos of some existing crossings can be found in Appendix C. Any
culvert maintenance will be the responsibility of RES through completion of monitoring. Once the Project
has completed monitoring and the Project is closed out, the culvert will be the responsibility of the
landowner(s). An existing barn is located within 20 feet of the top of bank of JB5-A and is within the FEMA
100-year floodplain. As stated in Section 3.4, RES anticipates a No-Rise permit for the proposed project.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 18 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Table 8. Crossings
Stream Crossings
Existing Parameters Proposed Parameters
Reach Station Crossing
Purpose Type Size &
Material
Existing
Condition Type Size &
Material
Proposed
Action
Easement
Break
(LF)
JB1 3+20 Agricultural Culvert 30" CMP Fair - - Remove -
JB11 3+80 Residential Culvert 24" CMP Fair Culvert 24" CMP Retain 93
JB1 6+95 Agricultural Culvert 60" x 42"
CMPA Fair Culvert 60" x 42"
CMPA Retain 41
JB3 7+25 Agricultural Ford - Poor Ford - Upgrade 43
JB5 14+30 Agricultural Ford - Poor Ford - Upgrade 155
JB52 20+50 Agricultural - - - - - - 42
JB6 7+75 Agricultural Culvert 96" MP Poor Culvert 96" MP Repair 50
JB2 1+95 Agricultural Culvert 60" x 36"
CMPA Poor - - Remove -
JB2 5+65 Agricultural Culvert 60" CMP Poor - - Remove -
JB4 8+75 Agricultural Culvert 24" CMP Poor Culvert 48" RCP Remove
& Replace 76
1 A powerline is collocated within this easement break.
2 Easement break to accommodate potential future access to the surrounding parcel for the landowner.
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 19 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

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,
physicochemical 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.

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 area over time.

A functional based approach broadens the reach-scale goals of a restoration project by contextualizing the
functional uplift to the watershed scale. By applying an ecosystem restoration approach, the proposed
Project will provide localized ecological and water quality benefits that could, in combination with other
restoration projects within the watershed, have beneficial impacts on the French Broad River Basin. The
restoration approach at the reach scale of this Project will benefit the hydraulic and geomorphology
functions of the system but could also benefit the upper-level functions (physicochemical and biology) over
time and in combination with other restoration 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.
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. The Project will locally address several historic hydrologic disturbances
including deforestation and channelization; however, it is not anticipated that the Project will have a
significant effect on hydrology at the watershed scale.
Hydraulic
The hydraulic function of the Pyramid is defined as transport of water in the channel, on the floodplain, and
through sediments. The Project will provide significant uplift by improving bed and bank stability
throughout the Project. Reaches in the Project have stable flow dynamics that are functioning-at-risk due
to livestock pressure and lack of buffer. The pressures have caused actively eroding irregular banks and
knick points to form throughout the project. Reaches in which stable flow dynamics are functioning-at-risk
will be improved to functioning by removing livestock, grading banks, planting buffers and installing grade
control.
Geomorphology
Geomorphology, as defined within the Pyramid Framework, is the transport of wood and sediment to create
bed forms and dynamic equilibrium. Sediment transport will be improved in reaches that are currently
functioning-at-risk by reducing the excess sediment load entering the stream. This reduction will be
achieved by establishing a functional buffer, removing livestock access, and stabilizing eroding banks.
Channel stability will be improved by installing a mix of rock and log structures to stabilize knick points
and promote a natural combination of riffle-pool and step-pool sequences. Transport and storage of woody
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 20 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

debris will be improved through increases in channel roughness from plantings and structures installation.
Existing riparian vegetation is either functioning-at-risk or not-functioning in Project reaches. Therefore,
riparian buffers will be planted to improve the riparian vegetation to functioning levels, while also providing
terrestrial habitat. All of these functional parameters are interconnected and depend on each other; therefore,
improving this wide range of parameters will result in long-term functional geomorphic uplift.
Physicochemical
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 French Broad River Basin Priorities to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in impaired waters, 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 and enhancement 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 bed and bank stabilization. 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, by planting the buffer to shade the channel, water temperature is decreased and
dissolved oxygen is increased. Second, the drop structures placed in the stream create mixing zones where
oxygen dissolves much faster than the standard exchange rate of oxygen to dissolved oxygen. The
processing of organic matter will be improved once healthy riffles are shallow enough to catch twigs and
branches that then retain leaves. Many of these physicochemical 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 physicochemical stream function,
it will be difficult to see measurable results of the functional uplift of the biological functions at a project
scale during the seven-year monitoring time frame. However, since the life histories of many species likely
to benefit from stream restoration are depending on all the lower-level functions, the functional uplift from
the hydraulic and geomorphic levels would likely have a positive effect on the biology over time and in
combination with other projects within the watershed. Again, there is no substitute for direct biological
monitoring, but it is important to understand the hierarchy of the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework in
order to help project long-term benefits of the Project, though only categories two and three (hydraulics and
geomorphology) will be directly measured during the seven-year monitoring period.

Specifically, this Project presents a unique opportunity to improve habitat for trout, though fish metrics will
not be directly monitored. In addition to including typical habitat features such as brush toes and woody
material, boulder clusters will be installed throughout many of the reaches to help form scour pools where
trout can reside. Also, bank grading throughout Project reaches will promote the development of gravels
bars that can serve as suitable spawning habitat.
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 21 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using a Function Based
Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Puncheon Fork Mitigation
Project. These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were
identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 French Broad RBRP. The Project will address outlined
RBRP Goals 1 and 6 (listed in Section 2).

The project goals are:
 Reduce sediment inputs into streams;
 Reduce nutrient and fecal coliform inputs into streams;
 Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat, including trout habitat;
 Improve floodplain connectivity;
 Restore and enhance appropriate riparian plant communities;
 Enhance ecological structure and function of existing wetlands.

The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
 Design and reconstruct stream channels that will convey bankfull flows while maintaining stable
dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling, watershed conditions, and reference reach
conditions;
 Permanently exclude livestock from stream channels, their associated buffers, and wetlands by
installing approximately 11,960 linear feet of livestock exclusion fencing;
 Add in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced streams;
 Install habitat features such as brush toes, woody materials, boulder clusters, and pools of varying
depths to restored and enhanced streams;
o Create step-pool sequences and scour pools that will promote trout habitation in designated
Trout Waters;
o Grade banks to promote development of gravels bars, serving as potential spawning habitat
for trout
 Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios in restored streams;
 Increase forested riparian buffers to at least 30 feet on both sides of the channel along the Project
reaches, including existing wetlands, with a forested plant community;
 Treat exotic invasive plant species;
 Establish a permanent conservation easement on the site that will prevent future landuse changes.

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 our project boundaries.
While we are restoring 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.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 22 July 2019
French Broad 05 UMBI

Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured

Level Function Goal 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
N/A N/A
2
Hydraulic
Transport of water in
the channel, on the
floodplain, and
through the sediments
To transport water within streams
and floodplains in a stable, non-
erosive manner
Improve flood bank
connectivity by reducing bank
height ratios and increasing
entrenchment ratios
Stage recorders

Bank Height Ratio

Entrenchment Ratio
3
Geomorphology
Transport of wood and
sediment to create
diverse bedforms and
dynamic equilibrium
To create a diverse bedform and
stable channels that achieve healthy
dynamic equilibrium and provide
suitable habitat for life
Limit erosion rates and increase
channel stability to reference
reach conditions

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

Increase buffer width to 30 feet
As-built stream
profile

Cross sections

Visual monitoring

Vegetation plots
4
Physicochemical °
Temperature and
oxygen regulation;
processing of organic
matter and nutrients
To promote healthier levels for water
temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentration, and other important
nutrients including but not limited to
Nitrogen and Phosphorus through
buffer/wetland planting and fencing
out cattle
Unmeasurable
Objective/Expected Benefit
Establish native, forested
riparian buffer to provide
canopy shade and absorb
nutrients

Exclude cattle with 12,000 feet
of new fencing
Vegetation plots
(indirect
measurement)

Established fencing
and perpetual
conservation
easement
(indirect
measurement)
5
Biology *
Biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic life
histories and riparian
life
to achieve functionality in levels 1-4
to support the life histories of aquatic
and riparian plants and animals
through stream
restoration/enhancement activities
and wetland enhancement
Unmeasurable
Objective/Expected Benefit
Improve aquatic habitat by
installing habitat features,
constructing pools of varying
depths, and planting the
riparian buffer and wetlands
As-Built Survey
(in-direct
measurement)
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 23 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

MITIGATION WORK PLAN
Design Parameters
Stream Restoration Approach
The treatment plan and design approach were developed based on the existing conditions, project goals,
and objectives outlined in Sections 3 and 5. The Project will include Restoration and Enhancement Levels
I, II and III. Stream restoration will incorporate the design of single-thread meandering channels, with
parameters based on data taken from 2D hydraulic models, published empirical relationships, regional
curves, and stable on-site channel sections. Analytical design will be a crucial element of the project and
will be used to determine the design discharge and to verify the overall design. The Conceptual plan is
provided in Figure 9.

The detailed treatment plan and design approach is as follows:
Reach JB1
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bed instability, limited
bedform diversity and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
- Removal and offsite disposal of a 30” culvert crossing near station 03+25
- Installation of a log step-pool structure at the culvert removal site,
- Knick-point stabilization with a log sill and brush toe near station 04+50,
- Knick-point stabilization with a log sill and brush toe near station 05+90,
- Knick-point stabilization with a log sill and brush toe near station 06+45,
- Knick-point stabilization with a log sill and brush toe near station 06+52,
- Bed Stabilization with riffle grade control near station 07+15,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.

Reach JB2-A
A priority I restoration approach was used for this reach to address floodplain encroachment and buffer
impacts. Restoration activities will include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Re-aligning the channel to move it away from Hoot and Holler Lane,
- Removal and offsite disposal of a 36 x 60” culvert crossing near station 02+75
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Establishing a mix of riffle-pool and step-pool sequence throughout the reach,
- Filling the existing channel,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 24 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Reach JB2-B
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank instability and buffer
impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of log vane at station 04+35
- Removal and offsite disposal of a 36 x 60” culvert crossing near station 05+75
- Installation of riffle grade control at proposed culvert removal,
- Installation of log sill and brush toe at station 05+75,
- Grading both channel banks to a 2.5:1 slope from station 5+30 to 6+20,
- Livestock exclusion,
- Removal of utilities from the stream corridor, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.

Reach JB3-A
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank instability, limited
bedform diversity, and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
- Re-grading and stabilization of existing ford crossing near station 7+00,
- Grading right channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 6+50 to 7+10,
- Grading right channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 8+60 to 9+10,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.

Reach JB3-B
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank instability, limited
bedform diversity and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
- Headcut stabilization with a rock step pool near station 11+00,
- Debris removal near station 12+60,
- Installation of brush toe along left bank from station 12+50 to 12+95,
- Grading left channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 12+50 to 12+95,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.

Reach JB4-A
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of slope instability and buffer
impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Slope stabilization in the left overbank from station 00+50 to 03+50,
- Removal and disposal of existing 15” pipe offsite,
- Bed and bank stabilization with a log sill and brush toe near station 05+15,
- Left bank stabilization near station 6+00,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.

Reach JB4-B
An inline restoration approach was used for this reach to address channel instability and buffer impacts.
Restoration activities will include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing valley,
- Valley stabilization along the left bank,
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 25 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

- Right bank stabilization at a groundwater seep near station 7+00,
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Establishing a mix of riffle-pool and step-pool sequence throughout the reach,
- Removal and offsite disposal of a 24” culvert crossing near station 08+75
- Installation of a new 48” culvert and re-grading and stabilizing the roadway near station 08+75,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB4-C
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of channel instability and
buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Removal and offsite disposal of a 24” culvert crossing near station 08+75
- Installation of a new 48” culvert and re-grading and stabilizing the roadway near station 08+75,
- Installation of a riffle grade control and step pool at the outlet of the proposed 48” culvert,
- Installation of a riffle grade control near station 10+25,
- Grading both channel banks to a 2.5:1 slope from station 11+20 to 12+25,
- Grading left channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 12+75 to 13+90,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.

Reach JB5-A
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank instability, lack of
bedform diversity, and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
- Re-grading and stabilization of existing ford crossing near station 14+50,
- Livestock exclusion,
- Removal of utilities from the stream corridor, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.

Reach JB5-B
An Enhancement Level III approach is proposed for this reach to address buffer impacts. Enhancement
activities will include:
- Livestock exclusion,
- Removal of utilities from the stream corridor, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.

Reach JB5-C
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of channel instability, limited
bedform diversity, and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
- Grading left channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 24+40 to 25+15,
- Install a log sill at grade near station 24+63,
- Install brush toe along left channel bank from station 24+63 to 25+18,
- Grading left channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 26+50 to 27+30,
- Install a log sill at grade near station 26+80,
- Install brush toe along left channel bank from station 26+80 to 27+17,
- Grading left channel bank to a 3:1 slope from station 30+25 to 30+75,
- Install a log sill at grade near station 30+59,
- Install brush toe along right channel bank from station 30+59 to 30+68,
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 26 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

- Removal of utilities from the stream corridor,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.

Reach JB6-A
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank instability, limited
bedform diversity and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
- Install a log sill and brush toe at grade near station 2+25,
- Install brush toe along left channel bank from station 2+48 to 3+15,
- Grading left channel bank to a 3:1 slope from station 2+65 to 4+20,
- Install a log sill and brush toe at grade near station 5+16,
- Grading left channel bank to a 3:1 slope from station 5+30 to 5+75,
- Grading point bar to a 5:1 slope from station 04+30 to 05+00,
- Install stone toe from station 07+30 to 07+60,
- Line upstream face of crossing with class II riprap,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Riparian planting.

Reach JB6-B
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address bank instability, limited bedform
diversity and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Riparian planting.

Reach JB7
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address bank instability and buffer impacts.
Enhancement activities will include:
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Riparian planting.

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 10) and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined for
comparison to design parameters using the following methods:

 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis, and
 NC, VA, and USGS Regional Curves for the Rural Mountain.

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
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 27 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2-year peak discharges based on the gauge data.
Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were compared to those predicted
by the discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2-year discharge equations.

Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina mountain regional curves by Harman et al. (2003), the Virginia rural mountain regional
curves by Keaton, Messinger, and Doheny (2005), and the hydrologic region 2 USGS regression curves for
discharge were used to predict the bankfull discharge for the Project. The VA regional curves predicted
flows similar to the 2.0-year flood frequency, while the NC curves are much higher, closer to the USGS
equations. The regional curve equations for NC, VA, and USGS discharges by Harman et al. (2003),
Keaton, Messinger, and Doheny (2005), and USGS (2009), respectively:

(1) Qbkf=100.64*(DA)0.76 (Harman et al., 2003)
(2) Qbkf=43.249*(DA)0.7938 (Keaton, Messinger, and Doheny 2005)
(3) Q2.0=110*(DA)0.779 (USGS, 2009)

Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s), Q2.0=2.0-year peak discharge, and DA=drainage area (mi2).

Table 10. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach Drainage
Area (Ac)
FFQ
Q1.1
FFQ
Q1.5
FFQ
Q2.0
NC Regional
Curve Q (1)
VA Regional
Curve Q (2)
USGS
Regional
Curve Q (3)
Design Q
JB2-A 100 4 7 9 25 10 26 9
JB4-B 29 2 3 3 11 4 11 5
Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a stable
gravel bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport is assessed
to determine a stream’s ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various sediment transport
equations are applied when estimating entrainment gravel and cobble bed streams found in the Mountains.
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), cohesiveness of
bank materials, vegetative cover, and incoming sediment load. The shear stress approach compares
calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature.

Critical shear stress is the shear stress required to initiate motion of the channels median particle size (D50).

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 28 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Table 11. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Reach
Proposed Bed Shear
Stress at Bankfull Stage
(lbs/ft2)
Existing Bed Material
Critical Shear Stress
(lbs/ft2)
Allowable Shear Stress1
Coarse Gravel
(lbs/ft2)
Cobble
(lbs/ft2)
Vegetation
(lbs/ft2)
JB2-A 2.2 0.77 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 1.7
JB4-B 1.8 0.15 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 1.7
1(Fischenich, 2001)

Review of the above table shows that the proposed bed shear stresses for the Project design reaches are
above the critical shear stress of the existing channel material. Therefore, all proposed riffles will be
supplemented with a substrate mix that has a critical shear stress greater than the proposed bed shear stress
at bankfull.

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 12 compares the proposed velocities calculated using Manning’s
equation with the permissible velocities.

Table 12. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning’s “n”
Value1
Design Velocity
(ft/s)
Proposed Bed
Material
Permissible
Velocity2 (ft/sec)
JB2-A 0.05 4.5 Cobble 3 – 7.5
JB4-B 0.05 3.8 Cobble 3 – 7.5
1(Chow, 1959)
2(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.

The reach watersheds are predominantly forested with minimal disturbances observed upstream of the
project area. These factors contribute to a minimal offsite sediment load. Existing onsite sediment loading
is relatively high due to limited buffer vegetation and livestock access. This elevated sediment loading
should be significantly reduced by the proposed project.
Wetland Enhancement Approach
All jurisdictional wetlands within the Project boundary (WA-WV) will be enhanced, primarily through tree
planting and cattle exclusion. Approximately 11,960 feet of fencing will ensure that cattle will no longer
have access to these wetlands, and a diverse mix of native trees appropriate for the community type (see
Section 6.3) will be planted. However, some small wetland areas (WH, WI, WJ, WL, WM, WN, WO) will
be credited at a lower ratio (2.5 to 1) due to the fact that they will likely only receive supplemental plantings
and may not be monitored directly for detailed vegetation data. In addition, some wetlands may also benefit
from improved hydrology as a byproduct of stream restoration and enhancement activities; however,
hydrology will not be monitored, nor will their success depend on it. Finally, all wetlands within the Project
will be protected from future landuse conversion by establishing a permanent conservation easement.
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 29 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Sediment Control Measures
A suite of sediment control measures will be utilized for the Project to reduce direct effluent inputs,
pollutant contamination, and sediment loading. The combination of the following sediment control
measures: riparian buffer planting, bank stabilization, slope stabilization, stream restoration, livestock
exclusion, and livestock watering facilities, will ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site, while
still allowing livestock production to persist through the installation of alternative water sources.

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

To account for eliminating livestock water access, landowners will install livestock watering facilities as
an alternate water source.
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 in the forest surrounding the Project and what is typically
native to the area. Specifically, species identified in the Project along with species described in the 2012
Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation (Schafale, 2012) for
mountain-type communities were used to determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project.

A Montane Alluvial Forest (Small River Subtype) (Schafale, 2012) will be the target community for the
Project. The target community will be used for the planting areas within the Project, shown in Appendix
D. This community type is very similar to cove forests and shares many of the same species; however, it
incorporates several floodplain and wetland species that are typical of small mountain stream floodplains.
The plant species list has been developed and can be found in Table 13. Species with high dispersal rates
are not included because of locally occurring, adjacent seed sources and the high potential for natural
regeneration. However, the most notable high dispersal species that is appropriate, and most likely to occur
on site, is red maple; therefore, it is included in the planting list as a volunteer species but will not be
planted. This species is often found in montane alluvial forest communities as well as many early
successional communities and will quickly fill disturbance gaps. Therefore, red maple may be counted
toward success as long as it does not outcompete the other proposed species. Tree species typical of the
target community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities and were judged to be appropriate
for this site. Additionally, rhododendron is a significant inclusion in montane alluvial forests and is already
present throughout the Project; however, it will not be planted so that it does not outcompete the other
planted trees. With that said, it is possible that the rhododendron thickets may expand, in which case it will
be left alone, as it will provide an appropriate understory as the Project’s forest matures.

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), black
willow (Salix nigra), silky willow (Salix sericea), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) 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 willows
will slowly stop growing or die out because the other species would outgrow them and create shade that the
willows do not 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
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 30 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

one per three linear feet with alternate spacing vertically.

It is anticipated that the vegetation planting/replanting will be conducted between November 15 and March
15, per the October 2016 USACE/NCIRT monitoring guidance. If the Project completes construction after
March 15, but before May 31, the site will be planted immediately following construction so that there is
180 days prior to the initiation of the first year of monitoring.

Table 13. Proposed Plant List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Species Common Name Wetland
Status* Spacing (ft) Unit Type
% of Total
Species
Composition
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore FACW 9X6 Bare Root 15
Betula alleghaniensis Yellow birch FAC 9X6 Bare Root 15
Betula nigra River birch FACW 9X6 Bare Root 10
Liriodendron tulipifera Yellow poplar FACU 9X6 Bare Root 10
Alnus serrulata Hazel alder OBL 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus rubra Northern red oak FACU 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus montana Chestnut oak UPL 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus alba White oak FACU 9X6 Bare Root 10
Tsuga canadensis Eastern hemlock FACU 9X6 Bare Root 10
Acer rubrum Red maple FAC N/A Volunteer N/A
* Based on USDA NRCS Wetland Status for Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species Common Name % of Total Species
Composition
Salix nigra Black willow 30
Salix saricea Silky willow 30
Cornus ammomum Silky dogwood 25
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 15
On-Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within the entire easement area. Invasive species will require
different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology and the location of the species
being treated; however, the only current known exotic invasive species to occur onsite and adjacent to the
site is multiflora rose. 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.
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 31 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Soil Restoration
Prior to construction activities, existing pasture grasses will be treated. After construction activities, the
subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before the topsoil is placed back over the
Project. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled and placed over the Project
during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil conditions for plant growth. Rapid
establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the Project.
Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the mitigation designs described in this
document. The combination of analytical and analog 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 existing site data and applied to the restoration reaches. The parameters were then
analyzed and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and numerical simulations of
fluvial processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the restoration and enhancement of
natural mountain riffle-pool and step-pool channel features.

Forested riparian buffers will be established along the Project reaches. An appropriate riparian plant
community (Montane Alluvial Forest) will be established to include a diverse mix of species. The plant
species list has been developed and can be found in Table 13. Replanting of native species will occur where
the existing buffer is impacted during construction.

A combination of sediment control measures will be used on site; riparian buffer planting, bank
stabilization, stream restoration, livestock exclusions, and livestock watering facilities. This combination
of sediment control measures will ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site by minimizing
sedimentation, nutrient input, and fecal coliform input from ongoing livestock and agricultural production
outside of the conservation easement.

Due to the nature of the project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible.
Proposed stream impacts, including stream relocation and culvert installation, are necessary restoration and
enhancement practices that will contribute to the functional uplift of the Project’s aquatic resources.
Wetland impacts will be very small and minor. In fact, there is no Priority 1 stream restoration proposed
around any jurisdictional wetlands. Therefore, any wetland impacts will be associated with enhancement
efforts and will only be temporary. Ultimately, these efforts will provide an overall increase in wetland
function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream banks, and improved hydrology. All
stream and wetland impacts will be accounted for in the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) form.
Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 14 are projections based upon site design (Figure 9). If upon Project
completion, there is a large discrepancy between design and as-built conditions an updated plan will be
submitted to the District for approval as a project modification. Any deviation from the mitigation plan post
approval, including adjustments to credits, will require a request for modification. This will be approved
by the USACE.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 32 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Table 14. Mitigation Credits
The Puncheon Fork Project Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Cold Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland
Totals 2,835.550 0.977 NA

Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Stationing
Existing
Length
(LF)
Proposed
Length
(LF)
Mitigation
Ratio SMUs
JB1
Enhancement II 1+26 to 3+52 226 226 2.5:1 90.400
Enhancement II 4+45 to 6+69 224 224 2.5:1 89.600
Enhancement II 7+10 to 7+88 78 78 2.5:1 31.200
JB2-A Restoration 1+24 to 3+25 230 201 1.0:1 201.000
JB2-B Enhancement II 3+25 to 6+54 329 329 2.5:1 131.600
JB3-A
Enhancement II 6+54 to 7+07 53 53 2.5:1 21.2.00
Enhancement II 7+50 to 10+86 336 336 2.5:1 134.4.00
JB3-B Enhancement I 10+86 to 13+74 288 288 1.5:1 192.000
JB5-A Enhancement II 15+29 to 20+34 505 505 4:1 126.250
JB5-B Enhancement III 20+76 to 24+46 370 370 5:1 74.000
JB5-C Enhancement I 24+46 to 30+86 640 640 1.5:1 426.667
JB4-A Enhancement II 0+55 to 6+19 564 564 2.5:1 225.600
JB4-B Restoration 6+19 to 8+41 225 222 1.0:1 222.000
JB4-C Enhancement I 9+17 to 14+57 540 540 1.5:1 360.000
JB6-A Enhancement I 1+91 to 7+45 554 554 1.5:1 369.333
JB6-B Enhancement II 7+95 to 10+42 247 247 2.5:1 98.800
JB7 Enhancement II 1+03 to 2+69 166 166 4:1 41.500
Totals 5,575 5,543   2,835.550

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 33 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Table 14 cont’d.
Wetland Mitigation Type Proposed Acreage Mitigation Ratio WMUs
WA Enhancement 0.248 2:1 0.124
WB Enhancement 0.257 2:1 0.129
WC Enhancement 0.524 2:1 0.262
WD Enhancement 0.007 2:1 0.004
WE Enhancement 0.033 2:1 0.017
WF Enhancement 0.008 2:1 0.004
WG Enhancement 0.211 2:1 0.106
WH Enhancement 0.019 2.5:1 0.008
WI Enhancement 0.084 2.5:1 0.034
WJ Enhancement 0.014 2.5:1 0.006
WK Enhancement 0.220 2:1 0.110
WL Enhancement 0.012 2.5:1 0.005
WM Enhancement 0.031 2.5:1 0.012
WN Enhancement 0.012 2.5:1 0.005
WO Enhancement 0.079 2.5:1 0.032
WP Enhancement 0.011 2:1 0.006
WQ Enhancement 0.026 2:1 0.013
WR Enhancement 0.077 2:1 0.039
WS Enhancement 0.039 2:1 0.020
WT Enhancement 0.011 2:1 0.006
WU Enhancement 0.066 2:1 0.033
WV Enhancement 0.004 2:1 0.002
Totals 1.993 0.977

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 34 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria components
are presented below.
Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
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. Further, bank height ratio shall not
exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be above 2.2 within restored riffle cross sections.
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.
Vegetation and Wetland Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers and wetlands 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, 260 trees per acre with an
average height of six feet at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per
acre with an average height of eight feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to
species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports and may be counted towards the success criteria of
total planted stems if appropriate for the community type and do not outcompete the other proposed tree
species. 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.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 35 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported according to NC IRT monitoring guidance. 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 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 15 outlines the links between project objectives and treatments
and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards within the context of functional uplift
based on the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework. Figure 10 depicts the proposed monitoring plan,
including approximate numbers and locations of monitoring devices for the Project.
As-Built Survey
An as-built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank to
compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual monitoring
reports unless requested by USACE. Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes placed near the
top of bank every 200 feet.
Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year by
qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species, and
easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete streamwalk and
structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record each monitoring
event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Specifically, fixed image locations will occur
at each monitoring device; including each cross section, stage recorder, and vegetation plot, as well as at
each crossing. Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description
of problem areas and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive
increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation
of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
Hydrology Events
Continuous stage recorders, devices that utilize automatic-logging pressure transducers that are capable of
documenting the height, frequency, and duration of bankfull events, will be installed on Restoration reaches
and at the lower-end of the Project. Specifically, stage recorders will be installed on reaches JB2-A, JB4-
B, and JB6-A
Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in pools
and half in riffles on all Restoration and Enhancement I reaches. Morphological data will be measured and
recorded for all cross-sections; however, only riffle cross sections will include bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio measurements. A total of 12 cross sections are proposed across the Project. These cross
sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be 100 square meters, or 0.025 acres, in size and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be six plots within the planted area (6.75 acres). Plots will be a
mixture of fixed and random plots, with four fixed plots and two random plots. Planted area indicates all
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 36 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

area in the easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included in the planted
area; however, these areas will be planted with supplemental trees in disturbed areas where existing tree
density is insufficient. 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 and treated annually so that none become
dominant or alter the desired community structure of the Project.
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 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 and the October 2017 Mitigation Credit Calculation
Memo.

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

Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to the IRT. The
monitoring reports will include all information and be in the format required by USACE.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 37 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Table 15. Monitoring Requirements
Level Treatment Objective Monitoring Metric Performance Standard
1 Hydrology Convert land-use of
Project reaches and
wetlands 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 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
Stage recorders:
Inspected quarterly
Four bankfull events occurring in
separate years
Entrenchment ratio shall be no less
than 2.2 within restored reaches
Cross sections: Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2
3 Geomorphology 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.
Limit erosion rates and
maintain channel stability

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

Increase buffer width to
30 feet

Decrease sediment load
As-built stream profile NA
Cross sections: Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
less than 2.2 within restored
reaches
Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2
Visual monitoring: Performed
at least semiannually
Identify and document significant
stream problem areas; i.e.
erosion, degradation,
aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots: Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (6 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (8 ft. tall)
4 Physicochemical Exclude livestock from
riparian areas and
wetlands with exclusion
fence, conservation
easement

Plant a riparian buffer
Unmeasurable
Objective/Expected
Benefit
Establish native, forested
riparian buffer and
exclude livestock.
Vegetation plots: Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
(indirect measurement)
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (6 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (8 ft. tall)
Visual assessment of
established fencing and
conservation signage:
Performed at least semiannually
(indirect measurement)
Inspect fencing and signage.
Identify and document any
damaged or missing fencing
and/or signs

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 38 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

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 are 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.
6. Provide the IRT a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent and
nature of the work performed.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 39 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

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 A. 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.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 40 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the approved mitigation plan of
the mitigation project, unless there are major discrepancies and then a mitigation plan addendum will be
submitted. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary Department
of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has
otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for
construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, will determine if performance
standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases
where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the
specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to be restarted or be extended, depending on the extent to
which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of Project credits will be subject
to the criteria described in Table 16.

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:
1. Approval of instrument modification by the DE, in consultation with the IRT;
2. Approval of a final Mitigation Plan;
3. Confirmation that the Bank site has been secured;
4. Delivery of executed financial assurances as specified in the Mitigation Plan;
5. Delivery of a copy of the recorded long-term protection mechanism as described in the Mitigation
Plan, as well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable to the DE; and
6. Issuance of any DA permits necessary for construction of the Bank site (if necessary).

Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and
submittal 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.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 41 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

Table 16. Credit Release Schedule
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%
(60%*)
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.
Wetland 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. 15% 65%
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 5% 70%

7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 15% 85%
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met. 5% 90%

9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met, and project
has received close-out approval.
10% 100%

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 42 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

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

Table 17. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental installations
of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and
floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures
and head-cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be documented and reported in annual
monitoring reports. Stream maintenance will continue through the monitoring period.
Wetland Supplemental plantings of target vegetation within the wetland.
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, and mulching. Exotic invasive plant species shall be treated by
mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation requiring herbicide application will
be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations. Vegetation maintenance activities will be documented and reported in annual
monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will continue through the monitoring period.
Site Boundary Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be marked with signs identifying
the property as a mitigation site, and will include the name of the long-term steward and a
contact number. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree-blazing,
or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary
markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as-needed
basis. Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance will continue in perpetuity as
a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing Road crossings within the Project 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.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 43 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL

The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $478,000 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 $478,000 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 $163,000 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 $163,000 amount includes contingency and estimated monitoring costs
from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond will be reduced by $ 23,285 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.

Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc) $ 52,000
Sitework $ 91,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs,logs, rocks, coir, etc) $ 105,000
Crossings $ 75,000
Vegetation $ 55,000
Miscellaneous $ 100,000
Total $ 478,000
Monitoring
Annual Monitoring and Reports $ 108,000
Equipment (e.g. gauges, markers, etc) $ 12,000
Miscellaneous $ 5,000
Contingency (8%) $ 38,000
Total $ 163,000

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 44 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

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.

Griffith, G.E., J.M.Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H.McNab, D.R.Lenat, T.F.MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
Poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).

Harman, W.H. et al. (2003). Updated Equations for the Regional Curve Relationships for the Mountain
Region. Raleigh, NC: NCSU BAE. Retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20170705004307/https://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/
srp/mtntable.html

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.

Keaton K.N., T. Messinger, and E.J. Doheny. (2005). Development and analysis of regional curves for
streams in the non-urban valley and ridge physiographic province, Maryland, Virginia, and West
Virginia. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5076. Reston, VA: USDOI-USGS.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP). North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer. NCNHP, Q2 April 2019. Accessed
May 2, 2019. https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5.
Water Quality Section. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/modeling-
assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-report-files.

NCDWR. 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;.

North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009.

Puncheon Fork Mitigation Plan 45 May 2020
French Broad 05 UMBI

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

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

Schafale, M.P. 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 Engineering (USACE). 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.

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

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

USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

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

United States Geologic Survey (USGS). (2009). Magnitude and frequency of rural floods in the
southeastern United States, through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina. USGS Scientific
Investigations Report 2009-5158. Reston, VA: USDOI-USGS.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of
Concern, and Candidate Species, Madison County, North Carolina.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html.

0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Vicinity
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Service Area - 06010105
©Date: 5/11/2020
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 1 - Vicinity - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 1,000 feet
Puncheon ForkSite
JB 61,240 acJB5334 ac
JB 1122 ac
JB 3257 ac
JB 2112 ac
JB 435 ac
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGSSam's Gap (2016)
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
©Date: 5/11/2020
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 2 - USGS - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
BURNETTE, JAMES BERTRAN 9852433188
BURNETTE, JAMES BERTRAN 9852425291
MCKAY, JOHN K. & MARSHA 9852319900
BURNETTE, JAMES BERTRAN 9852511453
BURNETTE, JAMES BERTRAN 9852505995
0 500250
Feet
Figure 3 - Landowner Parcels
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Surveyed Property Line
©Date: 5/11/2020
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 3 - Landowner Map - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
0 1,500750
Feet
Figure 4 - Land Use
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
Land Use
Forest - 86%
Residential - 6%
Agriculture - 6%
Roads - 2%
Open Water - <0.1%
©Date: 5/11/2020
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 4 - LandUse - Puncheon Forks.mxd1 inch = 1,500 feet
Bn E
Bn E
TsD
TsD
BnD
Bn E
Bn E
PwE
BnD
TsD
EfA
PxF
Bn E
TrC
PwE
Bn E
TrC
BnD
TaC
TsE
TsD
TsD
TsD
TaC
TaC
EfA
Bn E
TrC
TaB
TwB
EfA
TsD PwE
TsE
PwE
BnD
Bn E
BnD
BnD
BnDTsD
Ew D
PwE
TsDBnD
BnD
Ew DBnE
0 500250
Feet
Figure 5 - Soils
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/11/2020
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 5 - Soils Map - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
Legend
Hydric (10 0%)
Pred ominan tly Hydric (66-99%)
Pa rtia lly Hydric (33-65%)
Pred ominan tly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
Ea se me nt
Map Unit Map Unit Name
EfA Ela loam , 0 to 2 percent s lopes , frequently
fl ooded
TaB Tate loam , 2 to 8 perce nt s lopes
TaC Tate loam , 8 to 15 percent s lopes
TrC Toecane-Tus qui tee com pl ex, 8 to 15 percent
s lopes , bouldery
Ts D Toecane-Tus qui tee com pl ex, 15 to 30 percent
s lopes , very bouldery
BnE Buladean-Ches tnut com pl ex, bas in, 30 to 50
percent s lopes , s tony
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 6 - Historical Imagery - Puncheon Fork.mxd1956
1993 2014
Legend
Proposed Easement
Figure 6 - Historical Conditions
Puncheon Fork M itigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/11/2020
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDD01,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
1964
Source: USGS Earth Explorer
Source: NCOne Map
Source: USGS Earth Explorer
Source: NCOneMap
J
B
7
JB2-A
JB4-B
J
B6
-BJB2-B
JB3-BJB1JB3-AJB5-BJB4-C
JB4-A
JB6-A
JB5-C
JB5-A
0 500250
Feet
Figure 7 - FEMA
Puncheon Fork M itigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
FE MA Zone AE
Existing S tream
©Date: 5/11/2020
Drawn by: GDS
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 7 - FEMA - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT T T
TTTTTTT T T
WU
WV
WA
WB
WD
WC
WE
WF
WG
WH
WI
WJ
WK
WL
WM
WN WO
WP
WQ
WR
WS
WT
JB5-CJB5-AJB4-AJ
B
4-C
JB 6-A JB1JB5-BJB3-AJB3-B JB2-BJB6-BJB7JB4-BJ
B2
-AEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Legend
Proposed Easement
Existing Wetland
NWI Wetland (None)
Existing Stream
T T Pow er Line
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 8 - Existing - Puncheon Fork.mxdDate: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
1 inch = 200 feet
Figure 8 - Existing Conditions
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison C ounty, N orth Ca rolina0200100
Feet©cc
c Ex istingCulvert Crossings
c
cExistingFord Crossings
cExistingCulvert Crossings
Ex istingNon-func tioning Pipe
Reach Station
JB1 3+20
JB1 3+80
JB1 6+95
JB3 7+25
JB5 14+30
JB5 20+50
JB6 7+75
JB2 1+95
JB2 5+65
JB4 8+75
If more than c rossi ng per r each, c ros si ng s tati oni ng i n order of ups tream to downs tream
Easement Bre ak/Cr ossings
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT T T
TTTTTTT T T
X X X
XXXXXXX
XX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
X XXXXXXXXXXX X
X
XXXXXX
X
X XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X X XXXXXX X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXWA
WB
WD
WC
WE
WF
WG
WH
WI
WJ
WK
WL
WM
WN WO
WP
WQ
WR
WS
WT
WU
WV
JB7JB4-BJB2-AJB1JB6-BJB3-BJB2-BJB3-AJB5-BJB5-AJ
B
4-
C
JB6-AJB4-AJB5-CEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 9 - Conceptual - Puncheon Fork.mxdDate: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
1 inch = 200 feet
Figure 9 - Conce ptual Pla n
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison C ounty, N orth Ca rolina0200100
Feet©c
Retain Culver t& Upgrade Crossing
Upgrade C ulvert& Cr oss ing
Remove Culvert
Retain Culver ts
UpgradeFord Crossing
InstallFord Crossing
UpgradeFord Crossing
cRemov eCulverts
Remov eNon-func tioning Pipe
Legend
Proposed Easement - 13.15 ac
Wetland Enhancement
Stream Mi tiga tion Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Enhancement II (4:1)
Enhancement III
Property Line
X X Proposed Fencing
T T Power Line
Re a ch Mitiga tion Type Propose d Le ngth (LF)Mitiga tion Ra tio SMUs
Enhancement II 226 2.5:1 90.400
Enhancement II 224 2.5:1 89.600
Enhancement II 78 2.5:1 31.200
JB2-A Restoration 201 1:1 201.000
JB2-B Enhancement II 329 2.5:1 131.600
Enhancement II 53 2.5:1 21.200
Enhancement II 336 2.5:1 134.400
JB3-B Enhancement I 288 1.5:1 192.000
JB5-A Enhancement II 505 4:1 126.250
JB5-B Enhanc ement III 370 5:1 74.000
JB5-C Enhancement I 640 1.5:1 426.667
JB4-A Enhancement II 564 2.5:1 225.600
JB4-B Restoration 222 1:1 222.000
JB4-C Enhancement I 540 1.5:1 360.000
JB6-A Enhancement I 554 1.5:1 369.333
JB6-B Enhancement II 247 2.5:1 98.800
JB7 Enhancement II 166 4:1 41.500Total5,543 2,835.550
W e tla nd Mitiga tion Type Propose d Acre a ge Mitiga tion Ra tio W MUs
WA,W B,W C,W D
,WE,W F,W G,W
K,W P,W Q,W R,
W S,W T,W U,W V
Enhancement 1.742 2:1 0.875
W H,W I,W J,W L,
W M,W N,W O Enhancement 0.251 2.5:1 0.102
Tota l 1.993 0.977
JB1
JB3-A
We tla nd Compone nts
Punche on Fork Proje ct Cre ditsStream Compone nts
Reach Station Proposed Action
JB1 3+20 Rem ove
JB1 3+80 Retain
JB1 6+95 Retain
JB3 7+25 Upgrade
JB5 14+30 Upgrade
JB5 20+50 -
JB6 7+75 Repair
JB2 1+95 Rem ove
JB2 5+65 Rem ove
JB4 8+75 Rem ove & Replace
Easement Break/Crossings
If more than cross i ng per reach, crossing s tationing i n order of upstream to downs tream
!>
!>
!>
X X X
XXXXXXX
XX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
X XXXXXXXXXXX X
X
XXXXXX
X
X XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X X XXXXXX X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXWA
WB
WD
WC
WE
WF
WG
WH
WI
WJ
WK
WL
WM
WN WO
WP
WQ
WR
WS
WT
WU
WV
JB7JB4-BJB2-AJB1JB6-BJB3-BJB2-BJB3-AJB5-BJB5-AJ
B
4
-
C
JB6-AJB4-AJB5-CEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Legend
Proposed Easement - 13.15 ac
Fixed Vegetation Plot
Random Vegetation Plot*
Wetland Enhancement
Planting Area
Planting - 6.75 ac
Supplemental Planting - 4.49 ac
!>Stage Recorder
Cross Section
Stream Mitigation Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Enhancement II (4:1)
Enhancement III
X X Proposed Fencing
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 10 - Monitoring - Puncheon Fork.mxdDate: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: BPB
1 inch = 200 feet
Figure 10 - Monitoring Plan
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina0200100
Feet©*There will be 2 Random Vegetation Plots.
Random plots will vary by location and dimension
from year to year.
*Permanent photo stations will be collocated with
monitoring devices, and one at each crossing.

Appendix A

Site Protection Instrument (s)

 Model Conservation Easement
 Unique Places to Save Long-term Steward Engagement Letter
 Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment

*Appendix will be updated as easement deeds and plats become available.

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]
July 22, 2019
Brad Breslow 
Resource Environmental Solutions 
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 
Raleigh, NC 27605 
Dear Mr. Breslow, 
This letter confirms that Resource Environmental Solutions (“RES”) 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 Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project (“Site”) located in Madison               
County approximately thirteen miles west of Burnsville, NC. 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 into perpetuity. 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 $53,965.71 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 Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project, UP2S                 
agrees to abide by the terms of the bond agreement(s) in the event that RES fails to perform or no longer                     
exists. 
________________________ ____________________________ 
Board Member Representative Signature  
Unique Places To Save Resource Environmental Solutions 
____________________________________________________ 
Printed Name Printed Name 
______________________ 
Date
PO Box 1183 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 585-472-9498 ​[e-mail]
Brad Breslow, Regulatory Manager
8/1/2019
dotloop verified
08/02/19 9:31 AM EDT
IWFS-NUKI-1ASQ-QT4ZJeff Fisher
Jeffrey Fisher
dotloop signature verification: dtlp.us/iEyN-sD1u-xFX3
Unique Places to Save Annual Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment
Puncheon Fork 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 13.27 ac 10 $60.00 Annual $600.00
Staff time needed to address minor violations or issues N/A 10 $600.00 Once every 10 yrs.$60.00
Mileage 510 N/A $0.58 Annual $295.80
Lodging Costs 1 N/A $100.00 Annual $100.00
Meal Costs 2 N/A $20.00 Annual $40.00
Insurance N/A N/A $100.00 N/A $100.00
Total Annual Funding Amount $1,195.80
Capitalization Rate 3.50%
Monitoring Endowment $34,165.71
Accepting and Defending the Easement in Perpetuity
Staff time for major violations N/A 80 $60.00 N/A $4,800.00
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 $19,800.00
Total Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment $53,965.71

Appendix B

Baseline Information and Correspondence

 USACE PJD Confirmation Package with Wetland Determination Data Sheets
 NCIRT Revised Initial Evaluation Letter (July 2018)
o Agency Correspondence
 Response NC State Historic Preservation Office
 Additional Agency Correspondence
o Letters to and from USFWS
o Letters to and from NCWRC
o Northern Long Eared Bat 4(d) Consultation Consistency Letter (USFWS)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: SAW-2018-00094 County: Madison U.S.G.S. Quad: Sams Gap
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: RES / Attn.: Matt DeAnEelo
Address: 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone Number: 757-202-4471
Size (acres): 20.3 acre portion of larger tract Nearest Town: Mars Hill
Nearest Waterway: UTs Puncheon Fork and
Puncheon Fork Coordinates: 35.95769 N 82.53230 W
River Basin/ HUC: Upper French Broad (06010105)
Location description: The project site is located on a tract of land INs 9852-31-9900 9852-43-3188 9852-42-5291,
9852-52-0115 9852-51-1453 and 9852-50-5995 at 4539 Puncheon Fork Road in Mars Hill Madison County. North
Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Al]ply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. 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 farther instruction.
There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely
an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction overall of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area,
which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have
the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the
Corps.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described 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 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 waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described 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.
We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation
that can be verified by the Corps.
The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon

completion. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA
jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . 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 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 to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or 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 David Brown at
828-271-7980, ext. 4232 or [e-mail].
C. Basis for Determination:
See attached preliminary jurisdictional determination form.
D. Remarks:
The potential waters of the U.S., at this site, were verified on -site by the Corps on April 3, 2019, and are as
approximately depicted on the attached Potential Wetland or Non -Wetlands of the U.S. Map —Puncheon Fork Mitigation
Project (dated April 9, 2019) submitted by RES.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate
participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to
this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you
will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
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, N/A (Preliminary -JD).
Pa

* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official.
David Brown
Issue Date of JD: May 2, 2019 Expiration Date: N/A Preliminary JD
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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
htt ://coT sma u.usace.armv.miVcm a ex/f?=136:4:0.
Copy furnished:
James Bertram, Burnette, 840 Bruce Road, Mars Hill, NC 28754
John and Marsha McKay, 4 Bear Claw Trail, Candler, NC 28715

Blank Page

Vv�
Ai.
of,
oz
END
. if
4

Ar
NOTIFICATION 0 F ADi►M'ISTRATIVE APPFA1, 0Ty1*10N4 AND PROC4;a
licant. U S / Attn.: Matt DeAngelo File Number: SAW-2018-00094 2, 2019
Attached
_
is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
E
®
SECTION i - The following identifies your -rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of -the above decision.
Additional information maybe found at htt armv.milfiv� issio3�slCivil WorkslReAi�lata Pro anaandPenr:its.as or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may acceptor object to the permit.
0 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 H of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section H 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.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD.
The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps
district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION 11-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 ]NFORIVJATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeA process you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: David Brown CESAD-PDO
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
828-271-7980, ext. 4232 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 investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn.: David Brown, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JD: May 2, 2019
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
RES / Attn.: Matt DeAngelo
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
CESAW-RG-A, SAW-2018-00094, RES Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The project site is located on a tract of land (PINs 9852-31-9900, 9852-43-3188, 9852-42-5291, 9852-52-0115,
9852-51-1453, and 9852-50-5995) at 4539 Puncheon Fork Road in Mars Hill, Madison County, North Carolina.
State: NC County/parish borough: Madison City: Mars Hill
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): 35.95769 N, 82.53230 W
Universal Transverse Mercator: N/A
Name of nearestwaterbody: UTs Puncheon Fork and Puncheon Fork
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: May 2, 2019
Field Determination. Date(s): April 3, 2019
Use the table below to document aquatic resources and/or aquatic resources at different sites
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION
Centered Coordinates
Estimated Amount of
Geographic
Site Number
(decimal degrees)
Aquatic Resource in
Type of Aquatic
Authority to Which
Review Area
Resources
Aquatic Resource
Latitude Longitude
(linear feet or acre)
"May Be" Subject
f Wetland
Section 404
WA
35.9541113
-82.5280754
0.2523 ac
Q Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
WB
35.9542426
-82.5277874
0.3035 ac
Wetland
Section 404
0.0069 ac
Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
WC
35.9551138
-82.5286197
-82.5280608
Wetland
Non -wetland Waters
Section 404
[ Section 10/404
WD
35.9544582
0.6064 ac
Wetland
Non -wetland Watersl
Section 404
Section 10/404
Section 404
Section 10/404
Section 404
Section 10/404
WE
35.9548566
-82.5286814
0.0325 ac
0.0076 ac
Wetland
Non -wetland Waters
Wetland
Non -wetland Waters
WF
35.9553382
-82.529125
WG
35.9559382
-82.5291555
0.2146 ac
Wetland
�i] Non -wetland Waters
Section 404
0 Section 10/404

Wetland ® Section 404
WH
35.9565985
-82.5303428
0.0195 ac
Q Non -wetland Waters ❑ Section 10/404
Wetland Section 404
W1
35.9567684
-82.5307249
0.0838 ac
Non -wetland Waters 0 Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WJ
35.9570722
-82.5311029
0.0137 ac
Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WK
35.9576654
-82.5320999
0.2201 ac
Non -wetland Waters]
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WL
35.9575439
-82.5315882
0.012 ac
Q Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WM
35.9573701
-82.5319468
0.031 ac
Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WN
35.9573832
-82.5323515
0.0123 ac
Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WO
35.9579185
-82.5320127
0.079 ac
Q Non -wetland Waters]
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WP
35.9587635
-82.5325827
0.0113 ac
[� Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WQ
35.9596281
-82.5329946
0.0776 ac
Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WR
35.9605067
-82.5342527
0.0765 ac
E]
Non -wetland Waters,]
Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WS
35.960687
-82.5334241
0.0394 ac
Non -wetland Waters
Section 10/404
Wetland
® Section 404
WT
35.9615505
-82.533764
0.0107 ac
Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WU
35.957709
-82.532471
0.0657 ac
Non -wetland Waters
❑ Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
WV
35.95991
-82.53276
0.0043 ac
[� Non -wetland Waters
� Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
JB1
35.96181
-82.533874
696 if
19 Non -wetland Waters]
Section 10/404
Wetland
f Section 404
JB2
35.960244
-82.533436
598, if
Non -wetland Waters
El Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
JB3
35.959693
-82.532802
654 if
Non -wetland Waters
_M
p Section 10/404
Wetland
Section 404
JB4
35.957254
-82.533724
1,5021f
to Non -wetland Waters
0 Section 10/404
D Wetland
Section 404
JBS
35.956963
-82.531059
1,8181E
Non -wetland Waters
Wetland
Section 10/404
Section 404
JB6
35.954935
-82.528666
991 if
Non -wetland Waters
[ Section 10/404
]
Wetland
Section 404
JB7
35.957692
-82.532422
173 if
]�
Non -wetland Watersl
Section 10/404
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:
SUPPORTING DATA
Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply) - Checked items should be included in subject file.
Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of preliminary JD requester: RES
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of preliminary JD requester. RES
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rational:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps..
USGS map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Sams Gap.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey.
Citation: Madison County, NC
National wetlands inventory (NWI) map(s). Cite name:
M State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) / Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): Google Earth Pro, Oct. 2015, Nov. 2013, Oct. 2010, Apr. 2010, Jun. 2008,
Jun. 2007, Jun. 2005, Apr. 1998, and Apr. 1993
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:

Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): The site contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Eastern
Mountain and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). These wetlands are abutting to stream channels located at the site and
flow into the channels. Wetland hydrology is enhanced with the abutting stream channels via normal down gradient
flows and periods of high water.
The streams on the site are UTs Puncheon Fork and Puncheon Fork, which exhibit physical ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) indicators including, break in slope; developed bed and bank; changes in sediment texture and soil
character; natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; absence of vegetation; leaf litter washed away; sediment
deposition and sorting; presence of aquatic life; water staining; presence of debris; and scour. Some of the streams are
depicted as solid blue lines on the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map Sams Gap and the most current Natural
Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey for Madison County. Solid blue line features on these mapping
conventions typically represent perennial streams.
The UTs Puncheon Fork flow into Puncheon Fork, which flows into Big Laurel Creek, and then into the French
Broad River, a traditional navigable water and designated Section 10 water. The French Broad River merges with the
Holston River to form the Tennessee River. The Tennessee River flows into the Ohio River then to the Mississippi
River before entering the Gulf of Mexico.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and
should not be relied upon for later ,jurisdictional determinations.
David Brown, May 2, 2019 RES / Attn:• Matt DeAngelo
Signature and date of Regulatory (per Agent Authorization)
staff member completing Signature and date of person requesting
preliminary JD preliminary JD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)
Two copies of this Preliminary JD Form have been provided Please sign both copies. Keep one signed copy for your record
and return a signed copy to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office by mail or e-mail.
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC28801-5006
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.
10

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-1
23-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Floodplain
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC
-82.52835635.954919
Ela loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded PEM
NAD83
flat
Highlty impacted by cattle: Active trampling and grazing
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
20
20
0
0
0
0
Yes No
20.0%
0.0%
30.0%
0.0%
66.7%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
40 80
0.0%
20 60
20 80
0
0 0
0.0%
80 220
0.0%
2.750
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%FACW
25.0%FAC
25.0%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
80
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-1Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
Juncus effusus
Digitaria serotina
Festuca arundinacea
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-1SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
12-18
3-12
0-3
10YR
10YR
10YR
3/1
4/1
3/1
95
85
85 10YR
10YR
10YR
4/6
4/6
4/6 5
15
15 C
C
C M
M
PL Silty Clay Loam
Sandy Loam
Silty Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-2
23-Jan-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Hillside
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.528211 35.954950
Ela loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Upland
NAD83

convex
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
20
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
00.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
80 320
0
0 0
0.0%
80 320
0.0%
4.000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
75.0%FACU
25.0%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-2Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
Festuca arundinacea
Trifolium repens
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-2SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Gravelly
Gravelly
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
10-12
3-10
0-3
10YR
10YR
10YR
7/4
5/4
5/4
100
100
100 Silty Clay Loam
Loam
Sandy Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-3
06-Feb-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Toeslope
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.53029135.956569
Toecane-Tusquitee complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, bouldery PEM
NAD83

flat
Highlty impacted by cattle: Active trampling and grazing
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
20 60
0 0
0
0 0
0.0%
20 60
0.0%
3.000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-3Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
Digitaria serotina
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-3SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
0-12 2.5YR 4/1 80 2.5YR 6/3 20 C PL Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-4
06-Feb-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Mountainslope
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.53044035.956600
Toecane-Tusquitee complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, bouldery Upland
NAD83

flat
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
10
10
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
328.6%FACU
28.6%FAC
428.6%FAC
14.3%FACU
75.0%
35
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
60 180
15 60
0
0 0
0.0%
75 240
0.0%
3.200
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
40
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
40
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-4Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Fagus grandifolia
Acer rubrum
Betula alleghaniensis
Quercus rubra
Rhododendron maximum
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-4SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
0-12 10YR 4/3 100 Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-5
06-Feb-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Toeslope
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.53080935.956790
Toecane-Tusquitee complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, bouldery PEM
NAD83

concave
Highlty impacted by cattle: Active trampling and grazing
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
20 60
0 0
0
0 0
0.0%
20 60
0.0%
3.000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-5Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
Digitaria serotina
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-5SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
10-12
3-10
0-3
G2
G1
10YR
3/5B
3/N
3/1
100
90
90 10YR
10YR
3/6
3/6 10
10 C
C M
M Loam
Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-6
06-Feb-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Floodplain
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.53229135.957694
Toecane-Tusquitee complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, bouldery PEM
NAD83

flat
Highlty impacted by cattle: Active trampling and grazing
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
5
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
15
5
0
0
0
0
Yes No
20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
25 50
0.0%
15 45
0 0
0
0 0
0.0%
40 95
0.0%
2.375
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%FACW
37.5%FAC
12.5%FACW
0.0%
0.0%
40
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-6Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
Juncus effusus
Digitaria serotina
Vernonia noveboracensis
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-6SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
2-12
0-2
G1
10YR
4/N
2/1
80
100
2.5YR 3/6 20 C PL
Silty Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-7
06-Feb-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Hillside
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.53257935.958169
Toecane-Tusquitee complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, bouldery Upland
NAD83

convex
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
20
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
00.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
80 320
0
0 0
0.0%
80 320
0.0%
4.000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
75.0%FACU
25.0%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-7Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
Festuca arundinacea
Trifolium repens
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-7SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
0-12 10YR 5/3 85 10YR 4/6 15 C M Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-8
07-Feb-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Toeslope
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.53294535.959729
Toecane-Tusquitee complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, bouldery PEM
NAD83

concave
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
25
15
0
0
0
0
Yes No
3100.0%FAC
0.0%
40.0%
0.0%
75.0%
5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
30 60
0.0%
30 90
15 60
0
0 0
0.0%
75 210
0.0%
2.800
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
42.9%FACW
35.7%FAC
21.4%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
70
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-8Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Betula alleghaniensis
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
Juncus effusus
Digitaria serotina
Festuca arundinacea
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-8SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
8-12
0-8
10YR
10YR
3/1
4/1
90
85 2.5YR
2.5YR
3/6
3/6 10
15 C
C M
M Sandy Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-9
07-Feb-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Hillside
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.53303135.959782
Toecane-Tusquitee complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, bouldery Upland
NAD83

convex
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
00.0%
0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
80 320
0
0 0
0.0%
80 320
0.0%
4.000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-9Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
Festuca arundinacea
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-9SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
6-12
0-6
10YR
10YR
6/8
4/3
100
100 Clay Loam
Clay
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-10
07-Feb-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Hillside
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.53416635.960517
Tate loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes PEM
NAD83

flat
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
20
10
5
0
0
0
Yes No
20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
45 90
0.0%
20 60
10 40
0
0 0
0.0%
75 190
0.0%
2.533
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
53.3%FACW
26.7%FAC
13.3%FACU
6.7%FACW
0.0%
75
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-10Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
Juncus effusus
Digitaria serotina
Festuca arundinacea
Vernonia noveboracensis
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-10SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
9-12
0-9
10YR
10YR
3/1
4/1
85
75 5YR
10YR
4/6
3/1 15
25 C
C M
M Silty Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-11
07-Feb-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Floodplain
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.53376135.961557
Tate loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes PEM
NAD83

flat
Highlty impacted by cattle: Active trampling and grazing
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
20
20
0
0
0
0
Yes No
20.0%
0.0%
30.0%
0.0%
66.7%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
25 50
0.0%
20 60
20 80
0
0 0
0.0%
65 190
0.0%
2.923
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
38.5%FACW
30.8%FAC
30.8%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
65
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-11Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
Juncus effusus
Digitaria serotina
Festuca arundinacea
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-11SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
9-12
0-9
10YR
10YR
2/1
4/1
85
75 5YR
5YR
4/6
4/6 15
25 C
C M
PL
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
DP-12
07-Feb-19
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Resource Environmental Solutions
M. DeAngelo
Hillside
MLRA 130b in LRR N
Madison
NC

-82.53366135.961707
Tate loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Upland
NAD83

flat
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
00.0%
0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0.000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
DP-12Sampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:30
(Plot size:15
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5
(Plot size:30
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DP-12SoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
10-12
0-10
10YR
10YR
6/8
4/3
100
100 Silty Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)

July 26, 2018

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Prospectus; SAW-2016-02357

EBX, LLC
Attention: Mr. Brad Breslow
302 Jefferson Street
Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Dear Mr. Breslow:

This letter is in regard to your revised prospectus document for the proposed RES French Broad 05
Umbrella Mitigation Bank dated January 2018. The proposal currently consists of the establishment and
operation of the mitigation sites listed below:

Corps Action ID Site Name Easement
Size
(acres)
County Stream/Receiving
Water
Latitude
(ºN)
Longitude
(ºW)
SAW-2016-02357 Carolina
Bison
9.0 Buncombe Parker Branch 35.671107 -82.669235
SAW-2018-00094 Puncheon 15 Madison Puncheon Fork 35.954868 -82.531369
SAW-2018-00095 Dead Oak 21.8 Buncombe French Broad
River
Turkey Creek
35.71256 -82.66514

An initial prospectus for RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank for just the Carolina
Bison Site was received in November 2016, put on public notice on December 12, 2016 (P/N # SAW-
2016-02357) and issued an initial evaluation letter on September 20, 2017. The Corps received an
updated prospectus in January 2018 that included five sites: Carolina Bison, Commercial Hill, Big
Willow, Puncheon and Dead Oak. The new Prospectus was determined complete by the Corps and a
public notice was issued on January 29, 2018. 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 January 30 and 31, 2018. Attached are comments received in
response to the site visit or the public notice from the US Environmental Protection Agency, the NC
Division of Water Resources, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, the NC State Historic Preservation
Office and a field visit memo incorporating comments from the attending IRT members. Modifications to
the Dead Oak Site, as a result of IRT comments during the site visit, were received via email on June 11,
2018 and distributed to the IRT via email on June 28, 2018. On July 13, 2018, Brad Breslow, with RES,
requested, via email, to withdraw the Commercial Hill and Big Willow sites from bank consideration at
this time.

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

The Corps has reviewed the information provided and considered the comments received from
members of the Interagency Review Team (IRT). We have determined that the proposed mitigation bank,
to include the three sites listed in the table above, appear to have the potential to preserve and enhance
aquatic resources within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 06010105 of the French Broad River
Basin. Therefore, the bank sponsor may proceed with preparation of a draft Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI).

Please provide a response to the attached comments with your draft MBI submittal. We
appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United States. If you have any questions
about the path forward for the proposed mitigation bank, please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-271-
7980 x4234.

Sincerely,

Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager

Electronic Copy:

Todd Tugwell, USACE
Andrea Hughes, USACE
Kim Browning, USACE
Scott Jones, USACE
Mac Haupt, NCDWR
Zan Price, NCDWR
Andrea Leslie, NCWRC
Todd Bowers, USEPA
Byron Hamstead, USFWS

REPLY TO ATTENTION
OF:

CESAW-RG/Kichefski July 26, 2018

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Proposed RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank - Comments
Received during site visits and in Response to the Public Notice

PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received in response to the site visits
and Prospectus document during the 30-day comment period in accordance with
Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.

Project Name: RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Buncombe & Madison
Counties, NC

USACE AID#: Carolina Bison Mitigation Site: SAW-2016-02357
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site: SAW-2018-00094
Dead Oak Mitigation Site: SAW-2018-00095

Andrea Leslie, NCWRC:
See comments received via email February 9, 2018 in addition to comments incorporated into
field visit memo.

Todd Bowers, USEPA, February 26, 2018:
See Attached Comments

Renee Gledhill-Earley, SHPO, February 2 8, 2018:
See attached comments

Mac Haupt, NCDWR:
See comments received via email February 6, 2018 in addition to comments incorporated into field
visit memo.

Steve Kichefski, USACE

General Comments:

1. All resource labels used in the jurisdictional delineations should be the same or
referenced in the plan submittal for comparison.
2. Please be aware that mitigation ratios will be determined at the draft mitigation plan
stage.
Carolina Bison:
1. Refer to all comments previously conveyed or included with the September 2017
initial evaluation letter.

Puncheon:
1. Elaborate with draft plan submittal how the proposed work will affect the several
seeps and wetlands alongside the existing channels.
2. How will RES ensure cattle exclusion in the large crossing despite this area not
being within the easement?
3. JB4-4 – Clear old pipe debris from channel and address the headcut near the
JB4-A/JB4-B break.
4. JB5-B – Concern was expressed regarding the narrow buffer between the stream
and any road/utility ROW.
5. JB6 – How will the existing road bed within the easement be addressed with the
stream work in this reach?

Dead Oak:
1. During the Dead Oak site visit on January 30, 2018 concerns were expressed by
the IRT over the disconnected nature of most site streams. RES re-evaluated the
property and submitted a site modification proposal via email on June 11, 2018.
This update included additional stream segments or buffers along project streams
and the proposal was distributed to the IRT via email on June 28, 2018. Although
appropriate mitigation ratios will be determined at the draft plan stage, the
updated project areas have been included in the projects initial acceptance.
2. Although included in the site visit memo, it is worth reiterating the concern about
sedimentation/erosion on this site due to the animal concentrations and
condition/location of the existing road network. Whether it’s through bmp’s,
wider buffers or improving/moving roads somehow it should be addressed to
maintain the integrity of the project.
3. FC7 – Several seeps/wetlands/small tribs were present downstream of the house
on this reach and an effort should be made to include them within the buffer. As
discussed on site and in the site visit memo, the easement break on FC7 is a
concern. What can be done to minimize the project vulnerability in this area?
4. The remaining USACE comments were given during the site visit and included
within the site visit memo.

Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
Asheville Field Office

MEMORANDUM

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: North Carolina Interagency Review Team
FROM: Brad Breslow, RES
DATE: February 5, 2018
RE: RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Bank IRT Site Visits

Dates: January 30th and 31st, 2018.

Day 1- January 30th, 2018- Dead oak and Puncheon Fork Sites
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Steve Kichefski (USACE), Mac Haupt (DWR), Zan Price (NC
DWR), Andrea Leslie (WRC), Brad Breslow (RES), David Godley (RES)

Day 2- January 31st, 2018- Commercial Hill and Big Willow Sites
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Steve Kichefski (USACE), Andrea Leslie (WRC), Brad Breslow
(RES), David Godley (RES)

Dead Oak Site
IRT members agreed that the Dead Oak Site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation pending some
additions/changes to the overall approach in the Mitigation Plan. Final credit ratios will be determined in
the Approved Mitigation Plan. Main concerns expressed by the IRT included lack of easement connectivity
from the side drainages (FC3, FC4, and FC5) to the main stem (reach between FC2 and FC6) along the
eastern property boundary and the lack of buffer along the northern property boundary that abuts the Sandy
Mush HQP property. The IRT also expressed that this project would benefit greatly from wider buffers on
some of the reaches. RES is confident that easement can be placed on all of these areas on existing property
and is already pursuing these updates with landowner(s). The group also discussed the high density of
invasive species throughout the project area; treatment goals and objectives for invasive management which
will be incorporated into the mitigation plan. WRC also noted many individuals of spicebush (Lindera
benzoin) within the project area and the group agreed that this species should be incorporated in the planting
plan. RES agrees to send a letter outlining easement updates/additions for the IRT to use in its initial
evaluation of the Prospectus. Reach specific comments and action items for the Dead Oak site are below.

• FC1- RES originally proposed restoration for this reach. The group agreed that Restoration is
appropriate treatment for the upper end, but IRT recommends transition to a mixture of
Enhancement I and II further downstream. RES agrees to this approach and will refine treatment
breaks during data collection and design phase of the project.
• FC2- Group agreed that Restoration is appropriate treatment on this reach and approach would be
a hybrid between P1 and P2 Restoration. Approach would be to raise bed elevation, address active
erosion, and improve bedform diversity with structures. IRT mentioned that Enhancement I/II
approach might be more appropriate closer to tie-in with FC3. RES agrees to refine approach on
lower end of FC2 with further data collection.

• FC3- Group agreed the Enhancement II was an appropriate treatment on this reach, but had
concerns over the condition of the channel (very incised and actively eroding) and the size of the
watershed (~10 acres). RES agreed that watershed size was a concern and that is why Enhancement
II was proposed over a Restoration approach that would raise bed elevation and likely remove
hydrology from the channel. Enhancement measures will include removing large amounts of debris
from the channel, planting the buffer, and permanently excluding cattle.
• FC4- Group agreed with the treatment of Enhancement II for section A and Restoration along
section B. Similar to Reach FC2, the restoration approach would be a hybrid between P1 and P2
Restoration. Approach would be to raise bed elevation, address active erosion, and improve
bedform diversity with structures.
• Reach FC5 was proposed as Enhancement II which would largely be dictated by fixing/removing
the farm road that crosses the middle of the reach. Hydrology is severely impaired due to the highly
eroded roadbed and the lack of connectivity between the upstream and downstream portion, but
otherwise the downstream section is fairly stable. Group agreed to approach, but IRT members
commented that they had concerns with the condition of the road and potential sediment inputs to
channel. The Enhancement II approach on this reach would include restoring the hydrology via
road removal, planting the buffer, and excluding livestock.
• Reach FC6- RES originally proposed preservation for this reach, but the group agreed that the
upper 200-300 feet would be a better candidate for Enhancement III because of the need for buffer
improvements and minor bank stabilization in a few areas.
• FC7- RES originally proposed Restoration for this reach, which in general was agreed upon by the
group. The major concern on this reach was the size of the easement break and the Restoration call
on the reach behind the existing house. RES agrees that behind the house, Enhancement II is a
more appropriate crediting ratio. Restoration above the easement break would be a hybrid between
P1 and P2 Restoration. Approach would be to raise bed elevation, address active erosion, and
improve bedform diversity with structures. The restoration approach on the lower half would be
Priority 1 which would include relocating the channel to the center of the valley away from the
road and raising the bed elevation. The upstream extent of the Restoration would be determined by
finding an appropriate tie-in point, such as a bedrock outcrop in the Enhancement II section. The
group also discussed the tributary that entered the project area towards the bottom of this reach.
Because the Restoration approach in this area is to raise the bed elevation, the design will have to
incorporate some additional work on this channel to tie-in downstream of existing culvert.

Puncheon Fork Site
IRT members agreed that the Puncheon Fork Site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation and final credit
ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Overall, it was decided that the site would benefit
from refining site treatments and ratios based on the discussions had in the field. The site has a substantial
amount of existing wetlands and there are also multiple seeps/springs located within, or just outside, the
easement. The IRT would like these seeps/springs to be included/incorporated into the project in some
way. Most notably one feature between the confluence of JB4 and JB5 had the most prominent stream
characteristics and may be viable for stream credit pending more detailed functional assessment. Reach
specific comments are below.

• JB1- Group agreed that Enhancement II is the appropriate ratio for this reach. Above Hoot and
Holler Lane, a perched culvert will be removed. Proposed treatment activities include: minor bank
grading, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. WRC recommended incorporating some
improvements to bedform, such as constructing pools, as the majority of the reach was a long
shallow run. RES agreed that this would be valuable to add to the overall design in addition to the
proposed bank work.
• JB2- Group agreed that Enhancement II is the appropriate treatment for this reach with the
exception of the top 200 feet of the reach near the existing ford driveway crossing. Based on the

instability of the current ford crossing, and the proximity to the road, the group agreed that
Restoration would be an appropriate treatment to relocate the channel through the valley before
tying back in with the Enhancement II reach. Enhancement II approach will include minor bank
grading, removal of two culverts and one bridge, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. WRC
recommended improving bedform with log structures.
• JB3- Group agreed to similar Enhancement II approach for section A and C with the exception of
the stretch of Enhancement I along section B that would stabilize the large headcut. RES explained
that exact limits of Enhancement I would be determined during design phase with more detailed
data collection.
• JB4-A- Enhancement II treatment was agreed upon as appropriate crediting approach. IRT
commented that it would be ideal to work with landowner to address excessive erosion on barren
hillside of the left bank, and/or incorporate this area in easement to limit sediment inputs from this
problem area. RES agreed to pursue this area and potentially explore wider buffers along this
reach.
• JB4-B/C- Enhancement I approach which would mostly include heavy benching on the left bank,
culvert replacement, and bedform improvements was agreed to be appropriate strategy for JB4-B
USACE recommended the benching to alternate between banks based on existing vegetation in
some areas which RES agreed would be better approach. IRT expressed that Enhancement II was
potentially too light of a touch for Reach JB4-C based on the active erosion present on the banks.
RES agreed to likely pursue Enhancement I as the better approach especially at the tie-in with JB5-
A.
• JB5-A- Group agreed that Enhancement II is the appropriate ratio for this reach. Proposed
treatment activities include: minor bank grading, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion. IRT
commented that large easement gap between JB3 and JB5-A was a concern. RES explained the
size of this gap is to facilitate existing landuse for the landowner, primarily logging operations, and
that cattle would be excluded from the crossing in the easement break.
• JB5-B/C- RES originally proposed a combination of Enhancement III that would transition to a
small stretch of Priority 1 Restoration to tie in with JB6. The proposed restoration would relocate
the channel to the low spot in the valley through an existing patch of wetlands. The IRT agreed
that the proposed re-alignment was likely the original channel location, but because the channel
has appropriate substrate and healthy bedform, an Enhancement I treatment is a better strategy to
maximize functional uplift. Enhancement I approach would leave channel in place and mostly focus
on shaping and protecting the left bank and improving floodplain connectivity to the existing
riparian wetlands. Brushtoes and log structures would be incorporated to aid in bank protection
and reduction of erosion and sediment loading to the channel.
• JB6- The group agreed that an Enhancement I approach similar to the approach on JB5-C was
appropriate treatment for this reach. IRT recommended an Enhancement II approach below the
last crossing because the channel was in better shape in this location. RES agrees to this update.

Commercial Hill
IRT members agreed the Commercial Hill Site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation and final credit
ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. The plan is to have buffers of 150 feet or greater
throughout the entire project when feasible. Reach specific comments are below.

• UT1-A- RES originally proposed Enhancement II with approach of cattle exclusion, minor bank
stabilization, and buffer planting. IRT recommended approach of Enhancement I based on level

of erosion and channel incision. RES agrees to this approach and treatment will include bank
grading and stabilization, bedform improvements, cattle exclusion, and buffer planting.
• UT1-B/C- Group agreed to proposal for restoration.
• UT1-D- Group agreed Enhancement III approach at 5:1 was most appropriate. This approach
would include stabilizing one large erosional area and planting the buffer along the right bank.
USACE recommends potentially realigning the channel slightly, instead of stabilizing the one
tortuous bend that is likely to fail again in the future. IRT recommended removing the reach below
the existing gas easement.
• UT2- RES originally proposed Enhancement II at the top (UT2-A) transitioning to a treatment of
Enhancement I towards the confluence with UT1. In the field, the group agreed that Enhancement
I for the entire reach was more appropriate. The main focus on the enhancement would be raising
the bed elevation and stabilizing banks with structures and sloping/benching.
• UT3- Group agreed to Enhancement II approach which would include removing debris from
channel, stabilizing headcut, and planting the buffer.

Big Willow
IRT members agreed the Big Willow Site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation and final credit ratios
will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. During the field visit many changes to the conceptual
plan were discussed, such as: including upstream parcel to carry restoration/enhancement measures to
perched culvert, including the reach that drains to reach D2, changing treatment on reach D3 to restoration,
and including expected wetland restoration credits. Based on the level of expected changes, IRT
recommends that RES removes Big Willow from the current prospectus to better refine the approach and
re-submit as a modification to the UMBI or as a standalone bank site at a later date. RES agreed to this
approach and will send letter requesting removal from prospectus submittal. Reach specific comments are
below.

• D1- Overall the group agreed that Priority 1 Restoration was the best approach. This would include
relocating the channel to the natural valley away from the DOT road, filling adjacent ditches, and
harvesting native bed material from the existing channel. Group agreed that in some places along
the channel where erosion was not as evident that enhancement measures would be more
appropriate, but based on the proximity to the road and the hydric soil in the valley, relocation is
still likely best option. RES agreed to refine approach based on more detailed functional
assessments and soil investigation. Currently, one upstream parcel owner has not agreed to project,
but RES is actively pursuing with goal of carrying project all the way to existing perched culvert
which would be addressed in design. Group agreed that including this upstream end was the most
ideal scenario, but the project still has merit if this upper section cannot be included.
• D2-A- Group agreed to preservation at 10:1.
• D2-B/C- Group agreed to Enhancement II along section B and Restoration along section C. Main
change was to bring the Restoration up farther past the proposed crossing based on the level of
bank erosion and poor bedform in the channel. Restoration measures would include bank
stabilization, installing structures to raise bed elevation, removal of drain tiles along the right bank,
and improving channel pattern. Enhancement II above the restoration would include spot
stabilization along the banks and riparian buffer plantings.
• D3- RES originally proposed Enhancement III based on healthy buffer along right bank and the
varying levels of instability. Based on level of incision, lack of pattern, and stretches of active
erosion, IRT recommended exploring Priority 1 Restoration approach that would relocate channel

to the natural valley and raise the bed elevation. RES agreed that this would be ideal approach, but
this would require tying to pond outlet up above and likely relocating existing crossing that was
proposed to stay in place for landowner.
From:Haupt, Mac
To:Brad Breslow; Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Leslie,
Andrea J; Price, Zan (George)
Cc:David Godley; Daniel Ingram; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject:[Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RES French Broad 05 IRT Site Visit Memo
Date:Tuesday, February 6, 2018 2:38:42 PM
Brad,
Below are my comments on your site notes for the FB 05 Umbi site visits:
Dead Oak Site
1. In general I am ok with your notes, however; I wanted to stress that from my perspective, if you cannot get
both sides of the stream that connects FC2 and FC6, I have difficulty approving the project. The IRT is concerned
with the number of disconnected (short) reaches that we are seeing proposed on sites. The IRT will be putting out
guidelines soon to hopefully stem this tide.
2. Also, since this site has adjacent lands with heavy pasture use and erosion issues, other bmp-like practices
should be looked at to lessen the impact of sediment erosion in addition to the application of wider riparian buffers.
3. For reaches FC1 and FC7, if they had not had connectivity to Sandy Mush, are a prime example of
discontiguous reaches that have a minimal affect (and therefore functional uplift) on the catchment/watershed.
4. In addition, we are striving to minimize reach breaks as seen in FC7, and the proposed crossing between JB3-
C and JB5-A in the Puncheon Fork site.
Puncheon Fork Site
1. In general, agreed with the notes for this site.
2. There was the powerline and road right-of-way along JB5-B that will need to be dealt with.
Commercial Hill
1. Did not attend this site visit-went home sick.
Big Willow
1. Did not attend this site visit-went home sick.
Thanks,
Mac
From: Brad Breslow [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 4:23 PM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J
CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Leslie,
Andrea J <[e-mail]>; Price, Zan (George) <[e-mail]>
Cc: David Godley <[e-mail]>; Daniel Ingram <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: [External] RES French Broad 05 IRT Site Visit Memo
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam. <mailto:[e-mail]>
Hello everyone,
Please find attached a memo from RES regarding the French Broad 05 IRT site visits. Thanks for taking the time to
meet with us last week. As we discussed, I will draft a letter asking to remove the Big Willow Site from the current
prospectus, and also include the proposed easement updates we outlined for the Dead Oak Site. Todd and Steve-
please let me know if we can set up a time to discuss a crediting approach for the areas adjacent to the Sandy Mush
property. If you have any questions/comments, please let me know.
Steve- I wasn’t sure if this should go to all of the IRT members, so I can forward to others if needed.
Thanks,
Brad Breslow
Project Manager
RES | res.us <Blockedhttp://www.res.us/>
Direct: 919.209.1062 | Mobile: [phone]
From:Leslie, Andrea J
To:Haupt, Mac; Brad Breslow; Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(US); Price, Zan (George)
Cc:David Godley; Daniel Ingram; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject:[Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] RES French Broad 05 IRT Site Visit Memo
Date:Friday, February 9, 2018 4:17:29 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image005.png
Thanks Brad. I’ll add to Mac’s comments here:
Dead Oak
* Eroding roads are a major concern. The road along FC5 was noted in Brad’s notes, but I’d like to stress that
other roads in bad shape that serve as sediment sources should be addressed in some way, through road stabilization
and/or treatment BMPs.
* Brad notes that BMPs are needed at various locations. I noted one of them at a small upstream unnamed trib
to FC2.
Puncheon Fork
* I recommend bringing in some instream structures along JB3 and JB5B - JB6 to create some bedform diversity
(pools).
* As the head of JB2 is a perched ford that likely serves as a barrier, we talked about working with that
landowner to improve the ford, making sure it is passable and stepping the channel down below it to attempt to
address the barrier.
Big Willow
* A lot of wetland may be restored with this project, and this is perhaps the most valuable part of this project.
We recommended capturing the wetland in the CE and also within the credit.
Thanks and happy Friday,
Andrea
_____________________________________________
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Rd., Building B
Marion, NC 28752
828-803-6054 (office)
828-400-4223 (cell)
Blockedwww.ncwildlife.org <Blockedhttp://www.ncwildlife.org/>
<Blockedhttps://plus.google.com/u/0/b/104061933014720497710/104061933014720497710/about>
<Blockedhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/NC-Wildlife-Resources-Commission/169986143088699?
sk=wall&filter=2> <Blockedhttps://twitter.com/?lang=en&logged_out=1#!/NCWildlife>
<Blockedhttp://www.ncwildlife.org/News/Blogs/NCWRCBlog.aspx>
<Blockedhttp://www.youtube.com/user/NCWRC?blend=2&ob=video-mustangbase>
Get NC Wildlife Update <Blockedhttp://www.ncwildlife.org/News/WildlifeEmailUpdate.aspx> delivered to your
inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
________________________________
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
From: Haupt, Mac
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 2:38 PM
To: Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>; Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>; Price, Zan (George)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: David Godley <[e-mail]>; Daniel Ingram <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [External] RES French Broad 05 IRT Site Visit Memo
Brad,
Below are my comments on your site notes for the FB 05 Umbi site visits:
Dead Oak Site
1. In general I am ok with your notes, however; I wanted to stress that from my perspective, if you cannot get
both sides of the stream that connects FC2 and FC6, I have difficulty approving the project. The IRT is concerned
with the number of disconnected (short) reaches that we are seeing proposed on sites. The IRT will be putting out
guidelines soon to hopefully stem this tide.
2. Also, since this site has adjacent lands with heavy pasture use and erosion issues, other bmp-like practices
should be looked at to lessen the impact of sediment erosion in addition to the application of wider riparian buffers.
3. For reaches FC1 and FC7, if they had not had connectivity to Sandy Mush, are a prime example of
discontiguous reaches that have a minimal affect (and therefore functional uplift) on the catchment/watershed.
4. In addition, we are striving to minimize reach breaks as seen in FC7, and the proposed crossing between JB3-
C and JB5-A in the Puncheon Fork site.
Puncheon Fork Site
1. In general, agreed with the notes for this site.
2. There was the powerline and road right-of-way along JB5-B that will need to be dealt with.
Commercial Hill
1. Did not attend this site visit-went home sick.
Big Willow
1. Did not attend this site visit-went home sick.
Thanks,
Mac
From: Brad Breslow [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 4:23 PM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Haupt, Mac
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; Price, Zan (George) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: David Godley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Daniel Ingram <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RES French Broad 05 IRT Site Visit Memo
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam. <mailto:[e-mail]>
Hello everyone,
Please find attached a memo from RES regarding the French Broad 05 IRT site visits. Thanks for taking the time to
meet with us last week. As we discussed, I will draft a letter asking to remove the Big Willow Site from the current
prospectus, and also include the proposed easement updates we outlined for the Dead Oak Site. Todd and Steve-
please let me know if we can set up a time to discuss a crediting approach for the areas adjacent to the Sandy Mush
property. If you have any questions/comments, please let me know.
Steve- I wasn’t sure if this should go to all of the IRT members, so I can forward to others if needed.
Thanks,
Brad Breslow
Project Manager
RES | res.us <Blockedhttp://www.res.us/>
Direct: 919.209.1062 | Mobile: [phone]
Memorandum to the Record
February 26, 2018

Agency Comments for the Final Prospectus and Public Notice (SAW-2016-
02357) associated with the RES French Broad 05 Stream Umbrella Mitigation
Bank for sites in Buncombe, Henderson and Madison Counties, NC

Steve,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the proposed RES French
Broad 05 Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank (bank) and the 5 project sites outlined in the Final
Prospectus as mitigation bank components. Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC (sponsor)
and Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) have presented a viable plan to provide
compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional stream impacts associated with the US Army Corps of
Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program. The previously approved Prospectus
only included the Carolina Bison site, while the new proposed umbrella bank structure is now
designed to initially permit five mitigation sites in total (Dead Oak, Puncheon Fork, Big Willow
and Commercial Hill). All sites are identified as having potential to meet compensatory
mitigation requirements for impacts in Hydrologic Unit Code 06010105 (HUC 05) of the French
Broad River watershed.

The bank and sites, as presented in the final prospectus, are expected to provide approximately
16,842 cool temperature stream mitigation units (SMU) and 3,037 cold water SMU through a
combination of stream restoration, enhancement and preservation of several tributaries within the
French Broad HUC 05. No wetlands are proposed for credit generation as Wetland Mitigation
Units under the auspices of the proposed bank prospectus. The RES French Broad 05 Umbrella
Bank sites will also provide an excellent opportunity for the restoration, enhancement and
preservation of forested riparian buffers of the streams within the project conservation
easements. No nutrient offsets or riparian buffers are presented specifically for additional
compensatory mitigation credit except in areas where buffer widths exceed 30 feet from the
stream banks.

Note: It is understood that several site visits have been made by IRT members during the
development of site feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In that regard, I feel it necessary to
denote that I have not been on-site during this process and that my comments may reflect a lack
of on-site observation and evaluation. Many of the comments below will necessarily apply to the
mitigation site plan as well.

The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following site-
specific comments as they pertain to the RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final
Prospectus dated January 2018. Many of the comments below will naturally be more applicable
for the site-specific mitigation plans that will follow upon bank instrument approval.

 Figure 1/Page 2: The Big Willow Site is missing from the map.
 Section 1.4/Page 3: Purpose and Objectives. Generally, the goals stated are not well
presented. A project goal should be a broad statement of the intended outcome of the
project, including a list of the functions or services to be provided by the mitigation site.
In this case “Invasive Species Treatment” is not a goal but a method to reach a goal of
“Reduce or Eliminate Invasive Species”. Is “Filtration of runoff” a goal or a method
being used to “Improve Water Quality leaving the site”? Goals should point to a function
that is impaired and the endpoint of the functional uplift needed or desired. The goal of
“Connect streams with floodplains” is appropriate in this case as an impairment is
identified (disconnected streams due to incision) and target condition, “connected
streams” is also identified. Project objectives will then include the specific elements,
functions, or services to be provided by the project and those features that are critical to
establishment of the desired aquatic resource or functional uplift. Objectives should be
clear and concise statements that specify what is to be achieved, include measureable
parameters, is achievable within the context of the site conditions, clearly supportive of
project goals and bound by specific time frames. Since each of the five sites has differing
levels and types of functional impairments, I understand the difficulty in attempting to
make a Purpose and Objective section as one-size-fits-all situation.
 General Comment: The GPS coordinate provided in each project description needs to be
accurate and consistent. Many of them had erroneous notation for the longitudes.
 General Comment: I recommend that maps showing existing conditions be provided
consistently. This may have been accomplished using Figure 3 to denote the existing
aquatic features on-site.
 Carolina Bison Site:
o Page 14/Constraints: The number of stream crossings, especially along Parker
Branch seem excessive for the parcel owned by Mr. King. I don’t think
eliminating one or two of the crossings would impede access significantly. Please
be sure to justify the need for each crossing of Parker Branch and the UT in the
mitigation plan. I also recommend denoting the utility crossing at PB1-A in this
section and on the constraints map.
o Calculations and associated map for the SMU Adjusted values will necessarily
need to be provided in the mitigation plan for all sites.
 Commercial Hill Site:
o Page 21/Constraints: Be sure to mention the existing wetlands as they are shown
in Figure 7.
o I fully support the protection of a 150-foot buffer along the reaches proposed for
restoration and enhancement. Calculations and associated map for the SMU
Adjusted values will necessarily need to be provided in the mitigation plan.
 Big Willow Site:
o Please provide a solid justification for preserving Reach D2-A, a medium rated
condition stream and how it will provide functional benefits to the site as a whole.
I do not agree at this point with the ratio of 10:1 for providing mitigation credit
based solely on the stream condition. If the provider wishes to include this stream
as part of the project, which I do not object, more evidence may be needed to
support the amount of credit suggested.
o What is the Condition of D-4? On Figure 7 there is a stream bisecting the pasture
between D-2 and D-1. Please elaborate on this feature if it is indeed a stream or
other aquatic feature in need of functional uplift.
o On Figure 7 please denote access crossings and utility crossings and justify the
need for access crossings in Section 7.4.7.
 Dead Oak Site:
o Page 30/Section 8.1: Be sure to provide a map of how this site connects with or
corresponds to conservation easements of the Sandy Mush Game Lands.
o Recommend changing the name of Reaches FC-1 and FC-7 to differentiate their
respective drainages and lack of hydrologic connectivity. FC-7 goes to Turkey
Creek while FC-1 goes directly the French Broad River.
o Page 35/Constraints: On Figure 7 please denote access crossings and utility
crossings as well as the aquatic features.
 Puncheon Fork Site:
o Page 37/Section 9.4: Recommend adding some information on the wetlands that
may be present on the site.
o Page 42/Table 6: Ratios are in opposite order and not consistent with the usage
used in the rest of the document.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide feedback, comments and concerns with the
RES French Broad 05 Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Prospectus and Public Notice
SAW-2016-02357. Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC and RES have presented a viable
plan to provide compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional stream impacts associated with the US
Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program within the French Broad
HUC 05. 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 Steve Kichefski (SAW-PM) via email on February 26, 2018

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
February 28, 2018
Steve Kichefski
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Re: RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, French Broad Holston River Basin,
SAW 2016-02357, Buncombe, Henderson, and Madison Counties, ER 17-0002
Dear Mr. Kichefski:
Thank you for your email of January 29, 2018, concerning the above project.
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,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South. Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
May 2, 2019
Mrs. Janet Mizzi
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Project Scoping for Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project in Madison County
Dear Mrs. Mizzi,
Resource Environmental 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 Puncheon
Fork Mitigation Project. The proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 5,852
linear feet of stream and two acres of wetland. The Site is currently in agricultural use, specifically as pasture.
The USFWS database (updated 27 June 2018) lists one threatened and one endangered species for Madison
County, North Carolina: Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) and Gray bay (Myotis
grisescens). Potential habitat may exist on-site for these bats. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database was consulted to determine whether previously cataloged occurrences of protected species
were mapped within one mile of the project site. Results from NHP on May 2, 2019, indicated that there were
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.
Additionally, the new online consultation process for NLEB will be utilized to make a biological opinion for
NLEB.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered and threatened
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the earthwork and planting of a stream and wetland
restoration project on the subject property. A detailed project description along with maps showing the location
and approximate limits of the conservation easement are enclosed.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to my attention
at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any questions that you may have
concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Matt DeAngelo | Ecologist II
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

May 21, 2019

Matt DeAngelo
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Dear Mr. DeAngelo:

Subject: Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project - Scoping; Madison County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-19-221

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence dated May 2, 2019 wherein you solicit comments regarding potential impacts to
federally protected species that may result from the proposed project. 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 the information provided, the proposed project aims to provide up to 3,037 stream
mitigation units (cold water) by stabilizing/restoring degraded aquatic and riparian habitats near
Swiss, North Carolina. The proposed work would entail livestock exclusion, establishment of a
riparian buffer, 15-acre conservation easement, and stream restoration/enhancement work.

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

Based on Service records and the information provided, no other federally protected species
and/or their respective habitats occur within the project area and we require no further action at
2

this time. Please be aware that in accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of the
appropriate federal agency or its designated representative to review its activities or programs
and to identify any such activities or programs that may affect endangered or threatened species
or their habitats. If it is determined that the proposed activity may adversely affect any species
federally listed as endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be
initiated.

We offer the following recommendations in the interest of protecting this and other 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 sediment bed load while maintaining channel features and neither degrading nor
aggrading. Alterations to the dimension, pattern, or profile of the stream channel as well as
changes to streambank vegetation, floodplains, hydrology, or sediment input can significantly
alter this equilibrium. We understand that this stream reach is highly modified, and restoring the
site to a natural state may not be feasible. Still we offer the following recommendations:

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. 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. 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.

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
3

conditions. 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. 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 as they trap animals and can persist in the environment beyond
their intended purpose. 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 and surrounded with silt fencing).

If you have not done so already, we encourage you to contact the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission regarding potential impacts to state-protected natural resources.

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 4-2-19-221.

Sincerely,

- - original signed - -

Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South. Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400

res.us

May 2, 2019

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

Subject: Project Scoping for Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project in Madison 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 and wetland restoration project on the
attached site (USGS site map with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance
are enclosed). The Puncheon Fork Project 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 5,852 linear feet of stream and two acres of wetland.
The Site is currently in agricultural use, specifically as pasture.

We have identified Puncheon Fork as DWR Trout Water as well as WRC Hatchery Supported Trout
Waters.

A detailed project description along with maps showing the location and approximate limits of the
conservation easement are enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo | Ecologist II

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]
May 30, 2019

Matt DeAngelo
RES
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

SUBJECT: Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project (French Broad 05 Umbrella Bank)

Dear Mr. DeAngelo:

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) received your May 2,
2019 letter regarding plans for a stream mitigation project on Puncheon Fork and unnamed tributaries in
Madison County. I attended a site visit on January 30, 2018. You requested request that we 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. Our comments on this project are offered for
your consideration under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).

The project is proposed as a mitigation project and will involve enhancement and restoration on 5,852 ft
of stream that will result in 3,037 ft of coldwater stream mitigation.

Project activities should be avoided during the trout moratorium period of January 1 to April 15 in order
to minimize impacts to Rainbow Trout reproduction. We recommend that riparian buffers that are to be
reestablished be as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner needs. NCWRC generally
recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to maximize the benefits of buffers,
including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland runoff, and wildlife habitat.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me at (828) 803-
6054 if you have any questions about these comments.

Sincerely,
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229
Subject:Consistency letter for the 'Puncheon Fork' project indicating that any take of the
northern long-eared bat that may occur as a result of the Action is not prohibited
under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at 50 CFR §17.40(o).
Dear Matthew DeAngelo:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on May 02, 2019 your effects
determination for the 'Puncheon Fork' (the Action) using the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) key within the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. You
indicated that no Federal agencies are involved in funding or authorizing this Action. This IPaC
key assists users in determining whether a non-Federal action may cause “take” of the northern
long-eared bat that is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Based upon your IPaC submission, any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a
result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at
50 CFR §17.40(o). Unless the Service advises you within 30 days of the date of this letter that
your IPaC-assisted determination was incorrect, this letter verifies that the Action is not likely to
result in unauthorized take of the northern long-eared bat.
Please report to our office any changes to the information about the Action that you entered into
IPaC, the results of any bat surveys conducted in the Action area, and any dead, injured, or sick
northern long-eared bats that are found during Action implementation.
If your Action proceeds as described and no additional information about the Action’s effects on
species protected under the ESA becomes available, no further coordination with the Service is
required with respect to the northern long-eared bat.
The IPaC-assisted determination for the northern long-eared bat does not apply to the following
ESA-protected species that also may occur in your Action area:
▪Gray Bat, Myotis grisescens (Endangered)
May 10, 2019
[1]
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   2

You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may cause prohibited take
of the animal species listed above.

________________________________________________

[1]Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct [ESA Section 3(19)].
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   3

Action Description
You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.
1. Name
Puncheon Fork
2. Description
The following description was provided for the project 'Puncheon Fork':
Mitigation Bank within French Broad 05 UMBI in Madison, NC
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/
maps/place/35.9577101083089N82.53222181528915W
Determination Key Result
This non-Federal Action may affect the northern long-eared bat; however, any take of this
species that may occur incidental to this Action is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule at 50
CFR §17.40(o).
Determination Key Description: Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) Rule
This key was last updated in IPaC on May 15, 2017. Keys are subject to periodic revision.
This key is intended for actions that may affect the threatened northern long-eared bat.
The purpose of the key for non-Federal actions is to assist determinations as to whether proposed
actions are excepted from take prohibitions under the northern long-eared bat 4(d) rule.
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   4

If a non-Federal action may cause prohibited take of northern long-eared bats or other ESA-listed
animal species, we recommend that you coordinate with the Service.
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   5

Determination Key Result
Based upon your IPaC submission, any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a
result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at
50 CFR §17.40(o).
Qualification Interview
1.Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency?
No
2.Will your activity purposefully Take northern long-eared bats?
No
3.Is the project action area located wholly outside the White-nose Syndrome Zone?
Automatically answered
No
4.Have you contacted the appropriate agency to determine if your project is near a known
hibernaculum or maternity roost tree?

Location information for northern long-eared bat hibernacula is generally kept in state
Natural Heritage Inventory databases – the availability of this data varies state-by-state.
Many states provide online access to their data, either directly by providing maps or by
providing the opportunity to make a data request. In some cases, to protect those resources,
access to the information may be limited. A web page with links to state Natural Heritage
Inventory databases is available at www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/
nhisites.html.
Yes
5.Will the action affect a cave or mine where northern long-eared bats are known to
hibernate (i.e., hibernaculum) or could it alter the entrance or the environment (physical or
other alteration) of a hibernaculum?
No
6.Will the action involve Tree Removal?
Yes
7.Will the action only remove hazardous trees for the protection of human life or property?
No
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   6

8.Will the action remove trees within 0.25 miles of a known northern long-eared bat
hibernaculum at any time of year?
No
9.Will the action remove a known occupied northern long-eared bat maternity roost tree or
any trees within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through
July 31?
No
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   7

Project Questionnaire
If the project includes forest conversion, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 1-3.
1. Estimated total acres of forest conversion:
2
2. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
2
3. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes timber harvest, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 4-6.
4. Estimated total acres of timber harvest
0
5. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
0
6. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes prescribed fire, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 7-9.
7. Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
0
8. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
0
9. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes new wind turbines, report the megawatts of wind capacity
below. Otherwise, type ‘0’ in question 10.
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   8

10. What is the estimated wind capacity (in megawatts) of the new turbine(s)?
0

Appendix C

Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analysis

 Existing Conditions Cross Sections and Photos
 Morphological Parameters Table
 NC SAM Results
 Existing Crossings Photos
Upstream Downstream97.59898.59999.5100100.5101101.51020 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB1 - XS1 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream9898.59999.5100100.5101101.50 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB1 - XS2 (Pool)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream10010110210310410510610702468101214161820Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB2-A - XS3 (Pool)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream99100101102103104105106107024681012141618202224Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB2-A - XS4 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream9696.59797.59898.59999.50 5 10 15 20 25Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB2-B - XS5 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream95.59696.59797.59898.59999.5100100.50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB3-A - XS6 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream9898.59999.5100100.5101101.5102102.510302468101214161820222426Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB3-B - XS7 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream91929394959697980 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB4-A - XS11 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream86878889909192939495960 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB4-B - XS12 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream1021031041051061070 2 4 6 8 101214161820222426Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB4-C - XS13 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream98.59999.5100100.5101101.5102102.51030 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB4-C - XS14 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream9999.5100100.5101101.5102102.5103103.51040 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB5-A - XS8 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream9798991001011021031041051060 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB5-A - XS9 (Pool)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream3569357035713572357335743575357635773578357935800 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB5-B - XSK1 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream356235643566356835703572357435760 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB5-C - XSK2 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream356035623564356635683570357235740 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB5-C - XSK3 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream35453545.535463546.535473547.535483548.535490 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB6-A - XSK4 (Pool)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream35453545.535463546.535473547.535483548.535493549.50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB6-A - XSK5 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream96.59797.59898.59999.5100100.50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB6-B - XS10 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream9393.59494.59595.59602468101214161820222426Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach JB7- XS15 (Run)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Puncheon Fork Morphological ParametersExistingFeatureRiffle Pool Pool RiffleDrainage Area (ac)Drainage Area (mi2)NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2VA Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3DimensionBKF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.52.32.92.5BKF Width (ft) 8.44.77.04.9BKF Mean Depth (ft) 0.40.50.40.5BKF Max Depth (ft) 0.71.01.00.8Wetted Perimeter (ft) 8.75.57.65.5Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.40.40.40.5Width/Depth Ratio 20.09.517.19.6Floodprone Width (ft) 12.6 7.5 8.5 9.4Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.9Bank Height Ratio 1.2 2.3 2.0 2.7SubstrateDescription (D50)D16 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)Additional Reach ParametersValley Length (ft)Channel Length (ft)SinuosityValley Slope (ft/ft)Channel Slope (ft/ft)Rosgen Classification 1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data 2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Harman et al. (2003) 3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Keaton et al. (2005)5.00.70.95.70.67.512.72.50.2 0.50.9 0.4 0.66.7 3.2 4.00.62.37.17.3 4.6 3.51.2 1.6 1.11.5 3.8 2.10.21.090.081RiffleJB1 JB2-A JB2-B JB3-A JB3-B JB4-A JB4-BRiffle Riffle Riffle Riffle0.19 0.16 0.17 0.40 0.40122 100 112 254 257 220.03290.0512 102129 2550 8310450270.54.62.31.42.19.99.20.45.20.821113.40.410.2 12.53.8 0.7 1.56.2 2.9 3.30.6Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel- 5.2 - - - 0.062 --38---842------873287718001.040.0620.060B4a3173431.080.0710.066B4a3401.040.0680.066B4a400 203436 2185596102392611.09 1.070.047 0.0461.090.0980.043 0.043C4b F4b0.090B4a0.074B4a / A4
ExistingRiffle Riffle Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool1.61.98.010.212.56.66.68.03.44.510.09.315.611.311.69.40.50.40.81.10.80.60.60.90.70.71.21.91.61.30.91.44.14.910.510.616.511.812.010.10.40.40.81.00.80.60.60.87.110.312.48.619.519.320.511.14.6 6.4 25.3 21.2 >50 28.5 24.7 28.61.3 1.4 2.5 2.3 >2.2 2.5 2.1 3.02.0 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.40.61.012.10.618.023.12.1C4b0.0370.034C4b0.0310.03077Gravel Gravel Gravel6877401.080.0460.032C4/50.0340.76.00.319.78.51.52.2--1571671.06Sand/Gravel-JB7RiffleSpring Fed---1.65.60.373--2863081.080.022C3b0.030 0.024661407037871.120.02756C3b-Cobble Cobble1.57.011.2252.2-26--6066641.103.4-3333391.028.212.30.71.012.70.618.542.0JB6-BJB5-B JB5-C JB6-AJB4-C JB5-ARiffle Riffle0.05 0.4235 2711.941.37334 876 124060 61 128 1663240.51 0.52411 5222Gravel17--- 1.3-16-5165921.150.0520.045 0.043A4 / B4a C4b
FeatureRiffle Pool Riffle PoolDrainage Area (ac)Drainage Area (mi2)NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2VA Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)1DimensionBKF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.2 3.6 1.4 2.2BKF Width (ft) 5.6 7.2 4.6 5.9BKF Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4BKF Max Depth (ft) 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.6Wetted Perimeter (ft) 5.8 7.5 4.7 6.1Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4Width/Depth Ratio 14.5 14.4 15.4 15.9Floodprone Width (ft) 15.6 17.2 12.6 15.9Entrenchment Ratio 2.8 2.4 2.7 2.7Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0SubstrateDescription (D50)D16 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)PatternMin Max Min MaxChannel Beltwidth (ft) 15 26 6 17Radius of Curvature (ft) 21 49 17 45Radius of Curvature Ratio 4 9 4 10Meander Wavelength (ft) 86 105 67 83Meander Width Ratio 15 19 15 18ProfileMin Max Min MaxRiffle Length (ft) 15 21 12 13Run Length (ft)----Pool Length (ft) 3 10 5 14Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft) 4 31 6 28Additional Reach ParametersValley Length (ft)Channel Length (ft)SinuosityValley Slope (ft/ft)Channel Slope (ft/ft)Rosgen Classification 1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data 2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Harman et al. (2003) 3 VA Regional Curve equations source: Keaton et al. (2005)112 29JB2-A JB4-BDesign100.18 0.0527Gravel Gravel9511 4------1.02 1.01242 137237 135C4b C4b0.088 0.0630.090 0.064
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Jeremy Schmid
11/21/2017
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Mb3
Stream Site Name Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site - JB-1 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Jeremy Schmid
11/21/2017
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Mb3
Stream Site Name Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site - JB-2 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site - JB-3 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Jeremy Schmid
11/21/2017
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Mb3
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Jeremy Schmid
11/21/2017
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Mb3
Stream Site Name Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site - JB-4a Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site - JB-4bc Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Jeremy Schmid
11/21/2017
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Mb3
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Jeremy Schmid
11/21/2017
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Mb3
Stream Site Name Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site - JB-5a Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
HIGH
Stream Site Name Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site - JB-5b Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Jeremy Schmid
11/21/2017
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Mb3
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Jeremy Schmid
11/21/2017
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Mb3
Stream Site Name Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site - JB-5c Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Jeremy Schmid
11/21/2017
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Mb3
Stream Site Name Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site - JB-6 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Matt DeAngelo
07/08/2019
NO
YES
YES
Intermittent
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Mb1
Stream Site Name
LOW
NA
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site - JB-7 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
LOW
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
YES
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
Puncheon Fork Existing Crossings Photo Log

Reach JB2
STA 1+95

Reach JB1
STA 3+20

Reach JB6
STA 7+75

Reach JB4
STA 8+75

Appendix D

Design Plans

 Puncheon Fork Design Plans - 11x17
PROJECT LOCATIONSITE MAPNTSSHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALRESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC3600 GLENWOOD AVENUE., SUITE 100RALEIGH, NC 27612VICINITY MAPNTSEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTMADISON COUNTY, NCFRENCH BROAD RIVER BASIN: HUC 06010105MAY 202005/D11/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION----0506BPBBRCSCFAFMSheet List TableSheet Number Sheet Title--COVERA1OVERALL AERIAL VIEWE1NOTESE2EXISTING CONDITIONSS1REACH JB2S2REACH JB3S3REACH JB3S4REACH JB5S5REACH JB5S6REACH JB5S7REACH JB6S8REACH JB6S9REACH JB1S10REACH JB1S11REACH JB4S12REACH JB4S13REACH JB4S14REACH JB7W1 WETLAND PLANW2 WETLAND PLANP1PLANTING PLANF1FENCING PLAND1DETAILSD2DETAILSD3DETAILSD4DETAILSD5DETAILSD6DETAILSPROJECT TOPOGRAPHY AND EXISTING CONDITIONSPLANIMETRICS SURVEY WAS PROVIDED BY KEEMAPPING AND SURVEYING, PA (NC FIRM LICENSENUMBER C-3039, PHILLIP B. KEE, NC PLS L-4647),SEALED MAY 10, 2019DESIGNED BY:RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC3600 GLENWOOD AVE, SUITE 100RALEIGH, NC 27612SURVEYED BY:KEE MAPPING AND SURVEYING, PAP.O. BOX 2566ASHEVILLE, NC 28802PROJECT DIRECTORYNOTICE TO CONTRACTORPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DIGGING, OR EXCAVATION THECONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) THAT MAY EXIST AND CROSS THROUGHTHE AREA(S) OF CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER INDICATED ON THE PLANSOR NOT. CALL "811" A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING OREXCAVATING. REPAIRS TO ANY UTILITY DAMAGED RESULTING FROMCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THECONTRACTOR.
150 300150REACH JB1REACH JB3REACH JB5REACH JB2REACH JB4REACH JB6REACH JB70FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_COVER.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506A1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTOVERALL AERIAL VIEWMADISON COUNTY, NC5/11/2020
LEGENDTBBBEXISTING TREELINELIMITS OF PROPOSEDCONSERVATION EASEMENT5050EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY LINEPROPOSED BANKFULLEXISTING FENCELINEEXISTING BOTTOM OF BANKEXISTING TOP OF BANKPROPOSED CONTOUR MINORPROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOREXISTING CONTOUR MINOREXISTING CONTOUR MAJOREXISTING WETLANDPROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG(SEE DETAIL D2)LOG SILL(SEE DETAIL D4)LOG STRUCTURE(PROFILE)PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNELEXISTING TREEEXISTING STREAMTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBROCK STRUCTURE(PROFILE)ROCK SILL(SEE DETAIL D4)STEP POOL(SEE DETAIL D4)RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL(SEE DETAIL D5)EXISTING EASEMENT//////PROPOSED COIR WATTLE SLOPE BREAK(SEE DETAIL D3)SFHASPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA(FEMA 100-YR FLOODPLAIN)BOULDER CLUSTER(SEE DETAIL D5)STONE TOE(SEE DETAIL D5FILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NCNOTESPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT5/11/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONE10506BPBBRCSCFAFMBRUSH TOE(SEE DETAIL D3STREAM CONSTRUCTION NOTES:1. ALL PROPOSED CHANNELS AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT CROSSINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED INA DRY CONDITION VIA OFFLINE CONSTRUCTION WHERE POSSIBLE. PUMP AROUND OPERATIONSSHOULD BE LIMITED TO AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CHANNEL ALIGNMENTS OVERLAP.2. ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM AT THE ENDOF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BYTHE ENGINEER. WITH APPROVAL, A PUMP AROUND MAY BE ALLOWED TO RUN CONTINUOUSLY IF THEREIS NO FORECAST FOR RAIN OVERNIGHT, AND/OR THE PUMP APPARATUS IS MAINTAINED ANDMONITORED CONTINUOUSLY.3. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TODOWNSTREAM DIRECTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.4. REMOVE AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL WITHIN AREAS THAT ARE TO BE CUT 9" OR MORE BELOW EXISTINGGRADE. STOCKPILED TOPSOIL IS TO BE PLACED ALONG THE FLOODPLAIN BENCHES.5. STRUCTURES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN SHEETS (AS INDICATED ON THESTRUCTURE TABLES) USING METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE DETAIL SHEETS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING,OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.6. SUBSTRATE MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE BED OF ALL PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTIONS.RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF A MIX OF OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE, CLASS A, AND CLASS B. RIVERROCK OF EQUIVALENT SIZE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED UPON APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. SEE RIFFLEDETAILS ON SHEET D5 FOR RIFFLE COMPOSITION.7. ALL QUARRY STONE SHALL MEET NCDOT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.8. UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL STREAM BANK STABILIZATION INCLUDING, EROSIONCONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS.9. FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF THEENGINEER.LOG VANE(SEE DETAIL D4)
120 240120REACH JB1REACH JB3REACH JB5REACH JB2REACH JB4REACH JB6REACH JB70FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506E2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTEXISTING CONDITIONSMADISON COUNTY, NC5/11/2020
TBTBFHASFHASFHA SFHASFHASFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHATBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB
TBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTTTTTTTTTTTT
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
LCELC
E ELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007SFHASSFHASFSFHAASFHAASFHASFHASFHAASFHAHASFHAHASFHASFHAFHSFHATBTB TBT TBTB
TBBBTBTBTBTBTTBTBELCELCCE LCEEELCLCELCE6+50006+5006+500666+5006+5007+007+007+007+007+007+007+0077MATCH LINE - 6+50S2SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'3650366036703680369037003650366036703680369037000+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50EX. 36" PIPEEX. 36" X 60"PIPE1-11-31-51-71-91-11-0.80%-11.89%-12.48%-12.52%-6.46%-6.35%-6.20%1-141-12(STA 0+83)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT30 6030REACH JB2-ARESTORATIONSTA 1+24 TO 3+25EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKEXISTING TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION0.7'2.1'5.6'0.4'4.1'1.8'7.2'0.8'0.8'1.8'4.1'7.2'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACHJB2 STA 0+78 TO STA 3+250.5'EXISTING PIPE TOBE REMOVED ANDDISPOSED OF OFF-SITEREACH JB2-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 3+25 TO 6+54BRIDGE DEBRIS TOBE REMOVED ANDDISPOSED OF OFF-SITEGRADE BOTH BANKS @ 2.5:1FROM STA 5+30 TO 6+20REACH JB1 PROPOSED GRADINGEXISTING PIPE TOBE REMOVED ANDDISPOSED OF OFF-SITEEXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLEDSEE DETAIL D3WETLAND WRTIE REACH JB2 INTOEXISTING STREAM BEDUTILITY TO BERELOCATED BY OTHERSRECONNECT EXISTINGCHANNEL0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB2.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506----PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTS1MADISON COUNTY, NC
SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA
SFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA
SFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA
SFHA S
SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAT
B
TBTBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCEL
C
E
L
C
LCELCELCE005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+00
FHASFHASFHAFHA
SFHASFHASFHAHA SFHASFHAASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAFSFHAASFSFHASFHAASFHASFSFHAHSFHASFHASFHA
SFHAFHA S
FHASFHAASSFHAASFSFHASSFHASFHASFHAHSFHASFHSFHASFHASFHASFHAHSFHASFHASFHAAASFHSFHSFHASFSFHAHASFHAASFHASFASFSFHASFHFHASFHAHASASFSFHASFSFHSFHHAFHASFHASFFHAASFHASFHASFHSFHAFHAHASFHAHASFHAFHTBTBBBTBTTBBTBBBTBTBTBTBTTBTBBTBTBTBTBTTBTBTTTBTBTBTBTTB
TBBTTBBTBTBTBTTTBTBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBSFHASFHAFHAFHATTBTBTBTBTBTTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTBTBTBTB TBTBLCEECELCLCEELCLCELCEELCCELCLCELCEELCELCLCECEEELCCLELCLC EEECCL LCECELCLCELCLCEELCLLLCECELCEELCELCECELCECELCCECCELCEECETT9+009+00999+009+009+509+509+509+500+000+0010+000+000+5000+500+50110+5010+501+000111+0011+001+5001+501+501111+5011+502+0002+002+001112+0012+002+5002+502+501112+5012+503+003+00131313+013+0
SFHASFSFHASFHASFSSFHA
A SFHASFHSFHASFHASFSFHASFHSFHASFHASSFHASFSFHAASSFHAHASFHASFHASFHASFHASSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAASFHASFHAHASFHAASFHAHASFHAHASFHASFHAFHSFHASFHAFHASFHAHASFHAHASFHASFHASFHSFHT
B
T
B
TBTBBBBBTBTBTBTTBTTBTTTBTBTBTBT
TBTBT
B
B
TBTB
TBT
TBT
TBBBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBB TBTBTTBTBTBTBTSFHSFHSSBTBTBTBLCEECEFHHLCELCCEELCELLCELCELCELCLCELLCCELCELCLCELCELCCE CCC
L
C
EEEEEE
L
C
E
L
C
LCECSFHASFHALCELELCECESFBLCBHAHTBTBTBTBTBBBBAT
00005+50+505+55+505+506+006+006+006+006+006+555550000066+55555000006+555500007+007+007+007+007+007+007+50+507+57+57+507+508+00008+8+8+008+008+8+8+SFHASFSSFHASFSBTTTTTTTTTTTBTBBLCEELCELCELCEBTB+50+50+50S1
MATCH
LI
N
E
6
+
5
0 MATCH LINE - 11+25S3SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'36203630364036503660362036303640365036606+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+0011+252-1(STA 7+07)(STA 7+50)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT BREAK30 6030EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANKREACH JB3-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 6+54 TO 7+07REACH JB3-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 7+50 TO 10+86WETLAND WQPROPOSED FORDCROSSINGSEE DETAIL D2WETLAND WVGRADE RIGHT BANK @ 2.5:1FROM STA 6+50 TO 7+10GRADE RIGHT BANK @ 2.5:1FROM STA 8+60 TO 9+10PROPOSED BED0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB3.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB3MADISON COUNTY, NC
SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA
SFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHABBBB BBBBBBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTBT
B
TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTLCELCELCELCE LCELCELCE
LCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCLCELCELCELCELCE0+000+509+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+501SFHASFHASFHASFHAFSFHAASFSFHSFHASSSSFHASFHASFHASFHAFSFHASFHASFHASFHAFHSFHASFHASFHAHAASFHSFBTBTTTBTBTBTTB
TBBTTBBTBTBBBBBTBTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBFHAFHAFHAFHALCEELCCELCLCELCEELCELCELC
ELC
EELCECELCEEELCCC9+509+509+509+500+000+0010+000+000+5000+500+50110+5010+501+01+01+01111+011+0SFHASFSFHAFHSFHASFHASFHASFHAFHA
SFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHSFHASFHAFHSFHAHASFSFHASFHSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHSFHASFHASFHASSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFSSFHASFSFHASFHASASFHASFHASFASSFHASFHHASFHAASASSFHASSFSFHAFHASFHASFFHAHASFHAFHSFHASFHAHASFHAHASFHAHASFHASFSFHASFHSFHASFHAHASFHAFHASFHAFHSFFSFHASFHSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAASSFHAHASFHASFHASSFHASFSFHAASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHABBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTB TTBTBTBTTB TBTTBTBT
B
T
B
T
B
TBTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBTBTB
T
B
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTTBTTBTBBTBTTBBTBBBTBTBTBTBTTBTBTBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBTBTBTBTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TTTTTTTTHAHTTTTTTTAATTTTTLCECEECELCLCLCELCLCEECECCLC LCECELCCLCEELCLCECEBBC
LCCECLCLCEELCLL
LCECELCCECELCELCECELCECECCLCELCELCLLCLLLLCECCECCCCCELCELCLCSFHASFHASFSFLCETTHAHALCEELCTBTBTTBTTTTBTTBTBBTTBTBTTTT0+000000+000+000+5000+500+50000+500+50BTTBTBTBSFS1+5001111+5011+502+0002+002+001112+0012+002+5002+502+501112+5012+503+003+003+01313+013+03+5003+503+501113+5013+504+0004+004+001114+0014+004+5001114+5014+505+00000005+000005+00000151515+00000015+000005+505015+5+5+505+506+0000161616+0016+006+5016+506+507+0007+007+00171717+0017+0017+507+507+5007+507+50SHAHATBBTHASFHAASFHASFSFHHSFHTBTTBTTTTTTT00000000000S2MATCH LINE 11+25MATCH LINE - 15+00S4SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'360036103620363036403600361036203630364011+2511+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00(STA 13+74)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT BREAK30 6030REACH JB3-BENHANCEMENT ISTA 10+86 TO 13+74EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANKWETLAND WPPROPOSED FORDCROSSINGSEE DETAIL D2GRADE LEFT BANK @ 2:1FROM STA 12+50 TO 12+95REMOVE DEBRIS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB3.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S3PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB3MADISON COUNTY, NC
SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHABBBBBBBB
BBBB
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBT
B
TBT
B
TBTB
TBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LC
E
LC
ELCELCELCELCE
14+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5021+0021+5022SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASSFHAAASFHAASFHASFHASFHSFHASFHAFHASFHASSFHASFHASFHASFSFHAASFHASFHAFHASFHASFHSFHAASFHAFHASFHAASFSFSAAASFHAHASFHASFHAFHASFHASFHSFHAFHFHAASFHAFHSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAHSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHSFHABBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBBTBTBBTBBTBTBTBTBTTBTBTBTBTTBTB TBTBTBBTBBTTBBTBTBTBTBBTBTBBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBTBTBHAAAATTBTBTBBTBTBTTBTBTBTBTT
B
T
B
TBTBT
B
T
B
TBTT
B
T
B
T
B
TBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTATTLCELCELLCECECECECLCLLCLCCLLLCLCLLCC
LC
ECE
L
E
LC
E
LC
ECE
LCLCLCLCLCEECELLCLCEELCLCLCLCLCLCLLCEELCELCEELCFHA
SFHAHA9+009+00119+0019+009+5009+509+50119+5019+5020+00020+0020+00220+0020+0020+505020+5020+50202020+5020+5021++++0000212121++1+++0021++++0021+50+5021+5021+5021+21+5021+5022222222HASFHAASFHAFHAASFHAFHASFHFHFHSBBBBB
B
B
B
B
B
BBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBT
BTBTBTBBT
B
T
B
T
B
B
TBBBBTBTBBTBTBBBTBTTB
TBTTBTBBBBBBBTBTBBTTTTTTTTLCELCEECEL8+5001818+5018+50SFHASFHAFHSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAASFSSFHASFSFHASFHASASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAASSFHAASFHASFHASSFHASFSFHAASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAFHSFHASFHSFHASFHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBTBTTBTBTBTBTBTBBTBBTBTBTBTBTTTBTBTBTBTBTBBTBTBTTBTBBBTBTB
T
B
TBTTBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBTBTBTTTAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTLCECELCCECECCLCELECECCECCCCELCLCLLCLLLCECLCSFHASFHASFSFLCTTHAHALCEELCLCEELHAHAELLCEECELCELCLCLCSFHAHALLCECELCE0000000000000005+50505+505+5015+5+505+506+00001616+0016+006+506+506+5016+506+507+0007+007+00171717+0017+007+507+507+507+5017+507+507+508+00008+008+0018+8+008+00SFHASFHASFSFHAFHASFHASFHAFHASFFHAFHSFSFSFHASFHSFHAASFHASFHATBTBTTBTBTB TBTBTTTTTTE4+004+004+001414+0014+004+5001414+5014+505+0005+05+0151515+0015+0BBBEES3MATCH LINE 15+00MATCH LINE - 21
+00S5SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'358035903600361036203580359036003610362015+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 20+00 20+50 21+00(STA 20+34(STA 20+76)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT BREAK(STA 15+29)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT BREAK30 6030REACH JB5-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 15+29 TO 20+34EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANKREACH JB4REACH JB7WETLAND WKWETLAND WOWETLAND WLWETLAND WMWETLAND WUUTILITY TO BERELOCATED BY OTHERSUTILITY TO BERELOCATED BY OTHERS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB5.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S4PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB5MADISON COUNTY, NC
SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHABBBBBBBBBBTBTBBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTLCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE20+0020+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+5025+0025+5026+0026+5027+0027SFHAFHASFHASSFHAFHASFHASFSFHAASFHASFHAFHASFHASFHSFHAASFHAFHSFHAASFSFHAASSFHAFHASFHASFHAHHHSFHAFHFHAASFHFHSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHSFHASFHASFHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTTBBBBBTBBTTBTBTBTBTBTBBTB TBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBHAHAHAHATTBTBTBBTBTBTBTBTBTTBTBTBBBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTATTLCECELCLLCLCLCLLCLCLLCEECCCCC
LCECELELCELCLCEELCCELCEECELLCLCEELCCLCLCLCLCLEELCELCEELCTBTB20+000+000+00220+0020+0020+505020+5020+502020+5020+5021+++0000212121+++0021+++0021+50+5021+21+21+5021+5022+0000222222+0022+00SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAFHSFHAASFSFHASSSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASSFHASFHASFHATBTBTBTBTTTTTBTBBTBTBTBTBFHAFHATTBTTBTB TBTB
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTLCEELCELCLCEELCLCELCELCECCLCELCCELL6+5026+5026+5026+5026+526+5026+5027+++000027++0027++00272727+++0027++0027272727BBBBBBBBBBS4MATCH LINE 21+00MATCH LINE - 27+00S6SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'356035703580359036003560357035803590360021+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 23+00 23+50 24+00 24+50 25+00 25+50 26+00 26+50 27+005-15-230 6030REACH JB5-BENHANCEMENT IIISTA 20+76 TO 24+46EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANKREACH JB5-CENHANCEMENT ISTA 24+46 TO 30+86WETLAND WJWETLAND WIWETLAND WHGRADE LEFT BANK @ 2.5:1FROM STA 26+50 TO 27+30UTILITY TO BERELOCATED BY OTHERSGRADE LEFT BANK @ 2.5:1FROM STA 24+40 TO 25+150FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB5.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S5PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB5MADISON COUNTY, NC
TBSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA
SFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHATBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
L
C
E
LCELCHAHAHAHAA25+0025+5026+0026+5027+0027+5028+0028+5029+0029+5030+0030+5030+90TBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTBTTT0SFHAFHAFHAFHATSFHASFSFHAHSFHASFHAHASFHASFHASSFSFHASFHASSFHASSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAFHSFHAASFHSFHASSSFHASFHASFHAHSFHAFSFHASFHAHAAHASSSFHAHASFHAFHASFHAFHASFHAFHSFHASFHSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASSTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBTBTBTBTBTTBTTTBTBBTBTBTBTBTBBTBTTTBTBBTBTBBBTBTBFHAFHATTBTTBTB
TBTB
TBTBBTTTBTBTTTTTBTBTBBBTTTBTBTBTTTTBBTTTTTTTTTTTTATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTLCELLLCECELLCELCEECELCLCEECELLCELCELCELCEELCLCELCEELCEELCELLCELCELECELLCELCELELCELCELCELCL
C
E
CC
L
E
L
C
C
E
L
L
C
E
C
L
C
E
L
C
L
C
E
E
LCEECELCLCLCLCLCBTTTTBBTBTTTTTAAHAA25+000025+0025+002525+0025+0025+50025+5025+502225+5025+5026+00026+0026+002226+0026+0026+5026+56+5026+5026+5027+++++0000272727+++++0027+++0027+50502727+5027+5028+00028+0028+00228+0028+00BBBBBS5MATCH LINE 27+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'354035503560357035803540355035603570358027+00 27+50 28+00 28+50 29+00 29+50 30+00 30+50 31+00 31+506-130 6030REACH JB5-CENHANCEMENT ISTA 24+46 TO 30+86EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEREACH JB6EXISTING TOPOF BANKWETLAND WGWETLAND WFWETLAND WCREACH JB5 TIES INTOEXISTING BED OFREACH JB6GRADE LEFT BANK @ 3:1FROM STA 30+25 TO 30+75UTILITY TO BERELOCATED BY OTHERSGRADE LEFT BANK @ 2.5:1FROM STA 26+50 TO 27+300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB5.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S6PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB5MADISON COUNTY, NC
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELC
E
TBSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHABTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
T
B
TBTB TB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TBTTT
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+00LCELCLCLCELCELCELCE
LC
E
LC
E
LCELCELLCELHAASFHASFSFHASFHASFHASFHAASFHAHSFHASSFHAASFHASFHASFHAAHAHSFSFHASFSFHASFHAFHHAHASSFHAFHSFHAFHSSFHASFHASFHASSFHASFHASSFHASFHASFHASSFHASFHASHASFHSFHASFSFHASSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFSFHASFHASFHASSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAAATBBBBBTBTTBTBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBTTBTBTTBTTBTTBBTBTBTBTBTBTTBTBTB TBTTB
T
B
TT
TBBTB TBFHAFHAT
TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTTBTBTB
TBTTBTTTBTBTTBTBTBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBTBTTTTTTTT22+00+002+02+02+502+52++00+00+033+03+03+500333+503+504+00004+004+0044+004+004+504+504+505+005+005+0055+005+005+50505+5+505+506+++0++006++0++06++0++066+6+6+06+6++606++0++06+50+506+56+506+5000007+00007+007+007+7+007+00BBBTBBTTBBBBBBTBBTBTBTTT000000000505555555555555555++++AAHAHAHHAAAHAHHTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTTTTTTTTTTTBTBTBBTBTTTTTTAAAAAHAHAAHAHAFHHHMATCH LINE - 6+00S8
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'35403550356035703580354035503560357035800+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00EX. 72" PIPE8-17-1(STA 1+91)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT30 6030EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANKREACH JB5REACH JB6ENHANCEMENT ISTA 1+91 TO 7+45GRADE POINTBAR @ 5:1WETLAND WGWETLAND WEWETLAND WFWETLAND WCGRADE LEFT BANK @ 3:1FROM STA 2+65 TO 4+20UTILITY TO BERELOCATED BY OTHERS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB6.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S7PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB6MADISON COUNTY, NCGRADE LEFT BANK @ 3:1FROM STA 5+30 TO 5+75
LCELCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE
LCELCELCESFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHATB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTB
T
B
TBTBTTTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB4+505+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5010+89LCELCELCELCESFHAFHHASFSSFHAFHSFHAFHSSFHASFHASFHASHSFHAASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHAAASFHASFHAFHTBBT TBTBTTBTTBTTBBTBTBBTBTBFHAFHAT
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TBTBTTTTT4+504+504+504+505+00505+005+005+50505+505+505+5+505+506+6+6+6+6+6+6+66+6+6+6+6+S7MATCH LINE 6+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'35203530354035503560352035303540355035606+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00EX. 96" PIPE(STA 7+45)(STA 7+95)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT BREAK(STA 10+57)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT30 6030REACH JB6-AENHANCEMENT ISTA 1+91 TO 7+45EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANKREACH JB6-BENHANCEMENT IISTA 7+95 TO 10+42LINE UPSTREAM FACE OFCROSSING W/CLASS 'II' RIP RAPSEE CULVERT PROTECTIONDETAIL ON D2EXISTING PIPE TOREMAINWETLAND WCWETLAND WDWETLAND WBWETLAND WA0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB6.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S8PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB6MADISON COUNTY, NC
LCELCE
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHATBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00SFHSFSFSFSFSSSFSSFHAFHAFHFHAHAHATTTTTTLCELCELCELCELCELCELCESFHASHASFHASSFHAHASFHAASSFHAFHSFHASFHSSFHAHASFHAFHASFHAFHASFHAHASFHASFSFHASFHASFHASSFHASFHASFHASSFHAHASFHASFHASSFHASFHASFHASFSFHASFHATBTBTBTBBTBTBTTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBTTTTTTTTTEETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT4+500444+504+505+0+0+0+000005++0+0+05++0+0+055+++0++05++005+5005+505+50555+505+506+0006+006+0066+006+00TBBBBMATCH LINE - 5+00S10SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'36603670368036903700366036703680369037000+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00EX. 30" PIPEEX. 24" PIPE9-19-29-2(STA 3+60)(STA 4+23)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT BREAK(STA 0+57)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT30 6030REACH JB1ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1+26 TO 3+52EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANKEXISTING PIPE TO BEREMOVED AND DISPOSEDOF OFF-SITEGRADE CHANNEL IN PLACEREACH JB1ENHANCEMENT IISTA 4+45 TO 6+69EXISTING PIPE TOREMAINWETLAND WTPROPOSED GRADEUTILITY TO BERELOCATED BY OTHERSUTILITY TO BERELOCATED BY OTHERS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB1.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S9PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB1MADISON COUNTY, NC
LCE L
C
E LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
LCELCELCELC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCESFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHATB
TB
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT3+504+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+507+9210-4TBTBTBLCE L
C
E LCELCELCESFHASSFHASFHAASFHAASSFHASHASSSFHASSFHAHASFHAASSFHAFHSFHASFHSSFHAFHSFHAASFHAFHSFHASFHASFHASFHASSFHASFHASFHASSFHTBTBTBBBTBTBTTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBTTBTTBTTBTTTTTB TTTTTTTTEETTTTTTTTTTTTTTSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTT3+503+503+503+504+00044+004+004+500444+504+505+000555+005+00TBBBBS9MATCH LINE 5+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'36403650366036703680364036503660367036805+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00EX. 60" x 42"ARCH CMP10-110-210-3(STA 6+69)(STA 7+10)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT BREAK30 6030REACH JB2EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANKREACH JB1ENHANCEMENT IISTA 4+45 TO 6+69REACH JB3RETAINWETLAND WSWETLAND WQREACH JB1ENHANCEMENT ISTA 7+10 TO 7+88WETLAND WVREACH JB1 TIES INTOEXISTING BED OFREACH JB30FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB1.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S10PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB1MADISON COUNTY, NC
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+50TBTBBTBTBTBBBTBTBTBTTTTTTBBTBTBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTTBTBBBTBTTTTTTBTBBTBTBBTBTTBBTBTBTB
TBBT
B
TT
B
TBTTBTBTBTTBLLLLLLCEELCLCLLLCECLEELCECLLLCELCECEL5++00005+5+5++0++05+++005+505+50555+505+506+006+006+006+006+006+006+50506+6+506+50TBBBB
MATCH LINE - 5+00S12SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'36403650366036703680364036503660367036800+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00EX. 15" PIPE(STA 0+53)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT30 6030REACH JB4-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 0+55 TO 6+19EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANKEXISTING PIPE TO BEREMOVED AND DISPOSEDOF OFF-SITECOIR WATTLESLOPE BREAKSEE DETAIL D30FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB4.dwg SAVED BY: TswartzfagerDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S11PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB4MADISON COUNTY, NC
T
B
TB
T
B
T
B
TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
TBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBLCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCE+004+505+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+00TBTBBTBTBBBBTBTBTBBBTBTBTBTTBTBTBTBTBTBBTBTTB
TBTTBTBTBTTBTBTBTBLLLCEELCLLLLLLCECLELCELECLCELCLCECLLLCLCL00+0000+00+004+504+504+504+4+504+505+++0+++0005+5++++0+05++0+05+505+5055+505+506+006+006+006+006+006+006+006+00+66+666TBBBBBB6BB6TBBTBTBBTBTTTTTTBTBBBBT
B
T
B
TBTB
T
B
T
B
T
B
TBTTTTTTBTBTTTT
TBTBTBBB
TBTBBTBTBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTTBBTBTBTBTBBTT
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
TBTB
TTTBTBBTELCELCELCEC
EELCECELC ELCELCLLLCCCECEE
LCEELCELCCE LCECELLC
LCELCLCECE
LCELCCELCELC
CLCEECCECEELCEECLCEEELCECELLLLT
B
TT
B
TBBBTBB
BBTBTBLCLCLLLLCLCLCLLCCCLCLCLCLCLLCLCLCLLLLCCLCTBTBBBT
B
B
T
B
T
TBTBTBBBTBBTBBBTBBBBB
7+507+507+507+507+508+008+008+008+008+008+008+008+008+508008+508+509+009+009+00909+009+00+509+59+5+50+5010+++++000001000++++++000+++++0010+500+5010+510+510+5010+5011+011+001+001+009TBTBTBTS11MATCH LINE 5+00MATCH LI
N
E -
1
0
+
0
0
S13
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'36003610362036303640360036103620363036405+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00EX. 24" PIPE-4.53%-6.45%-6.88%12-212-412-512-612-812-912-112-11(STA 8+41)(STA 9+17)CONSERVATIONEASEMENT BREAK30 6030EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDPROPOSED TOPOF BANKEXISTING TOPOF BANKTYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION0.6'1.7'4.6'0.3'3.4'1.4'5.9'0.6'0.6'1.4'3.4'5.9'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACHJB2 STA 07+04 TO STA 08+410.4'EXISTING PIPE TOBE REMOVED ANDDISPOSED OF OFF-SITEREACH JB4-BRESTORATIONSTA 6+19 TO 8+41REACH JB4-AENHANCEMENT IISTA 0+55 TO 6+1970 LF OF PROPOSED48" RCPPROP 70 LF OF48" RCPREACH JB4-CENHANCEMENT ISTA 9+17 TO 14+57PROPOSED GRADINGLINE SPRING CONFLUENCEWITH FILTER FABRIC AND A5050 MIX OF CLASS A ANDCLASS B RIP-RAPCONSTRUCT BANKGROUNDWATERDIVERSIONSEE DETAIL D30FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB4.dwg SAVED BY: TswartzfagerDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S12PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB4MADISON COUNTY, NC
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
HA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA SFHA SFHA SFHA
SFHA
SFHA SFHASFHA SFHA SFHA SFHA
TBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB TBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTB
TB TBT
B
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTT
T
T
T T T T T T T
TTTTTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE LCE
LC
E
LCELCELCE
14+66+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+50SFHASFH SFHASFHA
TBTBT
B
T
B
TBTBTBTTBTBTBTTTTBTBTTBTBTBTBBTBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTTBBTBBBTBTBTTTBBTBTBTTTBTTBTTTBTBTBBTBTTTTTTBTBTBTBBBBBBTTTBTBBBBTBTBTBBTLCLCELCELCECLCELELCLCEELCECLLLLCCCEEE LCEELLLCELCLCECELCECELELCLLLCCLLLCLLCCLCLCLLLCLCCEECECCLCLCECEEECLCECELCELCCELLLCLCECECLCLCEECECECELCLCLCEEELCELCELCETBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB+50+50+50+508+008+008+008+008+008+008+0008+508+508+508+508+5009+009+009+009+009+00+509+59+5+50+50010++++0010++00+++00++++000+++0010+5010+5010+5010+510+5010+50011+011+01+001+001+501+5011+51+501+509BTBTS12MATCH LINE 10+00SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'358035903600361036203580359036003610362010+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+0030 6030EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEEXISTING TOPOF BANKREACH JB4-CENHANCEMENT ISTA 9+17 TO 14+57REACH JB7REACH JB5-AWETLAND WUWETLAND WKWETLAND WOWETLAND WLWETLAND WMWETLAND WNREACH JB4 TIES INTOEXISTING BED OF JB5GRADE LEFT BANK @ 2.5:1FROM STA 12+75 TO 13+90GRADE BOTH BANKS @ 2.5:1FROM STA 11+20 TO 12+250FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB4.dwg SAVED BY: TswartzfagerDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S13PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB4MADISON COUNTY, NC
SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
TB
TB TB
TBTBTBTBTTTTTTTTLCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCE
0+000+501+001+502+002+502+73SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'35853590359536003605358535903595360036050+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+0030 6030REACH JB7ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1+03 TO 2+69EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEREACH JB7 TIES INTOEXISTING BED OFREACH JB4EXISTING TOPOF BANKREACH JB4REACH JB5WETLAND WKWETLAND WOWETLAND WUWETLAND WMWETLAND WLWETLAND WNEPHEMERAL /INTERMITTENT BREAK0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_JB7.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506S14PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5/11/2020PUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTREACH JB7MADISON COUNTY, NC
60 12060WETLAND WS(0.039 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WT(0.011 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WR(0.077 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WQ(0.026 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WP(0.011 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WO(0.079 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WK(0.220 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WL(0.012 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WN(0.012 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WM(0.031 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WU(0.066 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WV(0.004 ACRESENHANCEMENT)LEGENDWETLAND ENHANCEMENT(1.993 ACRES)EXISTING WETLANDREACH JB70FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506W1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTWETLAND PLANMADISON COUNTY, NC5/11/2020
60 12060WETLAND WJ(0.014 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WI(0.084 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WH(0.019 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WG(0.211 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WC(0.524 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WB(0.257 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WF(0.008 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WE(0.033 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WA(0.248 ACRESENHANCEMENT)WETLAND WD(0.007 ACRESENHANCEMENT)LEGENDWETLAND ENHANCEMENT(1.993 ACRES)EXISTING WETLAND0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506W2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTWETLAND PLANMADISON COUNTY, NC5/11/2020
120 240120REACH JB1REACH JB3REACH JB5REACH JB2REACH JB4REACH JB6PLANTING LEGENDLIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTLCEEXISTING TREELINEPROPERTY LINERIPARIAN PLANTING(TOTAL AREA: 6.75 AC)SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING/INVASIVES CONTROL(TOTAL AREA: 4.49 AC)PLANTING TABLEREACH JB7Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree SpeciesCommon Name Scientific NamePercentCompositionSilky willowSalix saricea30%Black willowSalix nigra30%Silky dogwoodCornus amomum25%ElderberrySambucus canadensis 15%Permanent Riparian Seed MixCommon Name Scientific NamePercentCompositionVirginia WildryeElymus virginicus25%Indian GrassSorghastrum nutans25%Little Blue StemSchizachyrium scoparium10%Soft RushJuncus effusus10%Blackeyed susanRudbeckia hirta10%DeertongueDichanthelium clandestinum10%Common MilkweedAsclepias syriaca5%Showy GoldenrodSolidago erecta5%Bare Root Planting Tree SpeciesCommon Name Scientific NamePercentCompositionYellow PoplarLiriodendron tulipifera15%Yellow birchBetula alleghaniensis15%Northern Red OakQuercus rubra10%Chestnut OakQuercus montana10%White OakQuercus alba10%Eastern hemlockTsuga canadensis10%River birchBetula nigra10%Yellow poplarLiriodendron tulipifera10%Hazel alderAlnus serrulata10%0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506P1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTPLANTING PLANMADISON COUNTY, NC5/11/2020PLANTING NOTESALL PLANTING AREAS1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENTVEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THECONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACHWORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALLBE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALLBE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC ORSPRING-TOOTH CHISEL PLOW TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSESSHALL BE MADE ACROSS PLANTING AREAS WITH THE IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASSSHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.4. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D3.LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D3.5. BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKE TREE SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE TABLESHOWN TO THE LEFT, BUT SPECIES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BASED ON AVAILABILITY.6. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6" DBHSHALL BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.7. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO 6 PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES AREGROUPED TOGETHER.8. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.9. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONGBOTH BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.10. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALLDISTURBED AREAS WITH SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1.11. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.12. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
120 240120REACH JB1REACH JB3REACH JB5REACH JB2REACH JB4REACH JB6FENCING LEGENDLIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTLCEEXISTING FENCELINEPROPOSED FENCELINEINSTALL 570 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCEINSTALL 3,600 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCEINSTALL 1,800 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCEINSTALL 3,110 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCE279 LF OF EXISTINGFENCE TO BE REMOVEDAND DISPOSED OFOFF-SITE315 LF OF EXISTING FENCETO BE REMOVED ANDDISPOSED OF OFF-SITE502 LF OF EXISTING FENCETO BE REMOVED ANDDISPOSED OF OFF-SITE250 LF OF EXISTING FENCETO BE REMOVED ANDDISPOSED OF OFF-SITEINSTALL 2,010 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCEPROPOSED GATEREACH JB7204 LF OF EXISTINGFENCE TO BE REMOVEDAND DISPOSED OFOFF-SITEFENCING NOTES:1. CONTRACTOR TO TIE PROPOSED FENCEINTO EXISTING FENCE WHERE APPLICABLETO MAINTAIN CATTLE EXCLUSION.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL FENCINGLOCATED WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENT.0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usAFMSCFBRCBPB0506F1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECTFENCING PLANMADISON COUNTY, NC5/11/2020
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" MIN24" MIN8"RUNOFFRUNOFF18" TO 24"FLAT-BOTTOM TRENCH DETAILV-SHAPED TRENCH DETAILSILT FENCE INSTALLATION18" TO 24"TEMPORARY SILT FENCENOTE: 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 DETAILFLOWSECTION 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 DIKEBACKFILL 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 FABRICCOMPACTEDEARTHRUNOFFFILTERFABRICMIDDLE LAYERBOTTOM LAYERTOP LAYEREARTH SURFACETRENCH 0.25' DEEPONLY WHEN PLACED ONEARTH SURFACEENDS OF BAGS INADJACENT ROWS BUTTEDSLIGHTLY TOGETHERSEE NOTELOWEST POINTGROUND LEVELEARTH SURFACEEROSION CONTROL WATTLENTSNOTE:1. EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIRLOGS/WATTLES MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF SILTFENCE.2. INSTLL A MINIMUM OF 2 UPSLOPE STAKES AND 4DOWNSLOPE STAKES AT AN ANGLE TO WEDGEWATTLE IN PLACE.EXISTINGGRADEMINIMUM 9" EROSIONCONTROL COIR WATTLE/LOGSLOPEINSTALL WATTLE IN 2" TO3" TRENCH2" x 2" X 2' WOODENSTAKEPLAN VIEWWOODENSTAKES @ 2'CENTERSFLOW
PROFILE VIEWSECTION B-BFLOWSECTION A-APLANFLOWCLASS I RIP RAPSPILLWAY CREST1' MIN OF # 5WASHED STONECLASS I RIPRAPFILTER FABRICGENERAL NOTES:1. CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION CONTROLMANUAL.2. ROCK DAM RIPRAP SHALL BE CLASS I.3. PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS B RIPRAP ROCK APRON 2 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE OF ROCKDAM.1.5' THICK CLASSB ROCK APRON1.0' THICK CLASSB ROCK APRONCUTOFF TRENCHFILTERFABRIC# 5 WASHED STONETEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAMBBAA3:12:1 0.8 X BKF2' MIN.W (SPILLWAY)MIN. 23 STREAM WIDTH0.8 X BKFBANKFULLFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NCDETAILSPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT5/11/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND10506BPBBRCSCFAFMSEE SITE PLANEXISTING ROAD50' MIN.VARIESCOARSE 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 ENTRANCE6" MIN.INSTALL PIPEPER DESIGNCOIR MATTINGINSTALLATION 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 6" (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.6. 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, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, AND COMPACT SOIL.8. STAKE AT 12" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.9. 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:x100 % COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO AHIGH STRENGTH MATRIX.xTHICKNESS - 0.35 IN. MINIMUM.xSHEAR STRESS – 5 LBS/SQFTxFLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED 16 FT/SECxWEIGHT - 29 OZ/SYxOPEN AREA - 38%xSLOPES – UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 1:1KEY-IN MATTINGSTAKE MATTING JUSTABOVE CHANNEL TOEAND BACKFILL W/RIFFLE MATERIAL6" RIFFLEMATERIAL
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.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.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 CROSSINGSTREAM CHANNELFLOW MIN 3'MIN 3'PLAN VIEWSECTION VIEW10' MIN.10' MIN.MIN. 2'(UNLESS ADDITIONAL COVER ISREQUIRED BY MANUFACTURER)FILTER FABRICCOARSE AGGREGATE(#5 WASHED STONE) 6" DEEPEARTH FILLPIPE SIZE PER PLANINVERT PER PLAN BURY 20%OF CULVERT AREA UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE BYENGINEERINSTALL CLAY PLUG 2 FEETBELOW CULVERT INVERTCOARSE AGGREGATE(#5 WASHED STONE)EARTH FILLTOP OF BANKLOG SILLSET TOP OF LOG ATPROPOSED BED INVERTLOG SILLSET TOP OF LOG ATPROPOSED BED INVERT3' 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 EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.5. GRADE SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN 5:16. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, 6 TO 9 INCHES THICK, LINED WITH FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVERTHE 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 THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THECHANNEL.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.11. TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE.FILTER FABRIC COVEREDIN 6" OF CLASS A STONEAND 3" OF #57 STONESTONE APPROACHSECTION: NO STEEPERTHAN 5:1 SLOPE ON ROADSURFACE FLOWDIVERSIONFORD CROSSINGCLASS A STONEEXISTING STREAMBANKFILTER FABRICFILTER FABRICEXISTING / PROPOSEDCULVERT(S)1.5'CLASS 'I1' RIP-RAPCULVERT PROTECTIONNOTES:1. CONSTRUCT CULVERT PROTECTON IN A DRYCONDITION.2. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.FLOW EXISTING / PROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDFILTER FABRIC#57 STONEFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NCDETAILSPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT5/11/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND20506BPBBRCSCFAFM
FINISHED GRADE30'FLOWTYPICAL SECTIONCHANNEL PLUGDIBBLE 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'EXISTING
CHANNEL
MIN. 25'FILL TO TOP OFBANKFILL AT LEAST70% OF CHANNELMAX. 75'MIN. 25'NOTES:1. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL TO TOP OF BANK 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 BACKFILLOLD CHANNEL TO BEDIVERTED ORABANDONEDNEW CHANNEL TO BECONSTRUCTEDCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" LIFTS)IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)10' MINUNCOMPACTED BACKFILL1.5' MINIMUM1111CHANNEL PLUG30' MIN.BANKFULL ELEVATIONNEW CHANNEL BANK SHALLBE TREATED AS SPECIFIEDIN PLANSPROPOSEDCHANNEL INVERTTOE PROTECTIONBOTTOM OFEXISTING CHANNELEXISTING CHANNELTOP OF BANKCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" TO 18" LIFTS)2"PLAN VIEWNOTES:1. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLINGCOIR MATTING.INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAIL(SEE DETAIL D1)INSTALL LIVE STAKES(SEE PLANTING PLAN)EXISTING CHANNEL BANKTIE TO EXISTING GRADEMIN SLOPE 2.5H:1VOR PER PLAN SHEETEXISTINGCHANNEL BEDTYPICAL BANK GRADINGNTSCOIR WATTLE SLOPE BREAKNTSEXISTINGGRADEMINIMUM 9"WATTLE/LOGSLOPEINSTALL WATTLE IN 2" TO3" TRENCHVAR. PER PLAN2" x 2" X 2' WOODENSTAKE ON 2' CENTERS2" x 2" X 2' WOODENSTAKE ON 2' CENTERSPROFILE VIEWBARE ROOT PLANTINGSON 6' TO 8' CENTERSBACKFILL WATTLESW/ TOPSOILNOTES:1. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLINGCOIR MATTING.2. FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAIL(SEE DETAIL D1)INSTALL LIVE STAKES(SEE PLANTING PLAN)EXISTING CHANNEL BANKTIE TO EXISTING GRADEMIN SLOPE 2.5H:1VOR PER PLAN SHEETPROPOSEDCHANNEL BED(SEE PLANSHEET)BANK GROUNDWATER CONTROLNTSCLASS 'A' RIPRAPEARTH FILL0.5' MIN1.0' MINFILTER FABRICNOTES:1. STAKEING MAY VERY PER DIRECTION OF SUPPLIER2. SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLINGFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NCDETAILSPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT5/11/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND30506BPBBRCSCFAFMNOTES:1. SEE TABLE ON PLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE SPECIES AND COMPOSITION.2. LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE 2 TO 3 FEET LONG AND 0.75 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER.3. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON 1.5' ALTERNATING SPACING ON LARGECHANNELS (POOL DEPTH > 2FT) AND 1.0' ALTERNATING SPACING ON SMALLCHANNELS (POOL DEPTH < 2FT).4. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ON ALL RESTORATION REACHES AND ALONG ALLENHANCEMENT REACHES AS SHOWN ON LIVE STAKE SHEETS.LIVE STAKINGPLAN VIEWNWSTYPICAL SECTIONCOIR FIBERMATTINGSMALL CHANNELSPACINGLARGE CHANNELSPACINGNWSTOB1.5'3.0'1.5'3.0'LIVESTAKE SPACINGLARGE CHANNELINSTALL LIVESTAKESAROUND OUTSIDE OFMEANDER BENDSINSTALL LIVESTAKESAROUND STRUCTURESFLOWLIVESTAKECOIR FIBERMATTINGNWSTOB1.0'1.0'2.0'LIVESTAKE SPACINGSMALL CHANNELLIVESTAKECOIR FIBERMATTINGWATER TABLECOIR FIBERMATTINGFLAT TOP ENDLATERAL BUDSIDE BRANCHREMOVED ATSLIGHT ANGLE45 DEGREETAPERED BUTT END0.5' TO 1.5'18" MIN.0.75" TO 2"DETAIL
1. STEP POOL ROCKS MINIMUM BOULDER SIZE: 2' X 2' X 1'2. THE UPPER LIMIT FOR BOULDER SIZES SHOULD BE NO MORE THAT 20% OF THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM SIZE AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIORTO INSTALLATION OF THE STRUCTURE.3. BACKFILL MATERIAL, IF NEEDED TO ESTABLISH A STEP-POOL SUBPAVEMENT AND/OR TO RAISE THE CHANNEL BED DUE TO SCOUR/INCISION, SHALL BE OF ATYPE, SIZE, AND GRADATION AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OFSTEP-POOL MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.4. STEP-POOL BED MATERIAL SHALL BE OF A TYPE, SIZE, AND GRADATION AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER TO BE MOBILE OR NON-MOBILE AS THE CONDITIONSIN THE CHANNEL WARRANT (I.E. – CLEAN-WATER DISCHARGE ENVIRONMENT, HIGH BEDLOAD SYSTEM, ETC.) BED MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED,AND RE-USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS WHEREVER PRACTICAL. OTHERWISE BED MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, “RIVER-TYPE” ROCK,UNLESS OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHANNEL. LOGS AND OTHER WOODY DEBRIS MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO THESTEP-POOL BED MATERIALS.5. STEP-POOL INVERTS SHALL CONSIST OF BOULDERS OF AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF 12" TO 14" AND FOOTERS SHALL HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETEROF 14" TO 18". INVERTS SHALL BE SET AT A DROP/RISE FROM THE ADJACENT UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM INVERT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PASSAGE OF FISH.THE INVERTS SHALL FORM THE THALWEG OF THE STEP POOL STRUCTURE. POOLS SHALL BE FORMED BETWEEN THE INVERTS TO THE DIMENSIONS SPECIFIEDBY THE DESIGNER.6. THE BENCH OF THE STEP-POOL STRUCTURE SHALL BE FORMED BESIDE THE POOL AT THE DIMENSIONS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. THE BENCH SHALL BEFORMED OF STEP-POOL MATERIALS PLACED TO A DEPTH SUCH THAT THEIR SURFACE MATCHES THE STEP-POOL INVERT IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM.7. USE CLASS A AND B RIPRAP TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STEP POOL ROCKS.8. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH CLASS A AND B RIPRAP TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THEHEADER ROCK.9. FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS FOR NCDOT WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.STEP POOLFILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NCDETAILSPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT5/11/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND40506BPBBRCSCFAFMFLOWPROFILE VIEW STREAM INVERTCONTROL POINTBANKFULLBACKFILL EXISTINGCHANNEL WITH NATIVEMATERIAL AS NEEDEDFOOTER ROCKHEADER ROCKWOODYDEBRISSECTION A-A'FOOTER ROCKWELL GRADED MIX OF#57 STONE, CLASS AAND B RIPRAPFILTER FABRICSTREAM BED0.8' MAX (TYP.)1.5x RIFFLEDEPTH (TYP.)HEADER ROCKBANKFULLBANKFULLBANKFULLSTREAM INVERTCONTROL POINTFLOWAA5' MIN.NTSLOG SILLSECTION A-A' (OPT 1)SECTION B-B'FLOWTYPICAL PLAN VIEWAA'BB'FLOWMIN. 5.0'5.0'MINHIGHLOWHIGHLOWNOTES:1. LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF SURGESTONE, CLASS A RIPRAP AND CLASS B RIPRAP.3. HIGH SIDE OF LOG SHALL BE APPROX. 0.2' HIGHER THAN LOW END.4. REACH LOG DIMENSIONS:JB1, JB2, AND JB4: MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'JB5 AND JB6: MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 25'5. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5' ALONGTHE LOG.MIN. 4.0'CHANNEL TOPOF BANKCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)CHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKCOIR MATTINGPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDTACK FABRICTO LOGHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (SEE NOTE #2)POOLBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (SEE NOTE #2)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)BRUSH TOE PROTECTIONLENGTH = BKF WIDTH(UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED ON THE PLANS)SECTION A-A' (OPT 2)FLOWMIN. 5.0'PROPOSEDSTREAM BEDTACK FABRICTO LOGBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (SEE NOTE #2)SEE PROFILE FORPOOL DEPTHSCOUR POOLNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)SEE PROFILE FORPOOL DEPTH5 - 20°2 - 4%POINT REFERENCED INSTRUCTURE TABLE;TOLERANCE ± 0.1'POINT REFERENCEDIN STRUCTURE TABLE;TOLERANCE ± 0.1'LOW2 4%HIGHLOWNTSROCK SILLNOTES:1. MINIMUM BOULDER SIZE: 2' X 2' X 1'2. THE UPPER LIMIT FOR BOULDER SIZES SHOULD BE NO MORE THAT 20% OF THESPECIFIED MINIMUM SIZE AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TOINSTALLATION OF THE STRUCTURE.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF DOWNSTREAM TOEPROTECTION IF STRUCTURE IS CONSTRUCTION SUCH THAT LOW FLOW IS NOTDIRECTED TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE CHANNEL.2. COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF SURGESTONE, CLASS A RIPRAP AND CLASS B RIPRAP.3. THE BOULDER SILL IS GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS:A. PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS. A LAYER OF BEDDING MATERIAL UNDER THEFOOTER BOULDERS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. THERE SHALL BENO GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.B. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC.C. PLACE COURSE BACKFILL BEHIND THE FOOTER BOULDERS.D. INSTALL HEADER BOULDERS ON TOP OF AND SET SLIGHTLY BACK FROM THEFOOTER BOULDERS (SUCH THAT PART OF THE HEADER BOULDER IS RESTINGON THE COARSE BACKFILL). HEADER BOULDERS SHALL SPAN THE SEAMS OFTHE FOOTER BOULDERS. THERE SHALL NOT BE A SEAM IN THE CENTER OFTHE STREAM BED (AT THE THALWEG). THERE SHALL BE NO GAPS BETWEENBOULDERS.E. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND HEADER BOULDERS ENSURING THAT ANYVOIDS BETWEEN THE BOULDERS ARE FILLED.4. BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED IN 12" LIFTS.SECTION B-BCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (SEE NOTE #4)CHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKTYPICAL PLAN VIEWAABBFLOW5.0'MINPROPOSED STREAMBANKSTREAM BEDFOOTER BOULDER, TYPICALSILL CONTROL POINTELEVATIONTOP OF BANKHEADER BOULDER, TYPICALSECTION A-AFLOWPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDMIN. 5.0'SILL CONTROL POINT ELEVATIONHEADER BOULDERFOOTER BOULDERCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)FILTER FABRIC(804.2.11 CLASS 2)SEE PROFILE FORPOOL DEPTHSCOUR POOLPOOL20% OF PROPOSEDRIFFLE DEPTH(SEE NOTE #3)LOG VANENTSPOOLMIN 0.5'3% TO 7%BANKFULLSTREAM BEDIN POOL 12 BANK WIDTHFLOWSTREAM BANKPOOLCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)NOTES:1. LOG VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS WITH A MINIMUMDIAMETER OF 10". LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.THE LENGTH SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE LOG IS BURIED INTO THE SOIL OF THE STREAM BANK (ONONE END) AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'.2. COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF SURGE STONE AND CLASSA RIPRAP.3. THE VANE SHALL INTERCEPT THE STREAM BANK AT A HEIGHT EQUAL TO BETWEEN ½ BANKFULLSTAGE AND BANKFULL STAGE. AN ELEVATION CONTROL POINT MAY BE ESTABLISHED AT THE LEFTOR RIGHT STREAM BANK/VANE INTERCEPT POINT. THE STRUCTURE ANGLE SHALL BE MEASUREDFROM A POINT TANGENT TO THE VANE INTERCEPT IN RELATION TO THE DIRECTION OF FLOW.4. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THECOARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THE VANE. THERE SHALL BE NO GEOTEXTILE FABRIC VISIBLE INTHE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS NEEDED.5. LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS:A. OVER-EXCAVATE STREAM BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THEHEADER (AND FOOTER IF SPECIFIED) LOGS.B. PLACE FOOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM ISMEASURED ALONG THE VANE ARM WHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREAMBANK AND PROFILE.C. INSTALL HEADER LOG OF THE VANE ARM ON TOP OF AND SLIGHTLY FORWARD OR BACKFROM THE FOOTER LOG.D. NAIL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TO THE HEADER LOG USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAILEVERY 1.5' ALONG THE LOG.E. PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE.F. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND LOGS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE LOGSARE FILLED.G. BACKFILL REMAINDER OF VANE WITH BACKFILL SPECIFIED IN NOTE 2.6. IF ANY EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAMBANK/VANE INTERCEPT POINT THE MATTING EDGES SHALL BE NEATLY SECURED AROUND THELOGS.SECTION A-A' PLAN VIEWPROFILE VIEWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)POOLPOINT REFERENCED INSTRUCTURE TABLE;TOLERANCE ± 0.1'FLOWA'ABANK INTERCEPT POINT(SEE NOTE #3)MIN 4.0'20° - 30°COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)BANKFULL
TABLE 1 - STONE COMPOSITIONREACHSTONE SIZE %JB1, JB2, JB4CLASS A50CLASS B25NATIVE25TABLE 1 - STONE COMPOSITIONREACHSTONE SIZE %JB1, JB2, JB4CLASS A50CLASS B25NATIVE25FLOWCROSS SECTION A-A'EXISITNG CHANNELAPPROXIMATE BOULDER DIMENSION:WIDTH = 18"LENGTH = 18"HEIGHT (MAX) = 9"BOULDER CLUSTERNTSA'ANWSSAPPROXIMATE BOULDER DIMENSION:WIDTH = 18"LENGTH = 18"HEIGHT (MAX) = 9"5' MINMIN1.5'MIN2.0'NOTES:1. BOULDERS SHOULD BE PLACED FROM THE STREAM BANK.2. BOULDERS INSTALLED APPORXIMATLY 3" BELOW EXISTING STREAM BED.3. BOULDERS SHOULD EXTEND NO MORE THAN 6" ABOVE THE CHANNEL BOTTOM.4. BOULDERS SHOULD BE PLACED DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE THALWEG.1. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC, BASE STONE LAYER AND COMPACT. INSTALL TOP STONELAYER, BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.2. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE RIPRAP. ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA) AND SILKY WILLOW(SALIX SERICEA). WILLOW CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.3. INSTALL COMPACTED SOIL LIFT. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE WRAPED UNDER SOIL LIFT AND KEYED INTO TOP OF BANK.4. INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.5. FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS FOR NCDOT WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.SECTION A-AMINIMUM 12" INTERMEDIATEDIAMETER STONECOMPACTED SOIL LIFTTOP OF BANKLIVE STAKES1/2 MAX POOL DEPTHLIVE CUTTINGSINSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DWG D1MIN 2.0'KEY COIR MATTINGINTO BANKNWSMIN2.0'MIN 0.5'STONE TOE PROTECTIONNTSFILTERFABRICROCK SHALL BE EVEN WITH DESIGNED BANKSLOPE. AVOID EXCESSIVE ROCK PROTUSIONFROM BANK.FILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NCDETAILSPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT5/11/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND50506BPBBRCSCFAFMPROFILECROSS SECTION A-A'FLOWVARIES PER PROFILEEND RIFFLECONTROL POINTPROPOSED TOPOF BANKRIFFLE MATERIAL;SEE TABLE 1MAX 2"-3"BRANCHES0.75' MINTOP OF BANKPROPOSEDTOE OF BANKLARGE COBBLE/SMALLBOULDERS, TYPRIFFLE MATERIAL;SEE TABLE 1POOLRUNCHANNELBOTTOM WIDTHNOTES:1. TYPICAL RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL NEWLY GRADED CHANNELSECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIEDON PLAN SHEETS.2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THEBEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OF THEPROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BEREQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN ATOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.3. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF 75% ROCKS AND 25%WOODY MATERIAL. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF LOGS,BRANCHES, AND BRUSH NO GREATER THAN 3" IN DIAMETER. THEROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIALWHEN POSSIBLE. NATIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED,STOCKPILED, AND RE-USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. IFA SUITABLE QUANTITY OF NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL CANNOT BEHARVESTED, CONTRACTOR MAY SUBSTITUTE THE RIFFLE MATERIALWITH ROCK MATCHING THE COMPOSITION IN TABLE 1.4. THE PLACEMENT OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TOCREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT “JUMP” (TRANSITION)BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM POOL-GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISENO ABRUPT “DROP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THEDOWNSTREAM RUN-POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THERIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE ANDDIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOMEVARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALLPOOLS AND LOGS.5. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHERIN-STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL , J-HOOK, ETC.). NO LOGS SHOULDBE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.BEGIN RIFFLECONTROL POINTTYPICAL RIFFLENTSPOOLGLIDEFLOWA'ALARGE COBBLE/SMALL BOULDERSFLOW1% - 2% (TYP.)PROFILECROSS SECTION A-A'FLOWVARIES PER PROFILEEND RIFFLE CONTROL POINTPROPOSED TOPOF BANKBEGIN RIFFLECONTROL POINT4" - 6" LOGSTOP OF BANKPROPOSED TOE OF BANKGRADE CONTROL ROCK50/50 MIX OF CLASS A ANDB RIPRAP4" - 6" LOGS4.0'TYPLARGE COBBLE/SMALLBOULDERS, TYPRIFFLE MATERIAL;SEE TABLE 1POOLRUNCHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH4.0'TYPNOTES:1. RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED INNEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANSHEETS.2. ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THEBEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OFTHE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTSSHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLEINSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.3. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50/50 MIX OFCLASS A AND B RIPRAP. GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACEDSUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OFRIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND LOGS.THE ROCK MATERIAL COMPOSITION SHALL MATCH TABLE 1. RIFFLEMATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USEDFROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. ROCK RIFFLE MATERIALOBTAINED OFFSITE SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, “RIVER-TYPE”ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATEFOR THE CHANNEL.5. SPACING AND NUMBER OF LOGS SHOULD BE BASED ON RIFFLELENGTH AND MAY VARY BASED ON LOG AVAILABILITY. LOGSSHOULD BE SPACED EQUALLY AND ANCHORED TO THE CHANNELBED WITH BOULDERS.6. THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLEMATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTHPROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT “JUMP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THEUPSTREAM POOL-GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NOABRUPT “DROP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THEDOWNSTREAM RUN-POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OFTHE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE ANDDIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOMEVARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THESMALL POOLS AND LOGS.7. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHERIN-STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL , J-HOOK, ETC.). NO LOGSSHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSEDSTRUCTURE.8. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAMBANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED BY THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY"SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK FOR THE LENGTH OFTHE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANKVEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOT BE USED (OR THEDIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.RIFFLE MATERIAL;SEE TABLE 1GRADE CONTROL ROCK50/50 MIX OF CLASS A ANDB RIPRAPRIFFLE GRADE CONTROLNTSA'ASMALL POOLLARGE COBBLE/SMALL BOULDERS4" - 6" LOGSANCHOR BOULDERANCHOR BOULDERPOOLGLIDE1.0' MIN0.5' MIN
FILE NAME:R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\CAD\DWG\0506_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: BcarrollDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:REVISIONS:RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEALEngineering Services Provided By:Angler Environmental, LLCLicense: F-14283600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27612Main: 919.829.9909www.res.usMADISON COUNTY, NCDETAILSPUNCHEON FORK MITIGATION PROJECT5/11/2020PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND60506BPBBRCSCFAFMTYPICAL PLAN VIEWCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKCOIR MATTINGFLOWNTSNOTES:1. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE LARGER BRANCHESAND LOGS IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN. LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING 6 INTO 12 IN OF THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.2. PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALLLOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) AND COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILLAND COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.3. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE SMALL BRANCHES AND BRUSH. SEE TABLE ONPLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE STAKE SPECIES ANDCOMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOWBETTER ROOTING.4. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED SOIL PERDIRECTION OF ENGINEER. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE KEYED INTO TOP OF BANK.5. INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PERDIRECTION OF ENGINEER.6. LIVE CUTTINGS SHOULD NOT EXTEND PAST 13 OF CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH.AASECTION A-ASMALL LOGS AND/ORLARGE BRANCHES WITH AMIN DIAMETER OF 4"SMALL BRANCHESAND BRUSHCOMPACTED SOIL LIFTTOP OF BANKLIVE STAKES1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH1/4 MAX POOL DEPTHLIVE CUTTINGSINSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DWG D1MIN 2.0'6"TOE PROTECTION(LARGER CHANNELS)KEY COIR MATTINGINTO BANKTYPICAL PLAN VIEWCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKCOIR MATTINGFLOWBRUSH TOE (POOL DEPTH < 1.5 FT)NTS1. OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. INSTALL SMALLERBRANCHES AND BRUSH AND COMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL ANDCOMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.2. PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE SMALL BRANCHES AND BRUSH. SEE TABLE ONPLANTING SHEET FOR ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTING AND LIVE STAKE SPECIES ANDCOMPOSITION. CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOWBETTER ROOTING.3. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED SOIL PERDIRECTION OF ENGINEER. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE KEYED INTO TOP OF BANK.4. INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYER PERDIRECTION OF ENGINEER.AASECTION A-ASMALL BRANCHESAND BRUSHCOMPACTED SOIL LIFTTOP OF BANKLIVE STAKES1/4 MAX POOL DEPTHLIVE CUTTINGSINSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DWG D1MIN 2.0'6"KEY COIR MATTINGINTO BANKNWSMIN5.0'MIN5.0'BRUSH TOE (POOL DEPTH > 1.5 FT)TOP OF BANKPOINT REFERENCEDIN STRUCTURETABLE; TOLERANCE ±0.1'POOLPOOLFLOW BRUSH TOE(SEE SHEET D6)ANGLED LOG STEP POOLNTSTOP OF BANKFOOTER LOGHEADER LOGPOINT REFERENCEDIN STRUCTURETABLE; TOLERANCE ±0.1'NOTES:1. LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF 18' IN LENGTH AND 12" IN DIAMETER AND RELATIVELY STRAIGHTHARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.2. COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF SURGE STONE, CLASS A RIPRAP, ANDCLASS B RIPRAP.3. A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOG COMBINATION, IF DIAMETER IS 2X MINIMUMDIAMETER AND APPROVED BY DESIGNER.4. FILTER FABRIC SHALL EXTEND FROM UPSTREAM LOG DROP AND BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THELOG(S) AND THE STREAM BED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRICVISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED, TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS NEEDED.5. COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO A THICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THE HEADER LOGS. GRADECONTROL STONE SHOULD BE PLACED AT A THICKNESS OF THE FOOTER LOGS.6. DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAY BE USED TO SECURE LOGS INTO THE STREAMBED AND/OR BANKS. FLAT SIDED BOULDERS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHORSYSTEM.PLAN VIEWSECTION A-A'4' MIN (TYP)HEADER LOGW A'A2 - 4%15-30%POOLPOOLFLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (SEE NOTE #2)POINT REFERENCEDIN STRUCTURETABLE; TOLERANCE ±0.1'BANKFULLHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGFILTER FABRICPROFILE5' MIN (TYP)POOLAGRADE CONTROL STONE5050 MIX OF CLASS 'B' ANDCLASS 'I' RIPRAP1.5' MIN (TYP.)

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South. Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400

res.us

May 2, 2019

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

Subject: Project Scoping for Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project in Madison 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 and wetland restoration project on the
attached site (USGS site map with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance
are enclosed). The Puncheon Fork Project 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 5,852 linear feet of stream and two acres of wetland.
The Site is currently in agricultural use, specifically as pasture.

We have identified Puncheon Fork as DWR Trout Water as well as WRC Hatchery Supported Trout
Waters.

A detailed project description along with maps showing the location and approximate limits of the
conservation easement are enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo | Ecologist II

PUNCHEON FORK SITE
Project Description
The Puncheon Fork Site (the “Site”) is located in Madison County approximately five miles northwest of
Swiss, NC. The GPS coordinates of the site are 35.954868 °N and -82.531369 °W. The Site is contained in
five parcels totaling approximately 15 acres of conservation easement. The Site is located within a rural
area, and land use within the project area is comprised primarily of agricultural and forested land uses.
The Site is located within the French Broad River Basin (8-digit USGS HUC 06010105, 12-digit USGS
HUC 060101050004), and involves the restoration and enhancement of four unnamed tributaries that
have been disturbed by agricultural activities and cattle grazing. The conceptual design presents the
opportunity to provide up to 3,037 cold stream mitigation units (SMU). This proposed Site will result in
significant ecological impacts including the reduction of nutrient inputs via livestock exclusion and the
reduction of sediment inputs from eroding stream banks by restoring the stream channel pattern,
dimension, and profile in stream to reference reach conditions.
Existing Reach Conditions
In general, all or portions of the project streams do not function to their full potential. Current conditions
demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from agriculture, historic land uses, and
livestock. Morphological parameters for Restoration and Enhancement I reaches are located in Table 3.  
Reach JB1
Reach JB1 is in the northwest portion of the project and flows south to a confluence with JB2. This reach
has minimal riparian buffer upstream and virtually no buffer downstream as it winds through a valley
bottom. The banks and substrate appear relatively stable, but are not fully functioning from a lack of
sufficient buffer and livestock intrusion. Existing land use surrounding the reach is predominantly pasture.
The drainage area is 123 acres.
Reach JB2
Reach JB2 begins in the northwest section of the property and flows to the southeast to a confluence with
JB1. The channel shows localized areas of active erosion and impact from livestock. This reach shows
similar conditions to JB1 with the addition of numerous failing or degrading stream crossings. Existing land
use is pasture with minimal trees along the banks. The drainage area at the downstream end is 112 acres.
Reach JB3-A/B/C
Reach JB3 begins at the confluence of JB1 and JB2 and flows south to an easement break before becoming
Reach JB5. JB3-A and JB3-C show relatively healthy stream banks and substrate, but lack a sufficient
riparian buffer and allow livestock access. JB3-B lacks a sufficient riparian buffer and has significant bank
erosion, including a forming headcut, from livestock access. Existing land use surrounding the reach is
active pasture. The drainage area is 261 acres.
Reach JB4-A/B/C
Reach JB4 begins on the western side of the project and flows east to a confluence with JB5. Portions of
JB4-A and JB4-C have a relatively thin buffer with a minimally impacted channel. JB4-B is similar, but
showing slightly more bank erosion. Existing land use surrounding the reach is active pasture and allows
livestock access to the channel. The drainage area is 34.5 acres.
Reach JB5-A/B/C
Reach JB5 begins in the middle of the project and forms the main channel, flowing southeast to a confluence
with JB6. The upstream portions of the reach, JB5-A and JB5-B, show a relatively thick rhododendron
buffer that appears to keep livestock impact limited. JB5-A does however show minimal bank erosion in
the areas where livestock can access the channel. Channel substrate and banks appear healthy and function
aside from localized erosion. JB5-C also has an apparently healthy bed substrate, but lacks a sufficient
riparian buffer and allows livestock access. Resulting access shows signs of bank erosion through JB5-C.
The drainage area is 334 acres.
Reach JB6
Reach JB6 begins at the culvert crossing under Puncheon Fork Road and flows southeast. All other
reaches drain into JB6 via a confluence with JB5 shortly downstream from the culvert crossing. This
reach has a very limited riparian buffer and shows localized bank erosion throughout. Existing land use
surrounding the reach is active pasture. The drainage area is nearly 874 acres.
Vegetation
The Site is characterized primarily by agricultural land, including pasture and some areas of disturbed
riparian forest. Many of the streams on-site lack sufficient riparian buffers, while some reaches are devoid
of buffers altogether. Vegetation associated with these areas is primarily composed of herbaceous
vegetation interspersed with trees. Exotic invasive species are also present in some areas. In general, these
riparian zones are disturbed due to regular land management activities related to cattle production. The Site
also includes stream channels with sufficiently sized riparian buffers that demonstrate more developed
vegetation strata and higher biodiversity. However, these areas are still disturbed by frequent cattle access
and presence of exotic invasive species.
Tree species present throughout the Site include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), Eastern hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus).
Understory species include rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), and common rush (Juncus effuses).
Stream Restoration and Enhancement
Current stream conditions along the proposed restoration reaches demonstrate significant habitat
degradation as a result of impacts from agricultural land use. Additionally, the riparian buffers are in poor
condition throughout much of the project area.
Stream restoration efforts will be accomplished through a combination of analytical and reference reach-
based design methods. The result will be a combination of Priority Level I Restoration and Enhancement
Levels I, II, and III for the project area. The cross-section geometry, planform, and profile will be modified
to restore appropriate capacity and sinuosity to the channelized streams. The Priority Level I stream
restoration will incorporate the design of a single-thread meandering channel, with parameters based on
data taken from appropriate regional curve tables for the Mountains of North Carolina and from reference
sites and hydrologic analyses.
Priority Level I Restoration is proposed for Reach JB5-C. The design approach will include meandering
the proposed channel within the natural valley, grading the currently incised banks, and excavating a
floodplain bench to allow the channel to access the floodplain during heavy precipitation events. A
minimum 30-foot buffer will be established and planted with native riparian vegetation and a fence will be
installed to exclude all livestock.
Stream Enhancement Level I is proposed for Reaches JB3-B, JB4-B, and JB6. The design approach on this
reach will focus on bank stabilization, riparian buffer restoration, and cattle exclusion. Stabilization
activities will include installing grade control structures, woody debris structures, and live-stake plantings
to improve hydraulic efficiency and aquatic habitat. All disturbed areas within the proposed buffer will be
planted with native riparian vegetation to a width of at least 30 feet from the stream’s top of bank and
fencing will be installed to exclude all livestock.
Stream Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reaches JB1, JB2, JB3-A/C, JB4-A/C, and JB5-A. The
design approach on these reaches will focus on improving the riparian buffer through native vegetation
planting and treatment of invasive species, incorporating minimal grading to address minor erosional areas,
and installing fencing to exclude all livestock from streams.
Stream Enhancement Level III is proposed for Reach JB5-B. The channels are moderately stable throughout
the proposed reach and are protected by relatively intact buffers but may still allow occasional access to
livestock. Therefore, a fence will be installed to establish a permanent minimum 30-foot buffer and to
exclude livestock. Additional planting may be implemented to increase the buffer biodiversity.

0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easemen t
©Date: 12/20/2017
Drawn by: ATP
Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\DOT RFP Jan 2018\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Figure 1 - Vicinity - Fork.mxdPuncheon Fork Site
JB2112 ac
JB435 ac
JB5 334 ac
Entire Site1248 ac
JB1123 ac
JB6874 acJB3 261 ac
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Map
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Areas
©Date: 12/20/2017
Drawn by: ATP
Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\DOT RFP Jan 2018\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Figure 2 - USGS - Fork.mxd
0 400200
Feet
Figure 3 - Aerial Map
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
©Date: 12/18/2017
Drawn by: ATP
Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\DOT RFP Jan 2018\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Figure 3 - Aerial - Fork.mxd
JB2
JB6JB5-B
JB4-A
J
B5
-AJ
B
1
JB
5-C
J
B
3
-
B
JB4-B
J
B3
-AJ B 4 -CJB3-C0 400200
Feet
Figure 8 - Conceptual M ap
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Site
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Restoration
Enha nce ment I
Enha nce ment II
Enha nce ment III
Proposed Easement (14.94 ac)
Proje ct Parcels
Parcels
©Date: 1/2/2018
Drawn by: ATP
Document Path: D:\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\DOT RFP Jan 2018\Puncheon Fork\MXD\Figure 8 - Conceptual - Fork.mxdReach Approach Length Ratio SMU Adjusted SMUJB1Enhancement II 631 2.5:1 252 275JB2Enhancement II 603 2.5:1 241 241JB3-A Enhance ment II 284 2.5:1 114 131JB3-B Enhance me nt I 237 1.5:1 158 182JB3-C Enhance ment II 191 2.5:1 76 88JB4-A Enhance ment II 610 2.5:1 244 266JB4-B Enhance me nt I 454 1.5:1 303 339JB4-C Enhance ment II 205 2.5:1 82 82JB5-A Enhance ment II 457 2.5:1 183 210JB5-B Enhance me nt III 658 5:1 132 147JB5-C Re storati on 334 1:1 334 391JB6Enhancement I 894 1.5:1 596 685Total5,558 2,714 3,037
Proposed Crossing
Proposed CrossingProposed Crossing
Proposed Crossing
Proposed Crossing
Proposed Crossing
Proposed Crossing
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229
Subject:Consistency letter for the 'Puncheon Fork' project indicating that any take of the
northern long-eared bat that may occur as a result of the Action is not prohibited
under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at 50 CFR §17.40(o).
Dear Matthew DeAngelo:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on May 02, 2019 your effects
determination for the 'Puncheon Fork' (the Action) using the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) key within the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. You
indicated that no Federal agencies are involved in funding or authorizing this Action. This IPaC
key assists users in determining whether a non-Federal action may cause “take” of the northern
long-eared bat that is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Based upon your IPaC submission, any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a
result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at
50 CFR §17.40(o). Unless the Service advises you within 30 days of the date of this letter that
your IPaC-assisted determination was incorrect, this letter verifies that the Action is not likely to
result in unauthorized take of the northern long-eared bat.
Please report to our office any changes to the information about the Action that you entered into
IPaC, the results of any bat surveys conducted in the Action area, and any dead, injured, or sick
northern long-eared bats that are found during Action implementation.
If your Action proceeds as described and no additional information about the Action’s effects on
species protected under the ESA becomes available, no further coordination with the Service is
required with respect to the northern long-eared bat.
The IPaC-assisted determination for the northern long-eared bat does not apply to the following
ESA-protected species that also may occur in your Action area:
▪Gray Bat, Myotis grisescens (Endangered)
May 10, 2019
[1]
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   2

You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may cause prohibited take
of the animal species listed above.

________________________________________________

[1]Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct [ESA Section 3(19)].
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   3

Action Description
You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.
1. Name
Puncheon Fork
2. Description
The following description was provided for the project 'Puncheon Fork':
Mitigation Bank within French Broad 05 UMBI in Madison, NC
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/
maps/place/35.9577101083089N82.53222181528915W
Determination Key Result
This non-Federal Action may affect the northern long-eared bat; however, any take of this
species that may occur incidental to this Action is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule at 50
CFR §17.40(o).
Determination Key Description: Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) Rule
This key was last updated in IPaC on May 15, 2017. Keys are subject to periodic revision.
This key is intended for actions that may affect the threatened northern long-eared bat.
The purpose of the key for non-Federal actions is to assist determinations as to whether proposed
actions are excepted from take prohibitions under the northern long-eared bat 4(d) rule.
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   4

If a non-Federal action may cause prohibited take of northern long-eared bats or other ESA-listed
animal species, we recommend that you coordinate with the Service.
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   5

Determination Key Result
Based upon your IPaC submission, any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a
result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at
50 CFR §17.40(o).
Qualification Interview
1.Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency?
No
2.Will your activity purposefully Take northern long-eared bats?
No
3.Is the project action area located wholly outside the White-nose Syndrome Zone?
Automatically answered
No
4.Have you contacted the appropriate agency to determine if your project is near a known
hibernaculum or maternity roost tree?

Location information for northern long-eared bat hibernacula is generally kept in state
Natural Heritage Inventory databases – the availability of this data varies state-by-state.
Many states provide online access to their data, either directly by providing maps or by
providing the opportunity to make a data request. In some cases, to protect those resources,
access to the information may be limited. A web page with links to state Natural Heritage
Inventory databases is available at www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/
nhisites.html.
Yes
5.Will the action affect a cave or mine where northern long-eared bats are known to
hibernate (i.e., hibernaculum) or could it alter the entrance or the environment (physical or
other alteration) of a hibernaculum?
No
6.Will the action involve Tree Removal?
Yes
7.Will the action only remove hazardous trees for the protection of human life or property?
No
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   6

8.Will the action remove trees within 0.25 miles of a known northern long-eared bat
hibernaculum at any time of year?
No
9.Will the action remove a known occupied northern long-eared bat maternity roost tree or
any trees within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through
July 31?
No
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   7

Project Questionnaire
If the project includes forest conversion, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 1-3.
1. Estimated total acres of forest conversion:
2
2. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
2
3. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes timber harvest, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 4-6.
4. Estimated total acres of timber harvest
0
5. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
0
6. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes prescribed fire, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type ‘0’ in questions 7-9.
7. Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
0
8. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
0
9. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes new wind turbines, report the megawatts of wind capacity
below. Otherwise, type ‘0’ in question 10.
05/10/2019 IPaC Record Locator: 050-16447229   8

10. What is the estimated wind capacity (in megawatts) of the new turbine(s)?
0
Waters_NameStateCowardin_Code HGM_Code Meas_Type Amount Units Waters_Type Latitude Longitude Local_WaterwayWANORTH CAROLINAPEM RIVERINE Area 0.2535 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9541113 -82.5280754 Puncheon ForkWBNORTH CAROLINAPEM RIVERINE Area 0.377 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9542426 -82.5277874 Puncheon ForkWCNORTH CAROLINAPEM RIVERINE Area 0.606 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9551138 -82.5286197 Puncheon ForkWDNORTH CAROLINAPEM RIVERINE Area 0.006 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9544582 -82.5280608 Puncheon ForkWENORTH CAROLINAPEM RIVERINE Area 0.0325 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9548566 -82.5286814 Puncheon ForkWFNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.0076 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9553382 -82.529125 Puncheon ForkWGNORTH CAROLINAPEM RIVERINE Area 0.2146 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9559382 -82.5291555 Puncheon ForkWHNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.0195 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9565985 -82.5303428 Puncheon ForkWINORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.0838 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9567684 -82.5307249 Puncheon ForkWJNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.0137 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9570722 -82.5311029 Puncheon ForkWKNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.2201 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9576654 -82.5320999 Puncheon ForkWLNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.012 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9575439 -82.5315882 Puncheon ForkWMNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.031 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9573701 -82.5319468 Puncheon ForkWNNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.0123 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9573832 -82.5323515 Puncheon ForkWONORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.079 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9579185 -82.5320127 Puncheon ForkWPNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.0113 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9587635 -82.5325827 Puncheon ForkWQNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.0776 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9596281 -82.5329946 Puncheon ForkWRNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.0765 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9605067 -82.5342527 Puncheon ForkWSNORTH CAROLINAPEM RIVERINE Area 0.0394 ACRE DELINEATE 35.960687 -82.5334241 Puncheon ForkWTNORTH CAROLINAPEM RIVERINE Area 0.0107 ACRE DELINEATE 35.9615505 -82.533764 Puncheon ForkWUNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.0657 ACRE DELINEATE 35.957709 -82.532471 Puncheon ForkWVNORTH CAROLINAPEM SLOPE Area 0.0043 ACRE DELINEATE 35.95991 -82.53276 Puncheon ForkJB1NORTH CAROLINAR3 Linear 696 FOOT DELINEATE 35.96181 -82.533874 Puncheon ForkJB2NORTH CAROLINAR3 Linear 598 FOOT DELINEATE 35.960244 -82.533436 Puncheon ForkJB3NORTH CAROLINAR3 Linear 654 FOOT DELINEATE 35.959693 -82.532802 Puncheon ForkJB4NORTH CAROLINAR3 Linear 1502 FOOT DELINEATE 35.957254 -82.533724 Puncheon ForkJB5NORTH CAROLINAR3 Linear 1818 FOOT DELINEATE 35.956963 -82.531059 Puncheon ForkJB6NORTH CAROLINAR3 Linear 991 FOOT DELINEATE 35.954935 -82.528666 Puncheon ForkJB7NORTH CAROLINAR4 Linear 173 FOOT DELINEATE 35.957692 -82.532422 Puncheon Fork
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
DWR
Division of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
April 11, 2020 Ver 3.1
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
G Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20180067
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Reviewing Office *
Central Office - [phone]
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Puncheon Fork Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Kasey Carrere
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
5/22/2020
Nearest Body of Water
Puncheon Fork
Basin
French Broad
Water Classification
C, Tr, ORW
Site Coordinates
Latitude: Longitude:
35.960276-82.533400
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Madison
Is this a NCDMS Project
r Yes r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
W Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Version#*
1
What amout is owed?*
r $240.00
r $570.00
Select Project Reviewer*
Mac Haupt:eads\dmhaupt
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
U
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?

W Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
27 - Restoration
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
F- 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
F- Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
r Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
John K. Mckay and wife, Marsha H. McKay
2b. Deed book and page no.:
186/115
2c. Responsible party:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBJ)
2d.Address
Street Address
Hoot & Holler Ln.
Address Line 2
city
Mars Hill
Postal / Zip Code
28754
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
James Betran Burnette
State / Rwince / Ifgion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
r- Yes r No
r Yes r No

2b. Deed book and page no.:
140/266
2c. Responsible party:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EB)Q
2d.Address
Street Address
Hoot & Holler Ln.
Address Line 2
City
Mars Hill
Postal / Zip Code
28754
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
James Betran Burnette
2b. Deed book and page no.:
160/93
2c. Responsible party:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EB)Q
2d.Address
Street Address
Hoot & Holler Ln.
Address Line 2
CiH
Mars Hill
Postal / Zip (ode
28754
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
James Betran Burnette
2b. Deed book and page no.:
337/447
2c. Responsible party:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX)
2d.Address
Street Address
Hoot & Holler Ln.
Address Line 2
City
Mars Hill
Postal / Zip Code
28754
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
James Betran Burnette
2b. Deed book and page no.:
190/706
2c. Responsible party:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EB)Q
2d.Address
State / Province / legion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / legion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / legion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:

Street Address
Hoot & Holler Ln.
Address tine 2
City
Mars Hill
Postal / Zip Code
28754
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
James Betran Burnette
2b. Deed book and page no.:
266/366
2c. Responsible party:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EB)Q
2d.Address
Street Address
Hoot & Holler Ln.
Address Line 2
CiH
Mars Hill
Postal / Zip Code
28754
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Kasey Carrere
3b. Business Name:
Resource Environmental Solutions (RES)
3c.Address
Street Address
3600 Glenwood Avenue
Address Une 2
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27612
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Mars Hill
2. Project Identification
State / Province / Rion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / I3gion
NC
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
NC
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
2a. Property Identification Number:
9852-43-3188, 9852-42-5291, 9852-51-1453, 2b. Property size:
9852-50-5995,9852-31-9900 20.26

2c. Project Address
Street Address
Puncheon Fork Rd.
Address tine 2
City
Mars Hill
Fbstal / Zip Code
28754
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Puncheon Fork
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C, Tr, ORW
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
French Broad
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
060101051001
4. Project Description and History
State / F rovinoe / FRegion
North Carolina
Country
USA
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The Mitigation project entails Puncheon Fork and three of its unnamed tributaries as well as a segment of Hampton Creek, which all drain into Upper Big Laurel Creek and, eventually,
the French Broad River. The streams and wetlands proposed for restoration and enhancement have been significantly impacted by long-term agricultural practices, specifically livestock
husbandry, which has contributed to degraded stream channels and the lack of riparian wetland and buffer vegetation throughout the Project. The total drainage area for the Project is
1,240 acres (1.94 sq. mi.). Primary land use within the drainage area is forest (86 % ), with localized areas of development (6 %), pasture (6 %), and paved and unpaved roads (2 % ).
Historic and current land -use within the immediate Project area have allowed cattle direct access to the streams. These activities have negatively impacted both water quality and stream
stability in Project streams. Vegetation around the unbuffered reaches of the Project tributaries are primarily composed of pasture grasses and scattered trees. All reaches have been
grazed by livestock, including forested riparian areas, and thus lack a well -developed understory and shrub strata. The Project has been used extensively for agricultural purposes, and
that the location of the streams have not changed in at least 63 years. Currently the area remains in an agricultural community with neighboring forested property. Several watershed
characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and soil parameters have been modified. Livestock currently have access to all stream reaches and are actively
degrading the channels and vegetation. Riparian buffers range from mature and wide to either very sparse, narrow, or non-existent. Soil structure and surface texture have been
altered from long-term active grazing. According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, both Puncheon Fork and Hampton Creek are located within the mapped
FEMA 100-year floodplain (Zone AE). The Project area is comprised of a single easement area along Puncheon Fork (JB1, JB3, JBS, and JB6) and three of its unnamed tributaries
(JB2, JB4, and JB7) as well as a short segment of Hampton Creek (Upper portion of JB6). The Project is split into fourteen stream reaches. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not depict any wetland areas within the Project; however, jurisdictional wetlands do exist onsite. Twenty -tyro jurisdictional wetlands, ranging
from 0.004 to 0.606 acres in size, are wholly or partially present within the boundaries of the Project. Wetlands are labeled as WA (Wetland A) through WV (Wetland V). The majority of
the total wetland area is located in the most downstream (southeastern) portion of the Project in the floodplain of Puncheon Fork where the valley flattens and broadens. The wetlands
that comprise this area include WA, WB, WC, WD, WE, and WG. The major hydrology source of these wetlands is groundwater; however, flooding of Puncheon Fork does occur and
surely contributes. In their current state, these wetlands are Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetlands according to the Cowardin Classification system. The remaining wetlands throughout
the Project (WF, WH through WV) are mostly small seeps and springs that are generally located on hillsides and toe slopes. Their hydrology is controlled by groundwater that appears
to discharge almost year-round and have a nexus to the Project streams. They are all PEM wetlands. In general, all these wetlands are highly disturbed by cattle grazing and trampling
that prevents any significant, natural vegetative community to develop.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
4c. If yes, please give the DWR Certification number or the Corps Action ID (exp. SAW-0000-00000).
SAW-2018-00094
Project History Upload
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 2 - USGS - Puncheon Fork.pdf
2.31 MB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Figure 4 - Soils Map - Puncheon Fork.pdf 1.2MB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
2.254
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
6432
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose for this mitigation site is to restore and enhance aquatic resources in order to offset unavoidable impacts within the French Broad 05 watershed. Specifically, The Project's
goals will address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in the DIMS 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration
Priorities Report. Accomplishing these goals entails the restoration and enhancement of stream channels and the enhancement of wetlands. Specific project objectives include
reconstructing stream channels, permanently excluding livestock via fencing, stabilize eroded stream banks, install in -stream structures and habitat features to promote bedform
diversity and aquatic habitat, increase forested riparian buffer widths and enhance wetlands through tree plantings, treat exotic invasive species, and establish a permanent
conservation easement.
4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
The treatment plan and design approach were developed based on the existing conditions, project goals, and objectives. The Project will include Restoration and Enhancement Levels
I, II and III. Stream restoration will incorporate the design of single -thread meandering channels, with parameters based on data taken from 2D hydraulic models, published empirical
rpWinnshi— rpninnal nirva_c and stahlp nn-sitp rhnnnel sprtinns Anandiral riesinn will hp a nrnrinl plempnt of the nrniprt and will hp nseri to riptermine the ri—inn discharne and to

verify the overall design.
The detailed treatment plan and design approach is as follows
Reach JB1
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bed instability, limited bedform diversity and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
Removal and offsite disposal of a 30" culvert crossing near station 03+25
Installation of a log step -pool structure at the culvert removal site,
- Knick-point stabilization with a log sill and brush toe near station 04+50,
Knick-point stabilization with a log sill and brush toe near station 05+90,
Knick-point stabilization with a log sill and brush toe near station 06+45,
- Knick-point stabilization with a log sill and brush toe near station 06+52,
Bed Stabilization with riffle grade control near station 07+15,
- Livestock exclusion, and
Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB2-A
A priority I restoration approach was used for this reach to address floodplain encroachment and buffer impacts. Restoration activities will include:
Grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain,
- Re -aligning the channel to move it away from Foot and Holler Lane,
Removal and offsite disposal of a 36 x 60" culvert crossing near station 02+75
Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Establishing a mix of riffle -pool and step -pool sequence throughout the reach,
Filling the existing channel,
- Livestock exclusion, and
Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB2-B
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank instability and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of log vane at station 04+35
Removal and offsite disposal of a 36 x 60" culvert crossing near station 05+75
- Installation of riffle grade control at proposed culvert removal,
Installation of log sill and brush toe at station 05+75,
Grading both channel banks to a 2.5:1 slope from station 5+30 to 6+20,
- Livestock exclusion,
Removal of utilities from the stream corridor, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB3-A
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank instability, limited bedform diversity, and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
Re -grading and stabilization of existing ford crossing near station 7+00,
Grading right channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 6+50 to 7+10,
Grading right channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 8+60 to 9+10,
- Livestock exclusion, and
Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB3-B
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank instability, limited bedform diversity and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
Headcut stabilization with a rock step pool near station 11+00,
- Debris removal near station 12+60,
Installation of brush toe along left bank from station 12+50 to 12+95,
- Grading left channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 12+50 to 12+95,
Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB4-A
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of slope instability and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
Slope stabilization in the left overbank from station 00+50 to 03+50,
Removal and disposal of existing 15" pipe offsite,
Bed and bank stabilization with a log sill and brush toe near station 05+15,
- Left bank stabilization near station 6+00,
Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB4-B
An inline restoration approach was used for this reach to address channel instability and buffer impacts. Restoration activities will include:
- Grading a new single thread channel in the existing valley,
Valley stabilization along the left bank,
Right bank stabilization at a groundwater seep near station 7+00,
Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat,
- Establishing a mix of riffle -pool and step -pool sequence throughout the reach,
Removal and offsite disposal of a 24" culvert crossing near station 08+75
Installation of a new48" culvert and re -grading and stabilizing the roadway near station 08+75,
- Livestock exclusion, and
- Plantino rinarian veaetation_

Reach JB4-C
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of channel instability and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include
Removal and offsite disposal of a 24" culvert crossing near station 08+75
Installation of a new48" culvert and re -grading and stabilizing the roadway near station 08+75,
- Installation of a riffle grade control and step pool at the outlet of the proposed 48" culvert,
Installation of a riffle grade control near station 10+25,
Grading both channel banks to a 2.5:1 slope from station 11+20 to 12+25,
Grading left channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 12+75 to 13+90,
Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB5-A
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank instability, lack of bedform diversity, and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
Re -grading and stabilization of existing ford crossing near station 14+50,
- Livestock exclusion,
Removal of utilities from the stream corridor, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB5-B
An Enhancement Level III approach is proposed for this reach to address buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Livestock exclusion,
Removal of utilities from the stream corridor, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB5-C
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of channel instability, limited bedform diversity, and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include:
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
Grading left channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 24+40 to 25+15,
- Install a log sill at grade near station 24+63,
- Install brush toe along left channel bank from station 24+63 to 25+18,
Grading left channel bank to a 2.5:1 slope from station 26+50 to 27+30,
- Install a log sill at grade near station 26+80,
Install brush toe along left channel bank from station 26+80 to 27+17,
Grading left channel bank to a 3:1 slope from station 30+25 to 30+75,
Install a log sill at grade near station 30+59,
Install brush toe along right channel bank from station 30+59 to 30+68,
Removal of utilities from the stream corridor,
Livestock exclusion, and
- Planting riparian vegetation.
Reach JB6-A
An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for this reach to address areas of bank instability, limited bedform diversity and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include
- Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
Install a log sill and brush toe at grade near station 2+25,
- Install brush toe along left channel bank from station 2+48 to 3+15,
Grading left channel bank to a 3:1 slope from station 2+65 to 4+20,
- Install a log sill and brush toe at grade near station 5+16,
- Grading left channel bank to a 3:1 slope from station 5+30 to 5+75,
Grading point bar to a 5:1 slope from station 04+30 to 05+00,
- Install stone toe from station 07+30 to 07+60,
Line upstream face of crossing with class II riprap,
- Livestock exclusion, and
Riparian planting.
Reach JB6-B
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address bank instability, limited bedform diversity and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include
Installation of boulder clusters to promote instream habitat diversity,
- Livestock exclusion, and
Riparian planting.
Reach JB7
An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for this reach to address bank instability and buffer impacts. Enhancement activities will include
Livestock exclusion, and
- Riparian planting.
All jurisdictional wetlands within the Project boundary (WA -WV) will be enhanced, primarily through tree planting and cattle exclusion. ApproAmately 11,960 feet of fencing will ensure
that cattle will no longer have access to these wetlands, and a diverse mix of native trees appropriate for the community type will be planted. Also, all wetlands within the Project will be
protected from future landuse conversion by establishing a permanent conservation easement.
A suite of sediment control measures will be utilized for the Project to reduce direct effluent inputs, pollutant contamination, and sediment loading. The combination of the following
sediment control measures: riparian buffer planting, bank stabilization, slope stabilization, stream restoration, livestock exclusion, and livestock watering facilities, will ultimately lead to
the functional uplift of the site, while still allowing livestock production to persist through the installation of alternative water sources.
The riparian buffer will be restored along all project reaches. Restored riparian buffers are established adjacent to and up -gradient from watercourses of water bodies to improve water
quality. The main advantages of the restored riparian buffer will be to provide water quality treatment, erosion control, and water temperature benefits. Moreover, there will be significant
reductions in sedimentation, nutrient input, and fecal coliform input.

To account for eliminating livestock water access, landowners will install livestock watering facilities as an alternate water source.
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 in the forest surrounding the
Project and what is typically native to the area. Specifically, species identified in the Project along with species described in the 2012 Guide to the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Fourth Approximation (Schafale, 2012) for mountain -type communities were used to determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project.
A Montane Alluvial Forest (Small River Subtype) (Schafale, 2012) will be the target community for the Project. The target community will be used for the planting areas within the Project.
This community type is very similar to cove forests and shares many of the same species; however, it incorporates several floodplain and wetland species that are typical of small
mountain stream floodplains.
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
(Corpus amomum), black willow (Salix nigra), silky willow (Salix sericea), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their
rapid growth patterns and high success rates. 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 three linear feet with alternate spacing vertically.
Treatment for invasive species will be required within the entire easement area. Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology
and the location of the species being treated; however, the only current known exotic invasive species to occur onsite and adjacent to the site is multiflora rose. 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.
Prior to construction activities, existing pasture grasses will be treated. 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.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
Puncheon Fork Stream Mitigation Project.pdf 34.2MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes
r No
Comments:
A PJD request was sent to the USACE on February 28, 2019, and a site visit was carried out with
David Brown on April 3, 2019. As requested after the site visit, revised materials were submitted on
April 9, 2019. The confirmed PJD was issued on May 2, 2019. On May 12, 2020, the Aquatic
Resources table and Potential Waters of the U.S. Map were updated to extend Wetland B (WB).
These revised materials are included along with the uploaded PJD in section 5d1 below.
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown f N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2018-00094
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Matt DeAngelo
Agency/Consultant Company: Resource Environmental Solutions
Other:
r Unknown
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
May 2, 2019
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
SAW-2018-00094_PJD _Puncheon Fork. pdf 1.11 MB
Puncheon Fork_AgResources _Updated _20200512.pdf 40.19KB
WOUS_JD_Updated_20200512.pdf 5.11 MB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes f• No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands W Streams -tributaries F Buffers
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts

2a1 Reason (?)
2b. Impact type * (?)
2c. Type of W.* 2d. W. name *
ffornland Hardwood Forest WQ
2e. Forested *
[2f. Type of2g.
urisdicition*(?)
Impact
area"
W1
Temporary Haul Route
T
Corps
0.190
(acres)
W2
Bank Grading
T
ffo mland Hardwood Forest WK
Corps
0.002
(acres)
W3
Temporary Haul Route
T
ffornland Hardwood Forest WG
Corps
0.042
(acres)
W4
Bank Grading
T
ffo mland Hardwood Forest WC
Corps
0.002
(acres)
W5
Temporary Haul Route
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest WC
No
Corps
0.071
(acres)
W6
Bank Grading
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest WC
No
Corps
0.007
(acres)
W7
Temporary Haul Route
T
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
77 �No=rorps
0.007
�ffB
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.321
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.321
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.000
F
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of
3g. S. width *
3h. Impact
(?)
Jurisdiction*
length*
S1
Ford Crossing
Temporary
Other
JB3-A
Perennial
Corps
5
20
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S2
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
JB2-A
Perennial
Corps
P
5
230
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S3
Stream Restoration
Permanent
—]
Relocation
JB4-B
Perennial
Corps
P
3
166
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S4
Stream Restoration
Tem orar
P Y
Bank Stabilization
JB4-B
Perennial
Corps
P
3
56
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S5
Culvert Replacement
P
Permanent
Culvert
JB4-B
Perennial
Corps
P
3
33
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S6
Culvert Replacement
Temporary
Culvert
JB4-B
Perennial
Corps
3
24
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
87
Ford Crossing
Temporary
Other
JB5-A
Perennial
Corps
10
20
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
429
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
549
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
120
3j. Comments:
S1: Agricultural Ford Crossing - STA 7+25 - Will be improved and tied into stream enhancement
S5 & S5: Agricultural Culvert Crossing - STA 8+75 - 24" CMP will be removed and replaced with 48" RCP
S7: Agricultural Ford Crossing - STA 14+30 - Will be improved and tied into stream enhancement
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation C^U
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:

Due to the nature of the project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible. Proposed stream impacts, including stream
relocation and culvert installation, are necessary restoration and enhancement practices that will contribute to the functional uplift of the Project's
aquatic resources. Wetland impacts will be very small and minor. In fact, there is no Priority 1 stream restoration proposed around any jurisdictional
wetlands. Therefore, wetland impacts will be associated with enhancement efforts and temporary haul routes and will only be temporary. Ultimately,
these efforts will provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream banks, and improved
hydrology.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Impacts are minimized using a staged construction approach. Where possible the channel will be constructed prior to turning stream flow into a
segment. This approach allows minimization of the impact of each stage during the project construction. Efforts will be made to preserve individual
high value trees located within the stream restoration area.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
This is a stream and wetland mitigation project and should uplift the ecological quality of streams and wetlands on site.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the INC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
it is not in a Protected Buffer Watershed
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information u
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? *
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not result in an additional development that would impact water quality downstream. Ultimately, there will be an increase in water
quality within the project, due to the restoration and enhancement of project streams and wetlands, planting of the riparian buffer, excluding livestock,
and the establishment of a conservation to be protected in perpetuity.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No

5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
r Unknown
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
USFWS IPAC and Natural Heritage Program Database
Consultation Documentation Upload
USFWS Letter_PuncheonFork_Sent.pdf 7.98MB
USFWS Letter_PuncheonFork_Received.pdf 335.57KB
NLEB Consistency Letter Puncheon Fork _20190510.pdf 274.1 KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NC SHPO GIS Database
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
SHPO_Letter_PuncheonFork_Received.pdf 123.91KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
A FEMA No -Rise Certification and Madison County Flood Plain Development Permit will be required for this project as currently designed.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
HEC-RAS version 5.0.7
Miscellaneous
Comments
Additional uploaded documents include:
PCN Figures 1-6
1. Vicinity
2. USGS
3. Existing Conditions
4. NRCS Soil Survey (1998)
5. FEMA
6. Project Impacts
Stream Crossings Impacts Table
V
NCWRC Correspondence, including Trout Water discussion

Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
PuncheonFork_PCN _Figures.pdf 14.26MB
Stream Crossings Impacts —Table _Puncheon Fork.pdf 74.53KB
NCWRC Letter_PuncheonFork_Sent.pdf 7.93MB
WRC Letter_PuncheonFork_Received.pdf 33.77KB
Signature
® By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Kasey Carrere
Signature
Date
5/22/2020

0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGSSam's Gap (2016)
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
JB6 (1,240 ac)
JB3 (257 ac)
JB1 (122 ac)
JB2 (112 ac)
JB4 (35 ac)
JB5 (334 ac)
©Date: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\PCN\Figure 2 - USGS - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
0 500250
Feet
Figure 4 - NRCS Soil Survery (1998)
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
©Date: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\PCN\Figure 4 - Soils Map - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 1 - Vicinity
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Service Area - 06010105
©Date: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\PCN\Figure 1 - Vicinity - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
Puncheon ForkSite
35.957, -82.532
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGSSam's Gap (2016)
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
JB6 (1,240 ac)
JB3 (257 ac)
JB1 (122 ac)
JB2 (112 ac)
JB4 (35 ac)
JB5 (334 ac)
©Date: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\PCN\Figure 2 - USGS - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT T T
TTTTTTT T T
WU
WV
WA
WB
WD
WC
WE
WF
WG
WH
WI
WJ
WK
WL
WM
WN WO
WP
WQ
WR
WS
WT
JB5-CJB5-AJB4-AJ
B
4-C
JB 6-A JB1JB5-BJB3-AJB3-B JB2-BJB6-BJB7JB4-BJ
B2
-AEsri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Legend
Proposed Easement
Existing Wetland
NWI Wetland (None)
Existing Stream
T T Pow er Line
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\PCN\Figure 3 - Existing - Puncheon Fork.mxdDate: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MDD
1 inch = 200 feet
Figure 3 - Existing Conditions
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison C ounty, N orth Ca rolina0200100
Feet©cc
c Ex istingCulvert Crossings
c
cExistingFord Crossings
cExistingCulvert Crossings
Ex istingNon-func tioning Pipe
Reach StationJB13+20JB13+80JB16+95JB37+25JB514+30JB520+50JB67+75JB21+95JB25+65JB48+75
If more than c rossi ng per r each, c ros si ng s tati oni ng i n order of ups tream to downs tream
Easement Bre ak/Cr ossings
0 500250
Feet
Figure 4 - NRCS Soil Survery (1998)
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
©Date: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\PCN\Figure 4 - Soils Map - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
J
B
7
JB2-A
JB4-B
J
B6
-BJB2-B
JB3-BJB1JB3-AJB5-BJB4-C
JB4-A
JB6-A
JB5-C
JB5-A
0 500250
Feet
Figure 5 - FEMA
Puncheon Fork M itigation Project
Madison County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
FE MA Zone AE
Existing S tream
©Date: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MDD
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\PCN\Figure 5 - FEMA - Puncheon Fork.mxd1 inch = 500 feet
WA
WB
WD
WC
WE
WF
WG
WH
WI
WJ
WK
WL
WM
WN WO
WP
WQ
WR
WS
WT
WU
WV
JB7JB2-AJ
B4
-BJB6-BJB2-BJB3-BJB1JB 3-A
JB5-BJ
B
4-CJB4-AJB6-AJB5-CJB5-AS2
S3
S4
W2
W4
W6
S1
S7S5 & S6
W1
W3
W5
W7
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Legend
Proposed Easem ent
Puncheon Fork Study Area (22.62 ac)
Existing Top of Bank
Proposed Top of Bank
Existing Wetland
Permanent Stream Impact
Temp Stream Impact
Temp Wetland Impact
Document Path: R:\Resgis\dropboxgis\projects\NC\Puncheon Fork\MXD\PCN\Figure 6 - Impatcs - Puncheon Fork.mxdDate: 5/12/2020
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: MDD
1 inch = 200 feet
Figure 6 - Projec t Impa cts
Puncheon Fork Mitigation Project
Madison C ounty, N orth Ca rolina0200100
Feet©Culvert Replacement
Ford Crossing ImprovementFord Crossing Improvement
Impact ID Aquatic Resource Temp/Perm Purpose
W1 WQ Tem p Tem porary Haul Route
W2 WK Tem p Bank Grading
W3 WG Tem p Tem porary Haul Route
W4 WC Tem p Bank Grading
W5 WC Tem p Tem porary Haul Route
W6 WC Tem p Bank Grading
W7 WB Tem p Tem porary Haul Route
S2 JB2-A Perm Stream Res toration
S3 JB4-B Perm Stream Res toration
S4 JB4-B Tem p Stream Res toration
Impact ID Aquatic Resource Temp/Perm Purpose Station Area/Length
S1 JB3-A Tem p Ford Cros s ing 7+25 20 ft
S5 JB4-B Perm Culvert Replacem ent 8+75 33 ft
S6 JB4-B Tem p Culvert Replacem ent 8+75 24 ft
S7 JB5-A Tem p Ford Cros s ing 14+30 20 ft
0.002 ac
0.042 ac
0.002 ac
0.071 ac
0.007 ac
Area/Length
0.190 ac
0.007 ac
Impacts Associated w ith Crossings
230 ft
166 ft
56 ft
The following table compares existing and proposed parameters for crossings associated with stream impacts at the Project. Stream Crossings Impacts Existing Parameters Proposed Parameters Impact ID Reach Station Crossing Purpose Type Size & Material Existing Condition Type Size & Material Proposed Action Easement Break (LF) Impact Length S1 JB3 7+25 Agricultural Ford - Poor Ford - Upgrade 43 20 ft. Temporary S7 JB5 14+30 Agricultural Ford - Poor Ford - Upgrade 155 20 ft. Temporary S5 JB4 8+75 Agricultural Culvert 24" CMP Poor Culvert 48" RCP Remove & Replace 76 33 ft. Permanent S6 24 ft. Temporary