20181273 Ver 1_Draft Mitigation Plan 2020_20200609

ID#* 20181273 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 06/09/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 6/9/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20181273
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Bug Headwaters
County: Watauga
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Bug Headwaters_100084_MPDraft_2020.pdf 42.52MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

MITIGATION PLAN
Draft

June 2020
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7617
DMS ID No. 100084

Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101

USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01788

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

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  313 West Millbrook Rd., Suite 225  Raleigh, NC 27609

June 5, 2020

NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801

Attention: Matthew Reid

Subject: Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans Review Comment Response
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site, Wilkes County
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101
DMS Project ID No. 100084/Contract No. 7616

Dear Matthew:

We have reviewed DMS’s comments on the draft mitigation plan for the Bug Headwaters Stream
Mitigation Site. We have made the necessary revisions to the draft documents and we are submitting
revised versions of the documents along with this letter. Below are responses to each of the comments
in your letter dated May 11, 2020. Your original comments are provided below followed by our
responses in bold italics.
Table of Contents:
• Section 3.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties is not included in Table of Contents. Please update.
This revision has been made.
• The Figure 8 FEMA Flood map is not included in report. As a result, Figures 8 ,9 ,10 and 11 are
incorrectly labeled in table of contents and throughout the report text. Please update as
necessary.
We have corrected the Table of Contents and the figure references in the text. There is no
need for a FEMA map.
3.3 Existing Stream Conditions:
• Please indicate if there are any legacy sediment overburden concerns associated with the
ponds or restricted channel segments and provide discussion in the design section.
We have added text describing how pond sediments will be handled to the design
descriptions of Big Bugaboo Creek – Reach 3 and UT3.
5.0 Regulatory Considerations:
• Please discuss any potential open water impacts expected for this project.
We have added discussion of the open water impacts to Section 5.1.
2

6.2 Reference Streams:
• Section incorrectly references reference reach information in Table 10. Please update.
This revision has been made.
6.6 Design Summary:
• General: Some reach descriptions clearly state what approach is proposed. Other sections do
not mention this information (Big Bugaboo Creek R3, R4, UT2 R3, etc,). Consider adding
approach to the reach title (ex: Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 – Restoration) or update text so
the reader is clear on what approach has been selected.
We have added the approach to each reach title.
• Recommend including all reaches including EII and reaches not receiving credit in individual
discussions like other reaches. A short description of what will be done including BMP
stabilization, fencing, planting, invasive treatment (including fescue), tying in
confluence/grade, etc is valuable information for reviewers.
Descriptions of EII reaches and not-for-credit reaches have been added.
• UT4 was not included in the original proposal and was not discussed at the Post Contract Site
Meeting. Please justify the work on this reach when writing this section including any risk
factors associated with the pond located approximately 200 feet upstream of the project area.
We have added text to explain and justify including UT4 in the project. We have also added
text discussing the risk of a potential future dam failure upstream of UT4 in Section 3.8 –
Project Risks and Uncertainties.
• Bugaboo Creek Reach 1: Summary indicates that a step pool bmp will be used to stabilize a
headcut, but maps and previous section (6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis) specify pocket
wetlands will be above this reach. Please clarify and update figures and text as necessary.
The text of the Reach 1 summary was incorrect and has be revised.
• Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3: The sediment wedge planned for removal (pond embankment) is
visible on sheet 1.12 profile beginning at station 125+68. Based on the existing ground surface
shown on sheet 1.10 there is also a pronounced sediment wedge in the pond forebay area
extending to approximate station 120+70. These sediments are not indicated for removal but
the profile suggest they will be removed. If the channel is constructed along the old pond
bottom as indicated in the text, this raises concerns regarding substrate composition, sediment
mobility and stream profile. Please clarify the design approach and in the description indicate
the extent of the planned embankment removal.
We have revised the text describing the construction of the channel through the pond
bottom. The plan is to remove pond sediments along the channel corridor, replace this
material with compacted fill material mostly from the existing dam, and dig the channel
through the fill. The dam will be completely removed.
• UT3: There is no mention of removing Swaim Pond. Please discuss in detail the removal plan
for this pond including how much of the dam will be removed and how the accumulated
sediments will be addressed.
Text has been added to describe the Swaim pond removal and construction of the channel
through the pond bed. The approach will be very similar to the Wood pond removal and
3

channel reconstruction. The entire dam will be removed.
Table 19 – Determination of Credits
• DMS has had ongoing internal discussions related to the inclusion of creditable and non-
creditable reach segments in the report tables and geodatabase. The comments below reflect
these recent changes:
• Report Tables – The non-creditable project segments should not be reported in the Mitigation
Assets and Components Table (Table 19) that is submitted with the mitigation plan. Please use
the notes column to convey the footage removed from calculations.
The non-creditable segments have been removed from the table. Notes have been added to
explain the footages removed.
• Geodatabase (digital deliverables) – All non-credited stream segments that connect to
creditable stream segments will be captured and submitted as part of the spatial data
submission. Non-creditable segments should not include stream features upstream or
downstream of the project easement. These segments should include only those that connect
two creditable stream segments (stream crossings, utility crossings, etc.).
• Please update Table 19 to reflect these changes. The draft spatial data submission used for the
geodatabase does not require any changes.
Table 19 has been updated.
• Table 19 as shown in the draft report does not show all columns of the table. Please ensure all
columns are shown in the final submission.
The notes column has been added.
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map:
• Consider updating leader attachment properties.
This revision has been made.
Figure 2 – Site Map:
• Existing pond upstream of UT4 should be shaded like other pond features.
This revision has been made.
Figure 9 – Design Discharge:
• Figure has information in legend that is not included in graph. Please make any updates to
discharge analysis figure to reflect what was used during this exercise.
This revision has been made.
Appendix 3:
• Please include approved Jurisdictional Determination in final plan.
The JD is now included.
Plan Sheets:
• 0.2 General Overview: Label Wood and Swaim Pond and indicate removal.
This revision has been made.
4

• Cross sections: Please add details for the floodplain geometries to include minimum bench
widths and side slopes.
We have made this revision on Big Bugaboo - Reach 4 where a floodplain bench will be cut.
On cross sections for other reaches, we have added a note that top of bank ties into existing
grade.
• 6.06, 6.07 and 6.08 Culvert Crossings: Consider adding grade control reinforcement below the
road inverts (overflow channels) to reduce the risk of headcutting through the riprap in the
event the culverts become blocked during high flow events. This consideration is presented
due to the high frequency of these type of failures.
This revision has been made.
Digital Deliverables: Please provide DMS with the Mecklenburg spreadsheet that was indicated as
used to generate the stream cross section figures and grain size analysis in the submitted “Required
DMS Mit Plan Tables” excel file. These files were not submitted in the draft.
The Mecklenburg spreadsheets are now included.
Note that we changed the names of the Wood Pond and Swaim Pond to Pond A and Pond B respectively.
These names match the USACE naming convention used in the JD and now the names will be the same
on all documents submitted to USACE.
Please contact me at 919-851-9986 x103 if you have any questions.
Thank you,

Jeff Keaton, PE
Project Manager

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7617
DMS ID No. 100084
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
HUC 03040101
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01788
PREPARED FOR:

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

PREPARED BY:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]

June 2020

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

Contributing Staff:
Jeff Keaton, PE, Project Manager
Nicole Millns, PE, CFM, Lead Designer
John Hutton, Principal in Charge
Carolyn Lanza, Lead Scientist
Angela Allen, PE, Lead Quality Assurance

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ i
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection ...................................................................................1
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................2
3.1 Watershed Conditions .................................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Existing Stream Conditions ........................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Existing Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Existing Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 12
3.6 Utilities, Site Access, and Site Constraints .................................................................................. 13
3.7 Potential for Functional Uplift and Project Justification ............................................................ 13
3.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties .................................................................................................... 14
4.0 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 14
5.0 Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 16
5.1 401/404 ...................................................................................................................................... 16
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................. 17
6.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan ................................................................................................... 17
6.1 Design Overview ......................................................................................................................... 17
6.2 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................... 18
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis........................................................................................................... 19
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 20
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... 23
6.6 Design Summary ......................................................................................................................... 24
6.7 Planting Plan ............................................................................................................................... 28
7.0 Determination of Credits ....................................................................................................... 29
8.0 Performance Standards ......................................................................................................... 30
9.0 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................... 31
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan ................................................................................................ 31
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan ................................................................................................... 32
12.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 33

TABLES
Table 1: Project Information ......................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2: Project Watershed Summary Information ...................................................................................... 2
Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use ....................................................................................... 3
Table 4: Project Soil Types and Descriptions ................................................................................................ 4
Table 5: Existing Riparian Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 13
Table 6: Easement Breaks and Crossings .................................................................................................... 13
Table 7: Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 15
Table 8: Project Attribute Table Part 4 ....................................................................................................... 16
Table 9: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands ........................................................................................ 16
Table 10: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach .............................................................................. 17
Table 11: Reference Reach Summary ......................................................................................................... 19
Table 12: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis for Big Bugaboo Creek .................................... 20
Table 13: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis for Tributaries................................................. 20
Table 14: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 1 ....................................... 21
Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 2 ....................................... 22

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page ii
Table 16: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 3 ....................................... 23
Table 17: Results of Competence Analysis ................................................................................................. 24
Table 18: Results of Competence Analysis ................................................................................................. 24
Table 19: Determination of Credits ............................................................................................................ 29
Table 20: Summary of Performance Standards .......................................................................................... 30
Table 21: Monitoring Requirements ........................................................................................................... 31

FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Watershed Map
Figure 4 Topo Map
Figure 5 Soils Map
Figure 6 Existing Conditions Map
Figure 7 Concept Design Map
Figure 8 Reference Reach Map
Figure 9 Design Discharge Analysis Graph
Figure 10 Proposed Monitoring Components Map

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Stream Assessment Forms
Appendix 2 Existing Conditions Cross Sections
Appendix 3 Jurisdictional Determination and Supporting Forms
Appendix 4 Categorical Exclusion and Regulatory Correspondence
Appendix 5 Post-Contract Site Walk Meeting Summary
Appendix 6 Morphological Data Tables
Appendix 7 Credit Release Tables
Appendix 8 Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 9 Financial Assurances
Appendix 10 Maintenance Plan

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 1
1.0 Introduction
The Bug Headwaters mitigation site is in a rural area of the Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03040101) in Northeast Wilkes County approximately 9.5 miles northwest of the Town of Elkin (Figure
1). The site is on two adjacent crop and livestock farms in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It is
near the border of the piedmont and mountain physiographic regions but is technically in the piedmont.
The proposed project will include restoration and enhancement of a network of streams on the property
that range in drainage area from less than seven acres to 322 acres. These include the headwaters of Big
Bugaboo Creek as well as eight unnamed tributaries to Big Bugaboo Creek, seven of which originate
within the project limits (Figure 2). Restoration will be performed on 6,226 LF of stream and
enhancement will be performed on 2,875 LF of stream. In addition, two in-line farm ponds will be
removed and four stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs) will be constructed on the
site. The project will provide a total of 7,608.733 cool water stream credits. General project information
can be found in Table 1 below.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site was instituted via NCDEQ-DMS RFP # 16-007406. As approved by
the NCIRT, all projects contracted under the 16-007406 RFP have a cool or warm service type. Penalties
will not be assessed for using these project mitigation credits to satisfy cool or warm requirements.
Table 1: Project Information
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
County Wilkes
Project Area (acres) 22.50
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36.32139 °N, 80.98432 °W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted) 18.33

2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The site was selected for development as a mitigation project due to the potential to offset documented
stressors within the watershed. The Site is located at the upstream extent of the Big Bugaboo Creek 14-
digit HUC (03040101070010). Watershed characteristics are summarized in Table 2. The project is
located in a targeted local watershed (TLW) but is not in a local watershed planning (LWP) area. The
HUC is described in the 2009 Upper Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document
(NC DMS, 2009). According to the RBRP, heavy agricultural land use is a major stressor to aquatic
resources in this watershed, including over 44% agricultural land cover and 15 animal operations. It is
also noted that 25% of riparian buffers are non-forested and that, although the HUC contains water
supply watershed (WSW) waters, only one percent of its land area is conserved. Stressors described for
the 8-digit CU include nonexistent or degraded riparian buffers as well as erosion and sedimentation
(including erosion from pasture lands), which both significantly contribute to habitat degradation and
water quality impairment. Turbidity and fecal coliform bacterial violations have been documented
across the CU. The RBRP primary watershed restoration goals include improvement of water quality and
aquatic habitat in impaired stream segments, implementation of stream and riparian buffer restoration
and enhancement, and implementation of agricultural and water quality BMPs to limit sediment,
nutrient, and fecal coliform contributions to streams from active farming operations.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 2
Table 2: Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-Digit 03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101070010
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-01
Project Drainage Area (acres and square miles) 322 ac, 0.50 sq. mi.
Project Drainage Area Percentage Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification 12% Forested; 84% Agriculture; 2%
Herbaceous/Grassland; 2% Developed

The Site (Figure 2) is located in DWR Sub-basin 03-07-01. The 2008 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan (NC DWR, 2008) indicates that fecal coliform concentrations often exceeded the
maximum regulatory limit in the CU, which creates a potential health risk. The plan also notes that major
stressors in the Yadkin River Basin include excessive sedimentation and changes in hydrology and
geomorphology due to urban development and agriculture. Agriculture was identified in the plan as the
most significant stressor leading to water quality degradation in the Yadkin River basin.
The Yadkin River basin is also discussed in the 2015 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission’s
(NCWRC) Wildlife Action Plan (WAP). The WAP notes that streams in the basin are being impacted by
excessive sedimentation and nutrient inputs due to a number of factors including agriculture. The WAP
discusses the importance of habitat conservation and restoration to address current problems affecting
species and habitats and specifically mentions a key management practice is working with farmers to
reduce erosion and fence cattle out of streams (NCWRC, 2015).
This site was selected because it provides an opportunity to address watershed stressors identified in
each of these three planning documents. Specific project goals are discussed below in Section 4.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
3.1 Watershed Conditions
The project includes the headwaters of Big Bugaboo Creek (Figure 3). All project reaches and the
majority of the watershed areas are contained within two farms, the larger of which is owned by Horace
Randle Wood while the smaller is owned by Gaye Swaim. Mr. Wood has owned the property and used it
exclusively to graze cattle since 2012. His property was historically used for grazing cattle (at least as far
back as the 1980’s) though tobacco was also cultivated on small sections of the property. Today, the
Wood property remains mostly non-forested cattle pasture and cattle have access to all surface waters
on the property other than a 2.97-acre pond (Pond A) just below the confluence of Big Bugaboo Creek
and UT2 and short reaches of both of these streams just upstream of the pond. The cattle access has
caused severe damage to most of the streams. The Swaim property has been in the family for over 60
years and has primarily been used for row crop agriculture. It is currently used to cultivate corn and
soybeans. There is an in-line pond (Pond B) on the Swaim property that receives a heavy sediment load
whenever the fields are tilled because there is no vegetated buffer to protect the pond. The remaining
portions of the watershed outside of the Wood and Swaim properties are mostly cleared and used for
pasture and row crops, although there is a pocket of forested area on the southeastern side of the
watershed and wooded riparian corridors are present on the far upstream and downstream ends of the
project. Drainage areas for the project reaches were delineated using QL1 LiDAR data and land use was

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 3
calculated using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2011. Drainage areas and land cover
classifications are summarized in Table 3 below.
The project watersheds (Figure 3) are drained by a dense, dendritic network of streams typical for the
North Carolina piedmont. There is a significant amount of relief on the site, with elevations ranging from
1,580 to 1,360 feet (Figure 4). The valleys upstream of the Pond A are narrow and deep and the streams
are generally entrenched. Downstream of the pond, Big Bugaboo Creek has a wider floodplain and less
steep valley side slopes, and Big Bugaboo Creek downstream of UT3 has a broad, alluvial floodplain.
A review of historical aerials from 1950 to 2014 indicates that onsite streams have existed in their
approximate location for over 60 years, although the land cover has changed somewhat. Pond A on Big
Bugaboo Creek was constructed between 1950 and 1976. A large forested area (approximately 45 acres)
on the east side of the property was cleared between 1993 and 2006. During this period, some mature
trees were also removed from the riparian zones of Big Bugaboo Creek, UT2, and UT2A. Later aerials
reveal that the Site has been maintained in this approximate land cover since 2006. Due to the location
and rural nature of the project watersheds along with the consistency in land cover, there is no reason
to think land cover change within the watersheds will impact the project.
Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Reach Name
NC DWR Stream
Identification
Form Scores
Intermittent/
Perennial Status
Watershed
Area
(acres)
Watershed
Area (sq. mi.) Land Use1
Big Bugaboo
Creek 30.25 Perennial 322 0.50
12% Forested, 84% Agriculture,
2% Herbaceous/Grassland,
2% Developed
UT1 28 Intermittent 7 0.01 6% Forested, 94% Agriculture
UT2 29.75
Intermittent (reaches
1 and 2)/Perennial
(Reach 3)
65 0.10 94% Agriculture, 6% Developed
UT2A 25.75 Intermittent 17 0.03 82% Agriculture, 18% Developed
UT2B 33 Perennial 7 0.01 100% Agriculture
UT3 35.5 Perennial 96 0.15
4% Forested, 2% Mixed Forest.
85% Agriculture, 6% Herbaceous,
3% Developed
UT4 35 Perennial 21 0.03 16% Forested, 84% Agriculture
1. Land Use Source – National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 2011), Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium,
https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php
3.2 Geology and Soils
3.2.1 Geology
The Site is located in the Blue Ridge geology belt near the western extent of the piedmont physiographic
province in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The piedmont province is characterized by rolling,
well rounded hills and long low ridges, with elevations ranging from 300 to 1,500 above sea level. The
Blue Ridge belt is composed of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. The underlying geology of the site
is mapped as the Alligator Back Formation (NCGS, 1985). This formation is composed of late Proterozoic-
Cambrian (500 to 900 million years in age) metasedimentary-metavolcanic rocks occurring on the
southwestern flank of the Blue Ridge anticlinorium. The rocks are primarily mica schist and phyllite
interlayered with biotite-muscovite gneiss and amphibolite.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 4
3.2.2 Soils
Project area soils are described below in Table 4. Figure 5 provides a soil map of the Site.
Table 4: Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name Description
CoA – Codorus
loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, frequently
flooded
These nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils are on flood plains and
valleys. They formed in loamy alluvial deposits. They have a loamy surface layer and silt
loam subsoil. Permeability is poor and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water
table is a depth of 15 inches. These soils are subject to frequent flooding.
FaD – Fairview
sandy loam, 15 to
25 percent slopes
These strongly sloping, very deep, well drained, eroded soils are on high stream
terraces. They formed from saprolite residuum. They have a sandy loam surface layer
and subsoil. Permeability is high and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water
table is below 6.0 feet.
FcC2 – Fairview
sandy clay loam, 8
to 15 percent
slopes, moderately
eroded
These moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soils are on uplands. They
formed from saprolite residuum. They have a sandy clay loam surface layer and subsoil.
Permeability is high and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is below
6.0 feet.
Source: Soil Survey of Wilkes County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS,
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
3.3 Existing Stream Conditions
Big Bugaboo Creek originates on the Wood property in a small wooded area in the northeast quadrant
of the site. It flows southwest into a 2.97-acre pond. UT1 is a short reach that joins Big Bugaboo Creek
within the wooded area 900 feet from the upstream end of the receiving stream. UT2 also originates on
the property, then flows south/southwest and joins Big Bugaboo Creek just before it flows into the
pond. UT2A is a short reach that flows south into UT2 approximately 600 feet downstream of its origin.
UT2B is the shortest project reach, originating on the Wood property and flowing south for
approximately 200 feet before its confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek. Downstream of the pond, Big
Bugaboo Creek flows south for approximately 2,100 feet before it leaves the Wood Property. UT3
originates just north of the Swaim property, flows south onto the property through a 2.16-acre pond,
and then joins Big Bugaboo Creek approximately 935 feet downstream of Pond A. UT4 flows into the
project boundary from the west and joins Big Bugaboo Creek near the downstream extent of the project
site.
In addition to the project streams described above, two non-project jurisdictional features, UT5 and
UT6, will be affected by Site construction. UT5 flows into roughly the midpoint of Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 1. It was originally a seep-fed wetland that formed a channel due to erosion and cattle trampling.
UT6 flows into UT3 just downstream of Pond B. It appears to have been an ephemeral drainage before it
was channelized. UT5 and UT6 currently meet the criteria for jurisdictional streams but clearly formed
due to disturbance and manipulation. They will be tied into their respective receiving streams in a stable
manner, but no mitigation activity or credit is proposed.
Currently, approximately 150 head of cattle are grazed on the Wood Farm. Most of the stream length on
this property is used to water the cattle. The small wooded areas within the pastures along stream
corridors (Big Bugaboo Creek at the upstream end and downstream end of the project) are used to
provide shade for the cattle. The banks of almost all of the stream length onsite have been destroyed by
trampling and fluvial erosion and there are large wallow areas on many of the channels. The aquatic

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 5
habitat in the streams has mostly been destroyed and water quality appears to be poor due to sediment
and animal waste. Several project streams have active head cuts arrested by tree roots or bedrock
features, indicating that vertical incision is occurring. As this incision has occurred, the affected channels
have become deeply entrenched. Figure 6 shows the existing stream features on the site. The stream
assessment forms are located in Appendix 1. Surveyed cross sections of existing streams are included in
Appendix 2. The existing conditions of each project reach are described in more detail in the following
sections.
Big Bugaboo Creek
The headwaters of Big Bugaboo Creek originate within the Wood property limits at a spring head.
Sparsely wooded corridors at the far upstream and downstream ends of Big Bugaboo Creek provide
shade to cattle, while the remainder of the buffer consists of open pasture. Cattle are grazed throughout
the project area and have constant access to most of Big Bugaboo Creek other than the majority of
Reach 3, which is fenced but is flash grazed several times per year. The channel substrate is classified as
sand and gravel. Some cobble is present, but significantly less common throughout, and some boulders
are present on Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 has a narrow, well-defined valley, but the valley side slopes are less steep
than other portions of the site. The stream has a narrow, sparsely wooded buffer in poor condition and
is lined on the right floodplain by a wetland complex. The major stressor is cattle access, which has led
to trampled, muddy conditions, including the destruction of aquatic habitat, bed forms, and channel
banks. The channel is deeply incised (bank height ratio of 3.3) in areas where banks remain intact and
fine sediments choke the bed.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 begins downstream of the woodline and is contained in a narrow, confined
valley. Despite constant cattle access, the majority of the bed and banks are fairly stable, although there
is some trampling and bank erosion in isolated locations. Near the downstream end of the reach, there
is a crossing where the stream flows through a 30-inch corrugated HDPE pipe, and there is a significant
eroded wallow area just downstream of the crossing. This reach flows into the 2.97-acre Pond A.
Big Bugaboo Reach 3 begins at Pond A. Downstream of Pond A, the stream generally has a wider, less
confined valley than reaches 1 and 2. As mentioned, cattle have only intermittent access to this reach.
The upstream, fenced section of the reach has a bank height ratio of 2.6 while the downstream,
unfenced portion is not incised but has been impacted by cattle trampling.
Reach 4 of Big Bugaboo Creek becomes significantly larger at the confluence with UT3 and flows through
a broader, alluvial valley. The left floodplain is especially flat and has a small wetland complex which is
partially wooded but severely trampled by cattle. The stream is straight (sinuosity = 1.03), and, given its
ample floodplain with room to meander, appears to have been channelized. The channel is extensively
eroded and incised (2.7 bank height ratio), with both fluvial erosion and cattle trampling present on
both banks. Mass wasting is occurring in some locations.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 6

Reach Summary Information – Big Bugaboo Creek
Parameters Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 966 1,070 1,602 465
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately
confined, unconfined) Confined Confined Moderately
Confined Unconfined
Drainage area (acres) 36 74 196 322
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C C C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) F4b/B4 B4/B4 B4/C4b F4/C4
Evolutionary Trend III II II/III IV
FEMA zone Classification X X X X
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 7
UT1
UT1 originates as a wetland seep within the project property limits near the head of Big Bugaboo Creek.
The valley is similar to Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 in that it is narrow but less steep than other portions
of the site. The stream flows through a small wooded area where cattle access the stream for water and
shade and have trampled it causing severe degradation of the channel. The bed material is a mix of fine
sediments, gravel, and cobble but the bed forms have been destroyed by cattle. There are multiple
wallow areas in the adjacent wetland complex as well, and cattle access points to the stream have
resulted in a network of groundwater seeps connected with the channel. The channel is incised in the
areas were banks are intact, with bank height ratios up to 5.0.

Reach Summary Information – UT1
Parameters UT1
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 380
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Confined
Drainage area (acres) 7
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend III
FEMA zone Classification X
UT1 UT1

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 8
UT2
UT2 begins at the north end of the Wood property near King Billings Road and is contained entirely
within the project property. A utility easement intersects UT2 Reach 2 and continues through UT2A. UT2
is generally entrenched in a tight valley (ER < 2.2) and flows through cattle pasture for its entire length.
Cattle trampling is evident throughout but more severe on the downstream portion of the stream. The
downstream portion is characterized by incision, bank erosion, and degradation of bed forms. Bed
material is mostly a mix of fine sediments and gravel with some small cobble present farther
downstream. Multiple patches of exposed bedrock provide grade control for Reach 4.

Reach Summary Information – UT2
Parameters Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 506 124 450 314 778
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately
confined, unconfined) Confined Confined Confined Confined Moderately
Confined
Drainage area (acres) 15 16 44 45 65
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Intermittent Perennial Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C C C C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4a/B4a A4/B4 B4/B4 B4/B4 F4b/C4b
Evolutionary Trend II II III III III
FEMA zone Classification X X X X X
UT2 Reach 2

UT2 Reach 3
UT2 Reach 4 UT2 Reach 5

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 9
UT2A
UT2A originates at the north edge of the Wood property near Austin Traphill Road and continues to the
confluence with UT2. There is a large head cut at the upstream end before the stream flows underneath
an overhead electric line through a relatively stable wetland complex. Downstream of the wetland
complex, UT2A is similar to UT2 Reach 2 in that it is entrenched in a narrow valley, often bordered by
small pocket wetlands, and buffered by open, active cattle pasture. It has a bank height ratio of 4.8 and
the constant, reachwide cattle access has led to destruction of bed forms and severe erosion of the
streambanks. The bed material is a mix of fine sediments and gravel.

Reach Summary Information – UT2A
Parameters Reach 1 Reach 2
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 211 450
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately Confined Confined
Drainage area (acres) 13 17
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4a/B4a A4/B4a
Evolutionary Trend II III
FEMA zone Classification X X
UT2A Reach 1 UT2A Reach 2

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 10
UT2B
UT2B is a short stream that begins on the project property and has a buffer zone consisting of open
pasture. It initially flows through a confined, entrenched valley but widens and flattens somewhat as it
approaches the confluence with UT2. It is not significantly incised but cattle have access to the entirety
of the stream. Although not widespread nor severe, trampling, bank erosion, and degradation of bed
forms are all evident, especially on the downstream portion of the stream.

Reach Summary Information – UT2B
Parameters UT2B
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 168
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Confined
Drainage area (acres) 7
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend II
FEMA zone Classification X
UT2B

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 11
UT3
UT3 originates just upstream of the Swaim property near King Billings Road. It flows south onto the
Swaim property and through a wooded area where the stream is stable and in good condition. After
entering the project area, UT3 flows into an existing farm pond (Pond B) with a dam that is in poor
condition. The original pond outlet structure has been destroyed and the earthen dam is now partially
breached. All outflow now exits the pond through the breach and has created a head cut from UT3 to
the dam. The dam is covered with trees, is seeping, and is in imminent danger of failing. Immediately
downstream of the dam, the UT3 channel has been abandoned due to the breach and head cut. The
outflow eventually flows back into the UT3 channel approximately 200 feet downstream of the dam.
The stream then flows through a short section of forest and into open pasture, where it is incised (2.1
bank height ratio) and the banks have been heavily trampled by cattle. The stream appears to have been
channelized through the cattle pasture; it is somewhat over-widened and has a sinuosity of
approximately 1.0 despite the valley being only moderately confined.

Reach Summary Information – UT3
Parameters UT23
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 1,281
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately Confined
Drainage area (acres) 96
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) G4/C4
Evolutionary Trend III
FEMA zone Classification X
UT3 UT3

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 12
UT4
UT4 originates off the project property to the west and is impounded by a farm pond approximately 200
feet upstream of the project property. It flows through a fairly tight valley that becomes less confined as
it reaches the floodplain of Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4. Cattle have access to the entire length of UT4
within the project property. There are a few scattered trees within the UT4 buffer zone, which cattle use
as shade, and some adjacent herbaceous vegetation, which is grazed. UT4 is generally vertically and
laterally stable, although the upstream portion appears to be somewhat incised.

3.4 Existing Wetlands
On November 19-21, 2018, Wildlands investigated the extent of Waters of the United States within the
project area. All jurisdictional resources were located by sub-meter accurate GPS or conventional
survey. A request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination has been submitted and is currently under
review. The supporting forms are included in Appendix 3. The JD will be submitted when issued by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
There are 17 jurisdictional wetland features located within the project area (Figure 6). Jurisdictional
wetland features exhibited evidence of prolonged saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil
profile, a low chroma soil matrix, and wetland plant communities. Most of the wetlands have been
extensively trampled by cattle and lack appropriate vegetation structure.
3.5 Existing Vegetation
The site is a maintained cattle pasture with mature trees mainly growing along Big Bugaboo Creek.
Herbaceous vegetation that can be found throughout the site are tall fescue (Schedonorus
arundinaceus), cut-grass (Leersia oryzoides), juncus (Juncus effuses), and white clover (Trifolium repens).
The riparian vegetation is shown in Table 5 below by stream.
Reach Summary Information – UT4
Parameters UT24
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 128
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately Confined
Drainage area (acres) 21
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend II
FEMA zone Classification X
UT4 UT4

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 13
Table 5: Existing Riparian Vegetation
Scientific Name Common Name Big Bugaboo
Creek UT1 UT2 UT2A UT2B UT3 UT4
Acer rubrum Red Maple X X X
Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven* X
Betula nigra River Birch X
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash X
Glechoma hederacea Creeping Charlie* X
Ilex opaca American Holly X X X
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet* X X X
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar X X
Melia azedorach Chinaberry* X
Oxydebdrum arboreum Sourwood X
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore X X
Quercus rubra Red Oak X X X
Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose* X X X
Rubus allegheniensis Blackberry X
Smilax rotundifolia Green Brier X X X
*Invasive Species
3.6 Utilities, Site Access, and Site Constraints
A power utility right-of-way crosses UT2 just upstream of the confluence with UT2A and continues east
to also cross UT2A near its headwaters. Utility crossings will be fenced with gates on both sides and
there will be no crossing features for the stream channel. There will also be three internal easement
breaks for culvert crossings (Table 6). Maintenance of crossings will be the responsibility of the
landowner once the project is closed by the regulatory agencies (IRT) and transferred to NCDEQ
stewardship. These are on Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 5 just upstream of their
confluence as well as Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 just upstream of the confluence with UT3. All three
culvert crossings will be fenced and gated. The Site can be accessed via a driveway leading to the Wood
property from King Billings Road.
Table 6: Easement Breaks and Crossings
No. Width (ft) Location Internal or External Crossing Type
1 40 UT2 Reach 2 Internal Utility
2 40 UT2A Internal Utility
3 50 UT2 Reach 5 Internal Culvert
4 50 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 Internal Culvert
5 50 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 Internal Culvert

3.7 Potential for Functional Uplift and Project Justification
The main stressors on the site are cattle access to streams, removal or narrowing of riparian buffers,
runoff from agricultural fields, installation of farm ponds, and some historical channelization of streams.
These stressors have led to degraded aquatic habitat and bed forms, erosion of stream banks, head
cutting, and disconnection of streams from floodplains. Water quality problems created by these

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 14
stressors include sedimentation, bacteria entering the system from livestock waste, channel erosion and
pasture runoff, increases in water temperatures, and decreased dissolved oxygen. These ecological
problems are very similar to those described in the watershed planning documents discussed in Section
2 above. These problems will be reduced or eliminated through the following:
• Restoring degraded stream channels to reduce erosion and reconnect streams to floodplains.
• Eliminating bank erosion and associated pollutants.
• Providing grade control in streams to eliminate head cutting.
• Planting riparian buffers to shade streams, help stabilize streams, and filter runoff and overbank
flows.
• Removing farm ponds to restore hydrology, lotic habitats, and fish passage
• Installing stormwater BMPs to treat runoff from adjacent pastures.
• Fencing out livestock.
• Protecting the site with a conservation easement.
These project components are described in Section 4 in terms of goals, objectives, and outcomes for the
project and in greater detail in Section 6, where the project site mitigation plan is outlined.
The project offers an excellent opportunity for ecological uplift with low risk of failure (Section 3.8
below). Project risks and uncertainties are described in the next section. The risks most likely to cause
real problems are all manageable. Therefore, the uplift potential given the site constraints is very high.
There is little concern that if the site is properly constructed and maintained that the project goals will
not be met.
3.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties
The level of overall risk on this project is low. Due to the rural nature of the surrounding area, it is
unlikely that large tracts of land will be developed in the project watersheds. All of the project streams
except for UT3 and UT4 originate on the project property and the project watersheds are also mostly
within the property. There is very little timbering or development that could occur that would affect the
project. Foreseeable problems that may arise on the site include easement encroachments, large floods,
beaver activity, and spreading of invasive species. The main area of concern for easement
encroachments is on the Swaim property adjacent to UT3 because this is the only area where there will
be no fencing adjacent to an area that is routinely mowed or planted with crops. Wildlands will install
closely spaced (approximately every 50 feet) easement signs along the boundary in this location and
work with the landowner to make sure they do not mow within the easement. If necessary, Wildlands
will install horse tape between the signs to show the easement boundary. Large floods will eventually
occur on the site, but the grade control structures and bank revetments are designed to handle large
flows. There is a dam approximately 200 feet upstream of UT4 on an adjacent property. The dam
currently appears to be in good condition but there is a possibility of failure at some point in the future.
While there have been no indications of beaver activity on the site that Wildlands is aware of, there is
potential for beaver dams after construction. Wildlands will contract with USDA Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) to remove beaver from the site and dismantle the dams. There are invasive
species on the site as noted in Table 5. Wildlands will do pre-construction treatment of these species
and will provide ongoing treatments as needed throughout the monitoring period.
4.0 Goals and Objectives
The overall goal for stream restoration elements of the project is to restore natural/historical functions
to degraded stream channels. The overall goal of enhancement reaches is to enhance specific aquatic
resource functions. The specific goals and objectives for this mitigation site have been carefully

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 15
developed so that the project results in 1) alleviation of the specific watershed stressors discussed in
Section 2 above and 2) provides maximum ecological uplift to project streams and riparian zones. The
goals and objective for this project are described in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal Objectives Expected Outcomes
Improve the stability
of stream channels
Construct stream channels that will
maintain a stable pattern and profile
considering hydrologic and sediment
inputs to the system; install bank
revetments and grade control; install
bank vegetation.
Reduce erosion and sediment inputs;
maintain appropriate bed forms and
sediment size distribution; support water
quality and habitat goals.
Reconnect channels
with floodplains and
riparian wetlands
Reconstruct stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and
depth relative to the existing floodplain.
Reduce shear stress on channel; hydrate
adjacent wetland areas and vernal pools;
filter pollutants out of overbank flows;
provide surface storage of water on
floodplain; increase groundwater recharge
while reducing outflow of stormwater;
support water quality and habitat goals.
Improve instream
habitat
Install habitat features such as cover logs,
log sills, and brush toes into
restored/enhanced streams. Add woody
materials to channel beds. Construct a
variety of riffle features and pools of
varying depth. Fence out livestock.
Support biological communities and
processes. Provide aquatic habitats for
diverse populations of aquatic organisms.
Improve water quality
Stabilize stream banks. Plant riparian
buffers with native trees. Construct BMPs
to treat pasture runoff. Fence out
livestock.
Reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from
stream banks; reduce sediment, nutrient,
and bacteria inputs from pasture runoff;
keep livestock out of streams, further
reducing pollutants in project streams.
Restore/improve
riparian buffers
Plant native tree species in riparian zones
where currently insufficient.
Provide a canopy to shade streams and
reduce thermal loadings; stabilize stream
banks and floodplain; support water
quality and habitat goals.
Permanently protect
the project site from
harmful uses
Establish conservation easements on the
Site
Ensure that development and agricultural
uses that would damage the site or reduce
the benefits of the project are prevented.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 16
5.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 8, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. A Categorical Exclusion (included
Appendix 4 along with agency correspondence) for the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site was submitted
to DMS on November 5, 2018 and approved on November 7, 2018.
Table 8: Project Attribute Table Part 4
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes PCN1
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes PCN
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix 4
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix 4
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
1. PCN to be provided to DMS with Final Mitigation Plan
5.1 401/404
Many of the Site wetlands are within the floodplain adjacent to the existing streams and will be partially
impacted during realignment of the stream channel. Two open water features (Pond A and Pond B) and
Wetlands C and N formed behind man-made dams. The design includes removal of the man-made dams
and restores the valley and stream channel through the area that is currently backwatered. A portion of
Wetlands C and N and the entirety of both open water features will be permanently impacted by the
dam removal. These features are currently at risk of loss if the dams fail.
The impacts to wetland and open water features are estimated below in Table 9. Impact numbers based
on final construction plans will be included in the PCN.
Table 9: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands
Jurisdictional
Feature Classification Acreage Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T) Type of Activity Impact Area
(acres)
Pond A Open Water 2.973 P Dam removal, stream
realignment 2.973
Pond B Open Water 2.158 P Dam removal, stream
realignment 2.158
Wetland A Headwater Forest 1.397 P Channel Relocation 0.082
Wetland A Headwater Forest 1.397 T Floodplain Grading 0.093
Wetland B Headwater Forest 0.125 P Channel Relocation 0.125
Wetland C Headwater Forest 0.867 P Channel Relocation 0.099
Wetland D Headwater Forest 0.207 P Channel Relocation 0.003
Wetland F Headwater Forest 0.230 P Channel Relocation 0.176
Wetland H Headwater Forest 1.658 P Channel Relocation 0.166
Wetland H Headwater Forest 1.658 T Floodplain Grading 0.130
Wetland I Headwater Forest 0.103 P Channel Relocation 0.103
Wetland K Headwater Forest 0.176 P Channel Relocation 0.026
Wetland M Headwater Forest 0.005 P Channel Relocation 0.005
Wetland N Headwater Forest 0.307 P Channel Relocation 0.307
Wetland Q Headwater Forest 0.028 P Channel Relocation 0.028

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 17
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The site is represented on the Wilkes County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels 4902 and 4904,
both with an effective date of March 2, 2009. None of the project streams are mapped as Special Flood
Hazard Areas (SFHA); all streams within the project limits are located in Zone X. Wildlands will
coordinate with the Wilkes County floodplain administrator to obtain the appropriate floodplain
development permit for the project, if required.
There is no concern for hydrologic trespass on adjacent properties as a result of this project. All of the
project streams except for UT3 originate on the project parcels. The stream work on UT3 will be
constructed far downstream of the property line and there is approximately 15 feet of drop between
the property line and the work area. Due to the slopes of the streams and valleys, there is no possibility
of creating wetlands on upstream properties.
6.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan
6.1 Design Overview
The design for this mitigation site (Figure 7) was developed to maximize the potential uplift described in
Section 3.7 above. The approaches for each reach were initially devised by Wildlands but some
approaches were modified as a result of IRT input during the post-contract site walk conducted on
September 26, 2018. Meeting notes from that site walk are included in Appendix 5. Three approaches
will be used for the project reaches including stream enhancement I, stream enhancement II, and
stream restoration. The least amount of manipulation will be performed on the enhancement II reaches.
Enhancement II activities will primarily consist of fencing out livestock, planting riparian buffer zones,
and repairing localized bank erosion/instability. Enhancement I activities will include fencing out
livestock, planting riparian buffer zones, adding structure to the bed, localized reshaping of channel
dimensions, and cutting a floodplain bench to allow flows higher than the design bankfull discharge to
access the floodplain. Restoration will involve the most extensive manipulation and activities will include
rebuilding the channel with the appropriate dimensions, plan view pattern, and profile to transport the
water and sediment loads. Bed features including riffles, pools, cascades, and step-pool sequences will
be constructed. The cascades and step-pool sequences are necessary due to the high slopes of many of
the design reaches. Grade control structures such as log sills will be added to the beds to protect against
future degradation and revetments such as brush toe and log vanes will be used to protect restored
stream banks. Restored reaches will be reconnected with their floodplains and existing wetlands will be
recharged by the raising of channel beds. Livestock will be fenced out and riparian buffer zones will be
planted. The entire project area will be protected by a conservation easement. Specific mitigation
activities are listed below by reach in Table 10.
Table 10: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach
Project Reach Primary Stressors/Impairments Approach Mitigation Activities
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 1
Erosion and cattle trampling,
incision, lateral instability, poor
buffer quality/lack of buffer
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement; pocket wetland at
upstream end
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 2
Cattle access, some erosion and
trampling, lack of buffer,
significant wallow area
EI
Restoring dimension and profile, replanting
buffers, fencing out cattle, protecting with
conservation easement
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 3
Cattle access, erosion and
trampling, incision, R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 18
Project Reach Primary Stressors/Impairments Approach Mitigation Activities
channelization, in-line farm pond
lack of buffer
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 4
Cattle access, erosion and
trampling, some incision,
channelization, lateral instability,
poor quality buffer
EI
Fencing out cattle, creating floodplain bench,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement
UT1
Severe erosion and cattle
trampling, incision, poor quality
buffer/lack of buffer
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement, pocket wetland at
upstream end
UT2 Reach1 Cattle access, isolated erosion
and trampling, lack of buffer EII
Fencing out cattle, bank repairs where needed,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement, ephemeral step-pool stabilization at
upstream end
UT2 Reach 2
Cattle access, isolated erosion
and trampling, some incision,
lack of buffer
EI
Restoring dimension and profile, fencing out
cattle, replanting buffers, protecting with
conservation easement
UT2 Reach 3 Erosion and cattle trampling,
incision, lack of buffer R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement
UT2 Reach 4
Isolated erosion and cattle
trampling, some lateral
instability, lack of buffer
EI
Bank grading to reshape channel, bank repairs
where needed, fencing out cattle, replanting
buffers, protecting with conservation easement
UT2 Reach 5 Erosion and cattle trampling,
incision, lack of buffer R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement
UT2A Reach 1 Cattle Access, active head cutting
at headwaters, lack of buffer EII
Fencing out cattle, replanting buffers, protecting
with conservation easement, ephemeral step-
pool stabilization at upstream end
UT2A Reach 2 Severe erosion and cattle
trampling, incision, lack of buffer R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement
UT2B Cattle Access, some erosion and
trampling, lack of buffer EII
Fencing out cattle, bank repairs where needed,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement
UT3
Erosion and cattle trampling,
some incision, channelization,
lateral instability, active head
cutting of farm pond dam, lack of
buffer
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement
UT4 Cattle access, some incision,
sparse, narrow buffer EII Fencing out cattle, replanting buffers, protecting
with conservation easement
6.2 Reference Streams
Reference reaches were selected from Wildlands’ reference database and other sources to develop the
range of design parameters for each of the design streams. References were selected for specific design
reaches based on design stream type and similarities in drainage area, slope, and physical

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 19
characteristics. Design reaches were separated into three groups based on the similarities between
these characteristics and a distinct set of reference reaches was selected to describe each group.
Reference reach information is provided in Table 11. More detailed reference reach geomorphic data
are included in Appendix 6. Six additional reference reaches were used along with those in Table 11 to
create the reference reach regional curve for the discharge analysis discussed in Section 6.3. Locations
of reference reaches are shown on Figure 8.
Table 11: Reference Reach Summary
Design
Stream
Group 1
(Big Bugaboo Creek R1, UT1, UT2
R2, UT2A R2)
Group 2
(Big Bugaboo Creek R2,
UT2 R3-R5, UT3)
Group 3
(Big Bugaboo Creek R3-R4)
Reference
Reach
Shrew
Trib A
Timber
Trib R1
UT to
Kelly
Branch
Magnolia
Trib R1
LKN Group
Camp Trib –
US
UT to
Varnals
Creek
UT to
Catawba
River
UT to
Lyle
Creek
County Wilkes Wilkes McDowell Wilkes Iredell Alamance Catawba Catawba
Reference
Type
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Region Piedmont Piedmont
Inner
Piedmont
Belt
Piedmont Piedmont Piedmont Piedmont Piedmont
Basin Yadkin Yadkin Broad
River Yadkin Catawba Cape
Fear Catawba Catawba
Drainage
Area (sq. mi.) 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.31 0.10 0.41 1.60 0.25
Stream Type A5 B4 B4/B4a B4c E5b C4/E4 E3b/C3b C5
Bkf Q (cfs) 3.5 17 23 64 12 54 80 18
Sinuosity 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.26 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.1
Valley Slope
(ft/ft) 0.05 0.04 0.049 0.017 0.023 0.02 0.029 0.009
Channel
Slope (ft/ft)
0.03 –
0.065 0.03 0.03 –
0.065 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.027 0.004
D50 (mm) 2 6.5 - 28 5.2 15 75.9 0.2

6.3 Design Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to estimate bankfull discharges for restoration reaches including regional
curve data (Harman et al. 2003 and Walker, unpublished), a regional flood frequency analysis using U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) gage sties, and reference reach data. The methods were compared, and a
design discharge was selected based on the results of the different methods. Slightly larger design
discharges relative to drainage areas were established for the upper reaches of Big Bugaboo Creek and
small tributaries to drive designs of slightly larger channels for these reaches. This design consideration
helps prevent channels from clogging with vegetation and then accumulating sediment after
construction. Results of each method and the final design discharges are shown in Tables 12 and 13 and
illustrated in Figure 9.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 20
Table 12: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis for Big Bugaboo Creek
Discharge Estimate Method
Big
Bugaboo
Creek
Reach 1
(35.5 ac)
Big
Bugaboo
Creek
Reach 2
(73.9 ac)
Big
Bugaboo
Creek
Reach 3
(196.0 ac)
Big
Bugaboo
Creek
Reach 4
(321.6 ac)
NCSU Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 11 19 38 54
NRCS Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve 5.7 10 22 32
Regional Flood Frequency
Analysis (cfs)
1.2-year
event 9.2 16 32 47
1.5-year
event 14 23 47 67
Reference Reach Regional Curve (cfs) 13 21 38 52
Final Design Q 12.4 20.4 34.0 48.3

Table 13: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis for Tributaries
Discharge Estimate Method UT1
(6.6 ac)
UT2
Reach 2
(16.2 ac)
UT2
Reach 3
(43.7 ac)
UT2
Reach 5
(65.3 ac)
UT2A
Reach 2
(16.5 ac)
UT3
(96.5 ac)
NCSU Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 3.3 6.3 13 17 6.3 23
NRCS Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve 1.5 3.1 6.9 9.3 3.1 13
Regional Flood Frequency
Analysis (cfs)
1.2-year
event 2.7 5.2 11 14 5.2 19
1.5-year
event 4.0 7.8 16 21 7.9 28
Reference Reach Regional Curve (cfs) 4.6 8.1 15 19 8.2 25
Final Design Q 3.9 7.2 14.6 18.8 7.3 24.6

6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reach data and designer experience were used to develop design morphologic parameters for
each of the enhancement I and restoration reaches. Key morphological parameters are summarized in
Tables 14-16. Complete design morphological parameters are included in Appendix 6.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 21
Table 14: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 1
Parameter
Existing Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed Parameters
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R1
UT1 UT2
R2
UT2A
R2
Shrew
Trib A
Timber
Trib R1
UT to
Kelly
Branch
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R1
UT1 UT2
R2
UT2A
R2
Valley Width (ft) 30-60 70-120 20-35 20-40 - - - 30-60 70-120 20-35 20-40
Contributing
Drainage Area
(acres)
35.5 6.6 16.2 16.5 12.8 25.6 51.2 35.5 6.6 16.2 16.5
Channel/Reach
Classification F4b B4 A4 A4 A5 B4 B4/B4a B4 B4 B4 B4a
Design Discharge
Width (ft) 11.3 11.6 4.7 4.6 3.6 8.9 7.9 6.5 4.2 5.3 5.1
Design Discharge
Depth (ft) 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4
Design Discharge
Area (ft2) 3.5 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.1 4.6 5.7 3.3 1.4 2.1 2.0
Design Discharge
Velocity (ft/s) 3.1 2.6 3.8 4.4 3.3 3.7 5.9 3.8 2.9 3.4 3.7
Design Discharge
(cfs) 10.9 6.9 8.5 8.3 3.5 17.0 23.0 12.4 3.9 7.2 7.3
Channel Slope
(ft/ft) 0.033 0.035 0.052 0.049 0.063 0.033 0.065 0.034 0.036 0.039 0.045
Sinuosity 1.04 1.01 1.14 1.04 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.02 1.0 1.05 1.03
Width/Depth
Ratio 36.3 50.7 9.7 11.3 12.1 17.0 10.9 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0
Bank Height
Ratio 3.3 5.0 1.4 4.8 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment
Ratio 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.5 2.1 1.5 1.2 >1.4 >1.4 >1.4 >1.4
d50 (mm) 37 36 29 18 2.0 6.5 - - - - -

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 22
Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 2
Parameter
Existing Parameters Reference
Parameters Proposed Parameters
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R2
UT2
R3
UT2
R4
UT2
R5 UT3 Magnolia
Trib 1
LKN
Group
Camp
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R2
UT2 R3 UT2 R4 UT2
R5 UT3
Valley Width
(ft) 30-80 35-55 40-
125
40-
140
60-
110 - - 30-80 35-55 40-
125
40-
140
60-
110
Contributing
Drainage Area
(acres)
73.9 47.3 45.2 65.3 96.5 194.4 65.7 73.9 47.3 45.2 65.3 96.5
Channel/Reach
Classification B4 B4 B4 F4b G4 B4c E5 B4 B4 B4 C4b C4
Design
Discharge
Width (ft)
4.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 6.6 15.6 4.2-4.4 9 7.1 7.1 8.8 9.5
Design
Discharge
Depth (ft)
0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7
Design
Discharge Area
(ft2)
3.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 16 3.4-3.6 6.0 3.8 3.8 5.5 6.8
Design
Discharge
Velocity (ft/s)
4.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.1 4.0 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.9 3.4 3.7
Design
Discharge (cfs) 14.1 13.8 13.8 13.8 21.7 64 12.2 20.4 14.6 14.6 18.8 24.6
Channel Slope
(ft/ft) 0.023 0.027 0.037 0.020 0.020 0.016 0.017 0.021 0.027 0.027 0.017 0.016
Sinuosity 1.07 1.05 1.07 1.01 1.04 1.26 1.6 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.06 1.21
Width/Depth
Ratio 5.3 21.4 21.4 21.4 8.3 15.2 5.2-5.5 13.5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0
Bank Height
Ratio 1.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 2.1 1.6 0.9-1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment
Ratio 3.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.0-2.5 >1.4 >1.4 >.14 >2.2 >2.2
d50 (mm) 17 20 20 20 28 28 5.2 - - - - -

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 23
Table 16: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 3
Parameter
Existing Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed
Parameters
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R3
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R4
UT to
Varnals
Creek
UT to
Catawba
River R2
UT to
Lyle
Creek
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R3
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R4
Valley Width (ft) 100-180 100-220 - - - 100-180 100-220
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 196.0 321.6 262.4 1024.0 160.0 196.0 321.6
Channel/Reach Classification B4 F4 C4/E4 E3b/C3b C5 C4b C4b
Design Discharge Width (ft) 6.0 18.6 9.3-10.5 12.3 7.0 10.4 11.8
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 1.1 0.8 1.1-1.2 1.1 0.47 0.8 0.9
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 6.6 14.1 10.3-12.3 13.2 3.5-4.1 8.2 10.3
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s) 5.3 3.9 4.4-5.2 6.1 4.7 4.2 4.7
Design Discharge (cfs) 34.9 54.5 54 80 18 34.0 48.3
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.023 0.016 0.017 0.027 0.004 0.018 0.020
Sinuosity 1.01 1.03 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.16 1.02
Width/Depth Ratio 5.4 24.6 8.1-9.3 11.5 14.9 13.0 14.0
Bank Height Ratio 2.6 2.7 1.0-1.0 0.8-1.3 0.6-0.9 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 1.2 5.7-10.0 4.3 5.7-6.4 >2.2 >2.2
d50 (mm) 25 49 15 75.9 0.2 - -

6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
A qualitative assessment of sediment supply and sources in the project watershed was performed based
on visual inspection and review of historic aerial photos. The watershed assessment indicates that the
watershed is stable and there is no reason to believe that land use will change significantly in the
foreseeable future. Due to the rural nature of the watershed, the stable land use, and the lack of
sediment accumulation in the project streams, the sediment load to the project streams is expected to
be low and stable. BMPs at the upstream ends of UT2 and UT2A will stabilize eroding areas that
contribute sediment to those streams and pocket wetland features above UT1 and Big Bugaboo Creek
will capture sediment that would go into those streams. As a result, design channels are expected to
remain stable and pass the sediment delivered from the watershed.
A competence analysis was performed to analyze the ability of the proposed streams to transport the
sizes of sediment supplied to them. The results of the competence analysis are shown in Tables 17 and
18. The competence analysis on these reaches indicates that the reaches will be able to transport the
sediment supplied to them by the watersheds.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 24
Table 17: Results of Competence Analysis
Parameter Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 1
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 2
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 3
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 4
Abkf (sq ft) 3.3 6.0 8.2 10.3
Wbkf (ft) 6.5 9.0 10.4 11.8
Dbkf (ft) 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9
Schan (ft/ft) 0.034 0.021 0.018 0.020
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.8 3.6 4.2 4.7
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 1.02 0.85 0.86 1.07
Movable particle size (mm) 80 66 66 84
Largest particle from bar sample (mm) 30 -- 30 --
Table 18: Results of Competence Analysis
Parameter UT1 UT2 Reach 3 UT2 Reach 5 UT2A Reach 2 UT3
Abkf (sq ft) 1.4 3.8 5.5 2.0 6.8
Wbkf (ft) 4.2 7.1 8.8 5.1 9.5
Dbkf (ft) 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.7
Schan (ft/ft) 0.036 0.027 0.017 0.045 0.016
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 2.9 3.9 3.4 13.7 3.7
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 0.69 0.87 0.63 1.07 0.70
Movable particle size (mm) 53 67 48 84 54
Largest particle from bar sample (mm) -- -- 50 -- --

6.6 Design Summary
Below are descriptions of the designs for each of the reaches. The entire site will include include fencing
out cattle, planting riparian buffers with native tree species, and permanent protection by a
conservation easement.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 - Restoration
Reach 1 of Big Bugaboo Creek begins directly below an existing headcut that has been formed by
shallow concentrated flow over cattle pasture. The reach flows from the east-northeast until it reaches
the confluence with UT1. The reach is proposed as restoration and a new channel will be rebuilt mostly
offline within the existing valley as a Rosgen B4 type stream with a Priority 1 approach. As is common
with natural B-type channels, the sinuosity of the restored channel will be very low. The alignment will
be designed to limit impacts to existing riparian wetlands and, due to the steepness of the reach, many
wood and stone drop structures will be used. An eroding headcut exists upstream of the jurisdictional
channel. A pocket wetland BMP will be installed above the headcut to treat runoff from surrounding
pastures. A rock-lined swale will convey flow out of the BMP to Reach 1 and stabilize the existing
headcut.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 – Enhancement I
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 begins at the confluence with UT1 and flows from the northeast until the
confluence with UT2. Some sections of the channel require only minor repairs, planting, and livestock
exclusion in order to restore functionality. Other sections of the reach will be rebuilt as a B4 stream type
with low sinuosity and confined to the extents of the incised existing channel. This reach is proposed as
enhancement 1 due to the combination of restoration and enhancement II approaches. As with Reach 1,

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 25
wood and stone drop structures will be used extensively throughout. The existing culvert crossing on
this reach will be replaced with a new crossing utilizing a much larger culvert. The larger culvert will
better accommodate fish passage and high stream flows.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 - Restoration
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 begins at the confluence with UT2, just upstream of an in-line farm pond
(Pond A) and at the downstream end of a wetland complex. It travels through a relatively unconfined
valley with slopes ranging from 1.4 to 2.7 percent and was designed as a C4b type stream. Due to the
relatively high slopes for a C type stream, drop structures and bank revetments will be utilized for grade
control and bank protection. The Pond A dam will be removed. The upstream portion of Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 3 will be constructed along the old pond bottom, mostly on existing grade other than at the
very upstream downstream ends of the pond. In these locations, sediment wedges will be removed in
order to return the channel to its original, pre-impounded grade. These sediment accumulations will be
removed and spread on adjacent fields. Along the channel corridor through the pond, existing substrate
will be removed and replaced with compacted fill material from the dam or other borrow areas. This will
create more stable bed material in which to cut the channel while leaving the adjacent floodplains
comprised of material from the pond bed. This will likely result in wetland features adjacent to the
channel. The dam will be completely removed to the original valley side slopes. Downstream of the dam,
the channel appears to have been channelized and realigned to the valley’s edge while a wetland
complex occupies much of the center of the valley. In this area, the proposed pattern avoids existing
trees and mostly follows a slight ridge that travels the length of the valley. Bankfull elevations were set
at or above minimum wetland grades and floodplain grading will tie into existing grades in a manner
that minimizes impacts to the existing wetlands. There is a proposed internal culvert crossing
approximately 350 feet upstream of the confluence with UT3.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 – Enhancement 1
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 begins at the confluence of Big Bugaboo Creek and UT3 and extends to the
southern boundary of the property. The reach was designed as a C4 type channel with narrow belt width
as it is confined primarily to the extents of the over-widened existing channel due to a large wetland
(wetland O) on the left floodplain and steep hill slopes on the right floodplain. Reach 4 will transition
from a priority 1 restoration upstream of the wetland to an on-line priority 2 approach through the first
half of the reach. After transitioning to the existing bed grade, the channel will follow the existing
channel alignment for the remainder of the reach. A bankfull bench will be constructed on either side of
the on-line channel segment within the incised existing channel to reduce shear stress during storm
events. The adjacent wetland (Wetland O, Figure 6) on the left floodplain will be protected by the
conservation easement. Rock stabilization will be used to protect the confluence with UT4.
UT1 - Restoration
UT1 begins at the point where the channel transitions from ephemeral to intermittent. As with Big
Bugaboo Creek Reach 1, this transition occurs directly below an existing headcut formed by shallow
concentrated flow over cattle pasture. The concentrated flow and headcut will be addressed by
constructing a small pocket wetland and stable outlet at the top of the reach. The reach flows from the
northeast and extends to the confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek. This reach is proposed as restoration
and the rebuilt channel will be tied into Big Bugaboo Creek at the approximate location of the current
confluence. New channel will be constructed mostly offline using a priority 1 approach. Due to the
steepness of this stream and the shape of the valley, the design Rosgen stream classification is B4.
UT2 Reach 1 – Enhancement II
UT2 Reach 1 also begins at the upstream extent of the intermittent channel. There is an ephemeral step-
pool stabilization measure to arrest an active headcut proposed for upstream of the jurisdictional

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 26
channel. This measure is proposed to eliminate erosion and a source of sediment and help maintain the
functions of existing wetlands adjacent to the ephemeral channel. The enhancement II reach begins with
a rock step pool to arrest another headcut with bank revetments at the downstream end. There will also
be some minor grading of hillslopes adjacent to the channel to stabilize erosion.
UT2 Reach 2 – Enhancement I
UT2 Reach 2 is a short section of EI near the confluence with UT2A. UT2 Reach 2 has been designed to
be a steep B type channel with the primary purposes of restoring dimension and profile as well as
providing a stable confluence with UT2A. The bed was raised to achieve priority 1 restoration on Reach 3
and it was designed mostly on-line with a short offline portion at the downstream end to create more
stable confluence conditions. Due to the steep grade that characterizes this reach, the design has
incorporated step pool sequences to dissipate energy and hold grade.
UT2 Reach 3 - Restoration
UT2 Reach 3 begins at the confluence with UT2A and ties into a large bedrock feature at the start of UT2
Reach 4. Although it is somewhat less steep than Reach 2, UT2 Reach 3 was also designed as a B type
channel that is moderately entrenched within the existing valley. Due to the lower slope and
occasionally more open valley, the UT2 Reach 3 design includes some subtle meander pattern where the
valley allows. Existing bankfull features were identified in the field and these features were used to
guide bankfull slopes and placement of bankfulll elevations.
UT2 Reach 4 – Enhancement I
UT2 Reach 4 is an enhancement 1 reach that is characterized by a series of bedrock features that serve
as effective grade control as well as a wetland that lines the right bank for approximately half of the
reach length. Although the profile appears stable, some erosion and bedform degradation is occurring
due to the cattle access. The proposed design will leave the bedrock features intact and will include the
addition of riffles in several areas where bedrock is not present. Bank grading will also be performed
where necessary to reshape the channel and increase the stability of streambanks.
UT2 Reach 5 - Restoration
The UT2 Reach 5 design contains elements of both a B4 type stream and a C4b type stream, at different
locations along the reach. It was designed to provide a gradual transition between the upstream B4 type
reaches and the downstream C4b type reaches. Reach 5 begins in a very tight and entrenched valley.
The valley is straight and there is little opportunity for meander pattern despite the relatively low slope,
so this portion of the reach employs in-line pools similar to natural B type channels. Approximately 150
feet downstream of the Reach 5 starting point, the valley becomes less entrenched and the design
incorporates slightly more meander pattern. In this configuration, bed form mostly follows pattern, with
C-type, asymmetrical pools in the arcs and riffles in the tangents. Continuing downstream, the meander
pattern becomes more pronounced and riffle-pool sequences become more regular as the valley allows
for a greater belt width. By the end of UT2 Reach 5, the design pattern closely resembles that of a
standard C type channel as it reaches the confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek. However, the slope
remains typical of a B stream until the final 100 feet of the reach as the channel enters a wetland
complex just upstream of the confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek. Bankfull elevations were set to
increase access to the floodplain during higher flows.
UT2A Reach 1 – Enhancement II
The headwaters of UT2A originate at the downstream end of a large head cut. Upstream of the
intermittent reach, the head cut will be stabilized with a step pool stabilization measure. UT2A Reach 1
is proposed as enhancement II as it flows through a stable wetland complex before the restoration reach
begins at a second head cut where the channel exits the wetland. Special consideration was taken to

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 27
include the wetland surrounding UT2A Reach 1 (Wetland D, Figure 6) in the conservation easement and
to protect the wetland by stabilizing bed erosion.
UT2A Reach 2 - Restoration
UT2A Reach 2 is incised throughout and flows through a tight, entrenched valley. The proposed
approach for this reach is restoration. The design channel will be a steep B4 type stream; bankfull slopes
mostly range from four to five percent and the stream has little ability to meander within the confined
valley. The in-line pools and step pool sequences that are typical of B systems will be utilized to dissipate
energy and drop grade in this steep reach. Many of the constructed riffles will feature angled log sills,
relatively large bed material, or a mixture of the two in order to control grade and protect the bed. The
bed will be raised to improve floodplain access. UT2A ties into UT2 at an identified existing bankfull
feature.
UT2B – Enhancement II
UT2B is a short enhancement II reach that flows into UT2 Reach 4. The main treatment for this reach will
be bank grading to stabilize an area of erosion. No channel realignment or raising of the bed will be
necessary to tie into UT2.
UT3 – Restoration
UT3 is proposed for restoration and begins just above the existing Pond B and flows south to the
confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek. UT3 is designed as a C4b type channel with meandering pattern and
a moderately steep profile through the existing pond bed. The pond will be removed and the channel
will be constructed with similar methods to the Pond A removal. Pond sediments along the channel
corridor will be removed, this material will be replaced with compacted fill material mostly from the
existing dam, and the restored channel will be constructed through the fill. The dam will be completely
removed. The reach downstream of the pond bed is slightly steeper with a narrower valley and will have
a less sinuous pattern. The majority of meander bends along this reach will be reinforced with bank
revetments. To preserve the function of the wetlands upstream of Pond B to the extent possible, the
designed channel bankfull profile has been kept near the existing grade to minimize changes in
groundwater patterns in the area around the channel. Approximately 140 feet downstream of the dam,
the channel flows off the project property and onto that of an adjacent, non-participating landowner,
before meandering back onto the project property approximately 70 feet further downstream. The
pattern was designed so that the adjacent landowner, whose property borders the right side of the
channel, could retain access to the channel as requested. On-line restoration will occur through this
section of UT3 in order to reconnect the channel with its natural floodplain while satisfying the non-
participating landowner. The remaining section of UT3 down to the confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek
has been designed as a meandering C4b stream type and will be constructed mostly offline on the left
floodplain.
UT4 – Enhancement II
UT4 is a short channel that flows into Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 at the downstream end. This reach
was identified during the site assessment after the proposal and IRT site visit. It was determined to be
jurisdictional by the USACE. The reach is a natural, perennial stream channel that has a gravel and
cobble substrate that will provide good aquatic habitat once cattle are excluded. The only treatment on
this reach will be adding a rock outlet at the confluence with Big Bugaboo Reach 4 to protect a steep
section of the UT4 from headcutting in the future.
UT5 – Not for Credit
UT5 is a short reach that flows into Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1. This reach is not proposed for credit.
The only treatment proposed is to raise the bed on the channel sufficiently to create a stable tie-in to
Big Bugaboo Creek.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 28
UT6 – Not for Credit
UT6 is another short reach that is not proposed for credit. The reach flows into UT3 just below the
existing dam. This reach has very steep side slopes and the bank on the left will be laid back to increase
stability. It is not possible to lay back the right bank because it is up against a hill slope. The bed will also
be raised slightly to tie into UT3.
6.7 Planting Plan
The wetland and buffer planting zones will be planted with bare root seedlings, at a maximum spacing of
12 feet, from the tops of bank to the extents of the conservation easement or extents of disturbance
where currently forested. Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 through Reach 4, UT2 Reach 5, and UT3 will be
planted with live stakes offset below the tops of bank but within the top half of the bank slope. The live
stakes may be staggered within that range and will be planted on both sides of the channel at a linear
spacing of six feet. Both sides will also be planted with herbaceous plugs at normal baseflow stage, also
at a linear spacing of six feet. For the restoration and enhancement reaches on Big Bugaboo Creek Reach
1, UT1, UT2 Reach 2 through Reach 4, UT2A, and UT2B, a single row of live stakes will be planted along
the tops of bank and a single row of herbaceous plugs will be planted between normal baseflow stage
and tops of bank. Live stakes will be planted along the entirety of each streambank with a linear spacing
of six feet while herbaceous plugs will be planted only along outsides of bends and on both sides of
locations where log or rock sills are keyed into insides of bends. Permanent seed will be spread on
streambanks, floodplain areas, and all disturbed areas within the conservation easement. See Sheets 3.0
and 3.01 of the construction plans for the species lists and planting zones layout.
Construction practices are intended to minimize effects to soil properties, but some impacts are
unavoidable. Ripping may be implemented to ameliorate soil compaction resulting from haul roads,
stockpile areas, etc. Areas of compacted soil such as haul roads will be ripped to a depth of 18 inches in
a grid-like pattern with a maximum rip shank spacing of six feet. Ripping will be performed during the
driest conditions feasible to maximize shatter of the plow pan. Where grading is required, topsoil will be
stockpiled and reapplied. Soil amendments may be incorporated to enhance survival and growth of
planted vegetation as determined necessary by soil testing.
There are infrequent occurrences of multi-flora rose on the site as well as a few other invasive species
(Table 5). The existing small rose plants will be treated and/or mechanically removed during
construction. Invasive species presence will be monitored and treated as necessary throughout the
monitoring period. Additional monitoring and management issues regarding vegetation are included in
Sections 10 and 11.
The pasture grass that occurs throughout the project includes tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea).
Wildlands will treat the existing fescue within the conservation easement to prevent any adverse effects
on tree growth. The treatment will be a part of the site management plan and will include spraying the
fescue throughout the easement with a boom sprayer and/or ring sprays around planted trees.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 29
7.0 Determination of Credits
The final stream credits associated with the Site are listed in Table 19. Stream restoration is at a length
to credit ratio of 1:1, enhancement I is at a ratio of 1.5:1, and enhancement II is at a ratio of 2.5:1.
Approximately 0.2% of project buffers do not meet the minimum 50-foot requirement due to the fact
that a short section of UT3 flows through the property of a non-participating landowner. The design
approach and credit ratio for UT2 Reach 4 was agreed upon at the post-contract IRT site walk. The credit
release schedule is located in Appendix 7.
Table 19: Determination of Credits
Mitigation Assets and Components
Project Segment
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1) Notes
Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 1 966 868 Cool R PI 1
Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 2 1,070 981 Cool EI PI 1.5
50 ft. not for
credit due to
internal
crossing
Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 3 1,602 1,764 Cool R PI 1
51 ft. not for
credit due to
internal
crossing
Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 4 465 394 Cool EI PII 1.5
UT1 380 389 Cool R PI 1
UT2 Reach 1 506 505 Cool EII N/A 2.5
UT2 Reach 2 124 80 Cool EI PI 1.5
44 ft. not for
credit due to
utility crossing
UT2 Reach 3 450 436 Cool R PI 1
UT2 Reach 4 314 314 Cool EI N/A 1.5
UT2 Reach 5 778 741 Cool R PI 1
50 ft. not for
credit due to
internal
crossing
UT2A Reach 1 211 135 Cool EII N/A 2.5
76 ft. not for
credit due to
utility crossing
UT2A Reach 2 450 445 Cool R PI 1
UT2B 168 168 Cool EII N/A 2.5
UT3 1,281 1,412 Cool R PI 1
70 ft. not for
credit due to
non-
participating
landowner
UT4 128 128 Cool EII N/A 2.5

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 30
Project Credits
Restoration Level Stream Riparian
Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Coastal
Marsh Warm Cool Cold
Restoration 0 6055.000 0 0 0 0
Enhancement I 0 1179.333 0 0 0 0
Enhancement II 0 374.400 0 0 0 0
Preservation 0 0.000 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 7608.733 0 0 0 0
8.0 Performance Standards
The stream performance standards for the project will follow approved performance standards
presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (Version 2.3, June 2017), the Annual Monitoring
Template (June 2017), and the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update issued October 2016 by the USACE and NCIRT. Annual monitoring and routine site visits will be
conducted by a qualified scientist to assess the condition of the finished project. Specific performance
standards that apply to this project are those described in the 2016 Compensatory Mitigation Update
including Vegetation (Section V, B, Items 1 through 3) and Stream Channel Stability and Stream
Hydrology Performance Standards (Section VI, B, Items 1 through 7). Table 20 summarizes performance
standards.
Table 20: Summary of Performance Standards
Parameter Monitoring Feature Performance Standard
Dimension Cross-Section Survey BHR <1.2; ER <2.2 for C/E channels
Pattern and Profile Visual Assessment Should indicate stream stability
Substrate Pebble Counts Coarser material in riffles; finer particles in pools
Photo
Documentation
• Cross-Section Photos
• Photo Points
No excessive erosion or degradation of banks
No mid-channel bars, Stable grade control
Hydrology Transducer Four bankfull events during the 7-year period; in separate years
Flow Gage/ Transducer 30 days of consecutive flow on restored intermittent streams
Vegetation Vegetation Plots
MY3 success criteria: 320 planted stems per acre,
MY5 success criteria: 260 planted stems per acre, average of 7
feet in height in each plot. Subcanopy and shrub species will be
disregarded for average height calculations.
MY7 success criteria: 210 planted stems per acre, average of 10
feet in height in each plot. Subcanopy and shrub species will be
disregarded for average height calculations.
Visual Assessment CCPV Signs of encroachment, stream instability, invasive species

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 31
9.0 Monitoring Plan
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are
met, and project goals and objectives are achieved. Project monitoring requirements are shown in Table
21. Approximate locations of the proposed monitoring components are illustrated in Figure 10.
Table 21: Monitoring Requirements
Parameter Monitoring Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency Notes Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach
1-4
UT1
UT2
Reach
2-5
UT2A
Reach
2
UT3
Dimension Riffle Cross Sections 5 1 3 1 2 Year 1, 2,
3, 5, & 7 Pool Cross Section 4 N/A 1 N/A 1
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A 1 Profile Longitudinal Profile
Substrate Reach Wide (RW) 4 1 3 1 1 Year 1, 2,
3, 5, & 7
Hydrology Transducer 2 N/A 1 N/A 1 Quarterly 2
Flow Gage / Transducer N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A
Vegetation CVS Level 2 15 Year 1, 2,
3, 5, & 7
Exotic and
Nuisance
Vegetation
Annual 3
Project
Boundary Annual 4
Reference
Photos Photographs 50 Annual
1. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during MY0 only,
unless observations indicate lack of stability and profile survey is warranted in additional years.
2. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly and downloaded, evidence of bankfull events will be documented
with a photo when possible. Transducers will be set to record stage once every four hours.
3. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
4. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for
the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment
system within the non-reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The
use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A-
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship,
monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The Site Protection
Instrument can be found in Appendix 8 and financial assurances are in Appendix 9.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 32
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of site construction Wildlands will implement the post-construction monitoring
protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described
Appendix 10. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site’s ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, DMS will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in-house technical staff or may
require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
DMS will:
• Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
• Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
• Obtain other permits as necessary.
• Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
• Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
Most of the planned land management activities will focus on improving the plant communities by
controlling invasive plant species. The majority of the site currently lies in cattle pasture comprised
largely of tall fescue with some Juncus and Carex species in lower lying areas. Multiflora rose also occurs
in some areas within the existing pasture. A small portion of the site contains some forested buffer with
a combination of native and invasive vegetation. Both the pasture and forested buffer will require
invasive plant control methods to support establishment of the target plant communities.
The tall fescue will impact planted tree survival through below ground competition and allelopathy
when it is a major component (>50%) of the plant community. Based on the existing plant community in
the pasture, Wildlands plans to have a flexible approach to reducing impacts of tall fescue on planted
trees. Areas where tall fescue is a major component of the plant community will either receive a
broadcast herbicide treatment prior to construction or ring sprays covering a two-foot radius around
every planted stem. Areas where tall fescue is a minor component of the pasture or where non-target
effects will be too high on desirable plants will not receive immediate fescue treatment but will be
monitored during the monitoring period and treated with ring sprays if necessary. The multiflora rose
mostly occurs within the existing valleys and will be removed mechanically during construction.
Invasive plant species present in the site’s forested areas include tree of heaven, chinaberry, Chinese
privet, and multiflora rose. These species will be treated using appropriate chemical control methods
including foliar spraying and/or cutting and treating. Tree of heaven and chinaberry treatment will be
prioritized before construction to limit seed dispersal and tree recruitment in the disturbed areas
created by construction activities. Wildlands will also monitor for additional invasive plants not currently
found on the Site and treat as necessary. Additionally, Wildlands will also monitor the Site for future
land management issues, such as floodplain erosion, bare areas, and damaged infrastructure, that may
arise during the monitoring period.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Draft Mitigation Plan April 2020 Page 33
12.0 References
Harman, W.H., et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 2008. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Plan.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-planning/water-resource-
plans/yadkin-pee-dee-2008
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Yadkin_River_Basin/2009%20
Upper%20Yadkin%20RBRP_Final%20Final%2C%2026feb%2709.pdf
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS.
http://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=a8281cbd24b84239b29cd2ca798d
4a10
North Carolina Interagency Review Team, 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-Mitigation-
Update.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), 2015. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan.
https://www.ncwildlife.org/plan#6718619-2015-wildlife-action-plan-document-downloads
Walker, Alan, unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve.

Figures

®q
Waterfalls Creek Slopes
Pine Swamp Forest-Bog
Stone Mountain State Park
Doughton Park Natural Area
Mitchell River Headwaters
Waterfalls Creek Meadow Bog
Whitehead Meadow Bog
Skunk Cabbage Bogs
Brush Creek Bog
Laurel Branch Bog
Elkin Creek Meadow Bogs
Stone Mountain State Park
03040101060010
Holbrook Farm Complex
Elbert Crouse Farmstead Devotion Rural Historic District
Traphill Historic District
NC Agricultural Foundation Preserve
Blue Ridge Conservancy Easement
NC Clean Water ManagementTrust Fund Funded Project
Blue Ridge Conservancy Easement
Piedmont Land ConservancyChatham Forest
Stone Mountain State Park
Wilkes Co
0304010106003003040101060010
03040101070030
03040101070010
0304010108001005050001030030
05050001030020
03040101070020
03040101060040
03040101080030
03040101060020
03040101050010
03040101060050
03040101080020
03040101070050
03040101070050
Figure 1 - Vicinity MapBug Headwaters Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 0 304010 1
Wilkes County, NC¹0 21 Miles
5 Mile Radius
Project Property
County Boundary
Hydrologic Unit C ode (14-digit)
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
NC Historical Preservation Areas
Water Supply Watersheds
Targeted Local Watersheds
Municipalities
303d Listed Streams
Major Rivers
®q Airports
UT2B
UT2 UT2A
UT1
UT3
UT4 Big Bugaboo CreekUT5
UT6
B i g B u g a b o o C r e e k
Big Bugaboo Creek
Pond B
Pond A
Figure 2 - Site M apBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 010350700Feet
Wilkes County, NC
¹
Project Property
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
Existing Wetlands
Existing Pond
Existing Utility Easement
Existing Project Stream s
Non-Project S tream s2018 Aerial Photography
UT2B7 acres
UT 265 acres
UT 2A17 acres
UT 17 acres
UT 396 acres
UT 418 acres
Big Bugaboo Creek322 acres
Figure 3 - Watershed MapBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 0106001,2 00 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
¹
Big Bugaboo Creek Watershed
Subwatershed
Existing Project Stream s
Non-Project S tream s
4ft Contour2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 4 - USGS Topo graphic MapBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin River Basin 030 401 01
Wilkes County, NC
Traphill USGS 7.5 minute Topographic Quadrangle
¹
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
0 600300 Feet
Thurmond USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle
UT2B
UT2 UT2A
UT1
UT3
UT4 Big Bugaboo CreekUT5
UT6
Bi
g
Bu
g
a
b
o
o
Cr
e
e
k
B i g B u g a b o o C r e e k
Ponds A
Pond B
CoA
FcC2
FcC2
W
W
CoA
FaD
Figure 5 - Soils M apBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 010350700Feet
Wilkes County, NC
¹
Project Property
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
CoA - Codorus loam (0-2% slopes)
FaD - Fairview sandy loam (1 5-2 5% slopes)
FcC2 - Fairview sandy clay loam (8-15% slopes)
W - Water
Existing Utility Easement
Existing Project Stream s
Non-Project S tream s2018 Aerial Photography
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
UT2B
UT2
UT2A
UT1
UT3
UT4 Big Bugaboo CreekUT5
UT6
XS4
Big B
ugaboo Creek
B i g B u g a b o o C r e e kPond A
Pond B
O
H
C
K
A
D
I
E
B
N
J
F
Q
L
G
M
X
S
5
XS10
X S 8 XS2X S 7
X
S
1
XS3
XS13 XS15XS14 XS16XS18XS12XS11
XS17XS9
X
S
6
Figure 6 - Existing Co nditio ns MapBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 010350700Feet
Wilkes County, NC
¹
Project Property
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
Existing Pond
Existing Wetlands
Existing Utility Easement
Existing Project Stream s
Non-Project S tream s
Existing Conditions Cross-Sections
!(Reach Break2018 Aerial Photography
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 4
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
^_
^_Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 4
UT4UT2B
Reach 2
Reach 1
UT2 UT2A
UT1
Big Bugaboo CreekUT3
Reach 1
UT6
UT5
Big B
u
g
a
b
o
o C
ree
k
B i g B u g a b o o C r e e k
Pond APond B
Figure 7 - Concept M apBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 010350700Feet
Wilkes County, NC
¹
Project Property
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
Internal C ro ssing
Pond
Proposed Wetland BMP
Stream Approach
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
No Credit
Existing Utility Easement
^_Proposed BMP
!(Reach Break2018 Aerial Photography
Remove ExistingFarm Pond
Ephemeral Step-PoolStabilization
Pocket We tland
50' InternalCulvert Crossing
50' InternalCulvert Crossing
40' ExternalUtility C rossing
##
##
##
##
##
######
^_
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Lake Norman Group Camp Upstream
UT to Varnals Creek
Shew Tributary A
Magnolia Tributary 1
UT to Lyle Creek
UT to Kelly Branch
UT to Catawba River R2
Timber Tributary R 1
0 10 20 Miles ¹Figure 8 - Reference Reach Vicinity MapBug Headwaters Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
^_Project Location
##Reference Site
Figure 9 - Discharge Analysis GraphBug Headwaters Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 0 3040101
Wilkes County, NC
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
^_
^_
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 4
UT4UT2B
Reach 2
Reach 1
UT2 UT2A
UT1
Big Bugaboo CreekUT3Reach 1
UT6
UT5
Big B
u
g
a
b
o
o Creek
B ig B u g a b o o C r e e k
Pond B
Pond A
Figure 10 - Proposed Monitoring Com pon ents MapBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 010350700Feet
Wilkes County, NC¹
Project Property
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
Internal C ro ssing
External Crossing
Pond
Proposed Wetland BMP
Stream Approach
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
No Credit
Existing Utility Easement
Cross Section
GF Photo Points
!A Crest Gauge
!A Flow G age
Vegetation Plots
^_Proposed BMP
!(Reach Breaks2018 Aerial Photography
Remove ExistingFarm Pond
Ephemeral Step-Pool Stabilization
Pocket We tland
50' InternalCulvert Crossing
50' InternalCulvert Crossing
40' ExternalUtility C rossing

Appendix 1

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: � �
Project/Site: �)
Latitude:
Evaluator. .B`A.<o? �L t?
County: W*o
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent rem
e.g._Quad Name:
if 2! 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
A. Geomor holo31y (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
- 0
--- -
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5, Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2.
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
- 1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5 :'
1
11. Second or greater order channel
o -
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. HVdrologV (Subtotal = �a )
12, Presence of Baseflow
0
1
( 9
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16, Organic debris lines or: plies
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
i e
C. Biology (Subtotal= aj
ream
18. Fibrous roots in st
bed 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks (0 1 2 3
22, Fish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
25, Algae 0 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW BL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: I
1

t
NC DRIQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator: t
County: I•tt e
Longitude:
Total Points: _
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination fcIrcle one)
Other
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
Ephemeral ermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holog (Subtotal = ( )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
`1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
8. Headcuts
4
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
_
1
, ...1,5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
-
Yes
artificial ditches are not rated; see dis ssions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal=_ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No - 0
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1(40463) )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 ;.Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p.
35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

k .V
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: � �
Project/Site: UTL 1p�\
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: t`k -
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Deter ' circle one)
Other
Stream is at least Intermittent
if? 19 30"
E hemeral termitten Perennial
p
e. quad Name:
g'
or erenniallh_ v
A. Geomor holokJX (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial "deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts 1
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5 �-
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
- -
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discyssions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ I _ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1 _
1.5
17, Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
G, biology Subtotal = -
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2=5
"3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22, Fi'sh
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
4.0awP
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
=,OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
yr.l
Sketch:

Us
a
NC DWQ Stream Tdenfification Farm Versioji 4.11 '
Date:
Project/Site: et r
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (;�;N
Other
Stream is at feast intermittent
if z 19 or perennial if � 30
Ephemera! Intermittent
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =3 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1'"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3, ln-channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
C31
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
r
3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
Yes - 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see di sions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseifow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
1
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
es -'k
C. Biology (Subtotal )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
.
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
�
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
-
0,5
1
25, Algae
0
0.5
1
1.
26, Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 <CStFter
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

''(.
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 1 : '
Project/Site: W2
Latitude:
Evaluator: , i¢'it(�,
County: -
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determin circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral ermitte Perennial
e.g, Quad Name:
if>_ 19 or perennial if z 30' o
A. GeomorifholoVL(Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1aContinuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
- 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
_ 0
-
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
_
2
3
9. Grade control
0
.5,
1
1.5
10.Naturalvalley
0
0:5
1
1:
11, Second or greater order channel
r
Yes =3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discus Ions In manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of BaseFlow
C.
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14, Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
15, Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1,5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0,5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es
Biology (Subtotal = -47_)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
-
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
O.n....�
2
3
_
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1�
2
3
22, Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1,5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
OBL = 1.5 Other = d
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: \i /%'Cj t
Project/Site: i6u tAu
Latitude:
Evaluator: C. t, W\
County: ( ci�fi b
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral
Other
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30*
Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorpholo (Subtotal =
artificial
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a'Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
.0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
_ 2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
B. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1'
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
CL 1
11. Second or greater order channel
=_0_-�
Yes = 3
ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B: Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
14. Leaf litter
_
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Q Yes = 3
G. Biology (Subtotal= !�3 A)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
c2L22
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3,
22, Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See
p. 35 of manual.
Notes: � "t it 1 e
1N
f
�kb� wc
sIble Q�
y y
bAk Po Sketch:
QiCig(�4L
: aA% +t is
WWI j`.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /`('?y)r C✓
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
IS
Stream Determination (cir
Ephemeral
Other
Intermitte erennia
e.g. quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if>> 30' r
t c-
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = �9c)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3 )
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0 -
'I
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
Cf fi',
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
_
0
1
- 2';�
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
<�2r-,
3
8. Headcuts
0
<77
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 __
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
�3
~
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
q-
1
3`
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
_
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0D:.-
_
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
_
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =`.
C. Biology (Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
�:.;-�__5 _
2
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
~
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
r _ 1`
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
_ ?
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
_
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:(Alva g ItAl
VA
t
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: G°U ( 1
(4/
Project/Site: � L
Latitude:
Evaluator: � y
Gib((/`10
County:
Longitude:
r
f6k13
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circ
Other
if a 19 or perennial ifa
30*
Ephemeral Intermittent erend)e.g.
Quad Name:
A. Geomorpholo (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
r�2�%°
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
COD
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
IF72 )
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
°`
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
f,
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
- 0.5
$°;
1.5.
10. Natural valley
0
.5
f", 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
i., No= 0 �•�`
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =s )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
ta�A
13, Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
'1...2 71
3
14, Leaf litter
1.5
4.10!s1
0.5
0
15, Sediment on plants or debris
("0,-'
0.5
1
1.5
16, Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
_
17. Soil -based evidence of high ater table?
No = 0
' Yes =,�,✓
C. Biology (Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
�' '1�;,3
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
r Q_
1
2
3
22. Fish
;1�0-
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
sue.
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
%;D;;,
0.5
1
1.5
25, Algae
':,Q,,-t
0.5
1
1.5
26, Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5� .it
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Appendix 2

Cross Section 1Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 6.1 W flood prone area (ft) 38D50 Riffle (mm)4.9 width (ft) 1.3 entrenchment ratio 88D84 Riffle (mm)0.6 mean depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height (ft) 45 threshold grain size (mm):0.9 max depth (ft) 2.2 low bank height ratio5.6 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)---8.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.3 velocity (ft/s) 0.049 Manning's roughness 2.849 channel slope (%)9.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.35 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.91shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.81 Froude number 4.8 resistance factor u/u* 0.69 shear velocity (ft/s)2.0 relative roughness 3.5 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-20 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 1 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 - Pool)
Cross Section 2Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials3.5 x-section area (ft.sq.) 13.7 W flood prone area (ft) 38D50 (mm)11.3 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio 88D84 (mm)0.3 mean depth (ft) 2.0 low bank height (ft) 31 threshold grain size (mm):0.6 max depth (ft) 3.3 low bank height ratio11.4 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)F4b36.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 3.3 channel slope (%)10.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.27 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.63 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.98 Froude number 3.6 resistance factor u/u* 0.57 shear velocity (ft/s)1.1 relative roughness 1.98 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-10-8-6-4-200 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 2 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 - Riffle)
Cross Section 3Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials3.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 16.4 W flood prone area (ft) 32D50 Riffle (mm)4.2 width (ft) 3.9 entrenchment ratio 77D84 Riffle (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height (ft) 50 threshold grain size (mm):1.1 max depth (ft) 1.6 low bank height ratio4.7 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)B45.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.2 velocity (ft/s) 0.043 Manning's roughness 2.28 channel slope (%)14.1 discharge rate (cfs) 0.24 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.02 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.88 Froude number 5.8 resistance factor u/u* 0.73 shear velocity (ft/s)3.2 relative roughness 4.8 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 3 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 - Riffle)
Cross Section 4Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials4.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 17.2 W flood prone area (ft) 32D50 Riffle (mm)7.6 width (ft) 2.3 entrenchment ratio 77D84 Riffle (mm)0.6 mean depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height (ft) 41 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 2.4 low bank height ratio8.1 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)---12.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.6 velocity (ft/s) 0.043 Manning's roughness 2.28 channel slope (%)16.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.26 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.82 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.84 Froude number 5.5 resistance factor u/u* 0.65 shear velocity (ft/s)2.4 relative roughness 3.2 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 4 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 - Pool)Elevation (ft)
Cross Section 5Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials5.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.0 W flood prone area (ft) 35D50 Riffle (mm)5.7 width (ft) 1.8 entrenchment ratio 80D84 Riffle (mm)0.9 mean depth (ft) 2.9 low bank height (ft) 51 threshold grain size (mm):1.7 max depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height ratio7.5 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)---6.0 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.041 Manning's roughness 2.3 channel slope (%)23.7 discharge rate (cfs) 0.22 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.03 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.92 Froude number 6.1 resistance factor u/u* 0.73 shear velocity (ft/s)3.6 relative roughness 6 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 5 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 - Pool)
Cross Section 6Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials6.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 9.0 W flood prone area (ft) 35D50 (mm)6.0 width (ft) 1.5 entrenchment ratio 80D84 (mm)1.1 mean depth (ft) 3.7 low bank height (ft) 65 threshold grain size (mm):1.4 max depth (ft) 2.6 low bank height ratio7.1 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)B45.4 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power5.3 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 2.3 channel slope (%)34.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.19 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.32 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.98 Froude number 6.4 resistance factor u/u* 0.82 shear velocity (ft/s)4.2 relative roughness 8.4 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 6 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 - Riffle)
Cross Section 7Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials14.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 22.5 W flood prone area (ft) 42D50 (mm)18.6 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio 110D84 (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 3.2 low bank height (ft) 37 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 2.7 low bank height ratio18.8 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)F424.6 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.9 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 1.6 channel slope (%)54.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.20 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.74 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.79 Froude number 5.1 resistance factor u/u* 0.62 shear velocity (ft/s)2.1 relative roughness 2.9 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-10-8-6-4-200 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 7 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 - Riffle)Elevation (ft)
Cross Section 8Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials8.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 14.9 W flood prone area (ft) 42D50 Riffle (mm)9.6 width (ft) 1.5 entrenchment ratio 110D84 Riffle (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height (ft) 39 threshold grain size (mm):1.1 max depth (ft) 1.9 low bank height ratio10.4 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)---11.4 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.3 velocity (ft/s) 0.049 Manning's roughness 1.6 channel slope (%)26.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.31 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.78 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.65 Froude number 5.1 resistance factor u/u* 0.64 shear velocity (ft/s)2.3 relative roughness 2.7 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-20 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 8 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 - Pool)
Cross Section 9Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 19.6 W flood prone area (ft) 27D50 (mm)11.6 width (ft) 1.7 entrenchment ratio 95D84 (mm)0.2 mean depth (ft) 2.2 low bank height (ft) 24 threshold grain size (mm):0.4 max depth (ft) 5.0 low bank height ratio11.8 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.2 hydraulic radius (ft)B450.7 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power2.6 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 3.5 channel slope (%)6.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.30 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.49shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.96 Froude number 2.6 resistance factor u/u* 0.50 shear velocity (ft/s)0.7 relative roughness 1.3 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width (ft)9 (UT1 - Riffle)
Cross Section 10Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials0.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 20.9 W flood prone area (ft) 27D50 Riffle (mm)2.5 width (ft) 8.3 entrenchment ratio 95D84 Riffle (mm)0.3 mean depth (ft) 1.2 low bank height (ft) 25 threshold grain size (mm):0.4 max depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height ratio2.7 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.2 hydraulic radius (ft)---9.9 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power2.7 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 3.5 channel slope (%)1.7 discharge rate (cfs) 0.30 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.51shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.97 Froude number 2.6 resistance factor u/u* 0.52 shear velocity (ft/s)0.8 relative roughness 1.48 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-11-10-9-8-7-60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 10 (UT1 - Pool)
Cross Section 11Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.6 W flood prone area (ft) 39D50 Riffle (mm)4.2 width (ft) 2.5 entrenchment ratio 90D84 Riffle (mm)0.6 mean depth (ft) 2.0 low bank height (ft) 33 threshold grain size (mm):1.0 max depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height ratio4.8 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)---6.9 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power2.8 velocity (ft/s) 0.049 Manning's roughness 2 channel slope (%)7.2 discharge rate (cfs) 0.34 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.66shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.68 Froude number 4.8 resistance factor u/u* 0.58 shear velocity (ft/s)2.1 relative roughness 2.2 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 11 (UT2 Reach 1 - 2 - Pool)Elevation (ft)
Cross Section 12Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 8.7 W flood prone area (ft) 39D50 Riffle (mm)4.7 width (ft) 1.8 entrenchment ratio 90D84 Riffle (mm)0.5 mean depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height (ft) 72 threshold grain size (mm):0.7 max depth (ft) 1.4 low bank height ratio5.0 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)A49.7 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.8 velocity (ft/s) 0.053 Manning's roughness 5.2 channel slope (%)8.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.43 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.47shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.98 Froude number 4.3 resistance factor u/u* 0.87 shear velocity (ft/s)1.6 relative roughness 5.9 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-80 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 12 (UT2 Reach 1 - 2 - Riffle)
Cross Section 13Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials4.0 x-section area (ft.sq.) 12.4 W flood prone area (ft) 35D50 (mm)9.3 width (ft) 1.3 entrenchment ratio 110D84 (mm)0.4 mean depth (ft) 3.1 low bank height (ft) 34 threshold grain size (mm):0.9 max depth (ft) 3.6 low bank height ratio9.8 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)F4b21.4 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 2.7 channel slope (%)13.8 discharge rate (cfs) 0.25 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.70 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.93 Froude number 3.8 resistance factor u/u* 0.60 shear velocity (ft/s)1.2 relative roughness 2.5 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-10-8-6-4-200 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 13 (UT2 Reach 3 - 5 - Riffle)
Cross Section 14Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials3.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.9 W flood prone area (ft) 35D50 Riffle (mm)4.2 width (ft) 2.6 entrenchment ratio 110D84 Riffle (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height (ft) 54 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 1.4 low bank height ratio5.1 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)---5.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.6 velocity (ft/s) 0.051 Manning's roughness 2.7 channel slope (%)11.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.35 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.10 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.79 Froude number 4.8 resistance factor u/u* 0.75 shear velocity (ft/s)2.2 relative roughness 4.8 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-40 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 14 (UT2 Reach 3 - 5 - Pool)
Cross Section 15Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials1.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 11.5 W flood prone area (ft) 24D50 (mm)4.6 width (ft) 2.5 entrenchment ratio 58D84 (mm)0.4 mean depth (ft) 3.1 low bank height (ft) 58 threshold grain size (mm):0.6 max depth (ft) 4.8 low bank height ratio4.9 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)A411.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 4.9 channel slope (%)8.3 discharge rate (cfs) 0.25 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.18shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.24 Froude number 5.0 resistance factor u/u* 0.78 shear velocity (ft/s)2.2 relative roughness 5.5 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-14-12-10-8-6-4-200 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 15 (UT2A - Riffle)
Cross Section 16Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials1.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 8.1 W flood prone area (ft) 24D50 Riffle (mm)3.0 width (ft) 2.7 entrenchment ratio 58D84 Riffle (mm)0.6 mean depth (ft) 1.5 low bank height (ft) 61 threshold grain size (mm):0.8 max depth (ft) 2.0 low bank height ratio3.9 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)---5.2 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.042 Manning's roughness 4.36 channel slope (%)7.8 discharge rate (cfs) 0.27 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.24shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.14 Froude number 5.5 resistance factor u/u* 0.80 shear velocity (ft/s)3.1 relative roughness 6.9 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-30 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 16 (UT2A - Pool)
Cross Section 17Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials5.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 9.4 W flood prone area (ft) 33D50 Riffle (mm)6.6 width (ft) 1.4 entrenchment ratio 69D84 Riffle (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 2.2 low bank height (ft) 43 threshold grain size (mm):1.1 max depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height ratio7.5 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)G48.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.041 Manning's roughness 1.99 channel slope (%)21.7 discharge rate (cfs) 0.22 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.88 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.86 Froude number 6.1 resistance factor u/u* 0.67 shear velocity (ft/s)3.5 relative roughness 4.1 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 17 (UT3 - Riffle)
Cross Section 18Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials6.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 14.3 W flood prone area (ft) 33D50 Riffle (mm)6.0 width (ft) 2.4 entrenchment ratio 69D84 Riffle (mm)1.1 mean depth (ft) 1.9 low bank height (ft) 56 threshold grain size (mm):1.4 max depth (ft) 1.4 low bank height ratio7.3 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)---5.4 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power5.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.039 Manning's roughness 1.99 channel slope (%)34.0 discharge rate (cfs) 0.18 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.13 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.95 Froude number 6.7 resistance factor u/u* 0.76 shear velocity (ft/s)4.9 relative roughness 7 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 18 (UT3 - Pool)

Appendix 3

Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP1 Wetland A
11/19/2018
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1noneFloodplain
Datum:-80.98173336.321689LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Herbaceous species unknown due to season, grazing impacts.
)5'
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
38 15 0
Yes
Yes
FAC
FACU
75
0
200
Multiply by:
0
3.67Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
25
50
(A)
(B)
(A)
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Ilex opaca
Acer rubrum
30' )
75
Indicator
Status
50
25
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
50.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP1 Wetland A
1
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
275
0
75
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 3/10-12
DP1 Wetland ASOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% % Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP 2 Upland
11/19/2018
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2convexside slope
Datum:-80.98192436.321764LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
3 2 0
Yes FACU
0
0
424
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
106
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACUNo
2050
5
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
Amaranthus spinosus
Yes
No
20Trifolium repens
5Schedonorus arundinaceus FACU
Cynodon dactylon 70
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Ilex opaca
30' )
6
Indicator
Status
6
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP 2 Upland
0
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
424
0
106
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 6/8
10YR 3/2
6-12
0-6
DP 2 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% % Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP 3 Wetland B, I, P, Q
11/19/2018
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
5none
Datum:-80.98414236.320659LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
Wetland formed by groundwater discharge above confining soil layer that intersects trampled stream banks. Wetland would not exist without stream
incision or cattle impacts.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP 3 Wetland B, I, P, Q
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
80
0
35
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
No5Cynodon dactylon
Juncus effusus 30
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
35
718
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
5
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
20
Multiply by:
60
2.29Prevalence Index = B/A =
30
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACW
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
% Texture
DP 3 Wetland B, I, P, QSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 6/1
10YR 3/2
3-12
0-3
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP4 Upland
11/19/2018
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2noneFloodplain
Datum:-80.98405536.320666LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP4 Upland
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
400
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Eupatorium capillifolium
No
No
10Trifolium repens
5Cynodon dactylon FACU
Schedonorus arundinaceus 80
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
FACUNo
2050
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
100
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
400
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
% Texture
C Prominent redox concentrations
DP4 UplandSOIL
10-12 10YR 4/1
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
98
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 6/6
%
2
Matrix
10YR 6/8
10YR 3/2
3-10
0-3
Loc2
M
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP5 Wetland C, N
11/19/2018
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1concaveFloodplain
Datum:-80.98421036.320513LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)
=Total Cover
FACW
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
15
0
40
Multiply by:
100
2.38Prevalence Index = B/A =
50
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
5
10
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACNo
1333
5
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
65
Unknown carex
No
No
5Trifolium repens
5Cynodon dactylon FACU
Juncus effusus 50
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
)
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP5 Wetland C, N
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
155
0
65
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey98 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 3/1 7.5YR 4/60-12
DP5 Wetland C, NSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% %
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
2 PL/M
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP6 Wetland D
11/19/18
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
3concaveHead of Drain
Datum:-80.98138636.323751LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP6 Wetland D
2
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
135
0
40
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
66.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
Yes
10Unknown eleocharis
15Schedonorus arundinaceus FACU
Unknown carex 15
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
40
820
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
25
15
(A)
(B)
(A)
75
0
60
Multiply by:
0
3.38Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FAC
FAC
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
5 PL
DP6 Wetland DSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 4/1 7.5YR 6/80-12
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey95 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No
X No X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP7 Upland
11/19/18
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
3convexHead of Drain
Datum:-80.98120636.323906LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP7 Upland
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
400
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
No
No
5Cynodon dactylon
5Amaranthus spinosus FACU
Schedonorus arundinaceus 90
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
2050
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
100
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
400
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
PL20
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
DP7 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
5YR 4/3
5YR 4/63-12
0-3
Loc2
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP8 Wetland E
11/19/18
Wildland Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2concaveHead of Drain
Datum:-80.98274736.324881LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP8 Wetland E
2
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
140
0
55
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Juncus effusus
Yes
No
15Leersia oryzoides
10Schedonorus arundinaceus FACU
Unknown carex 25
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
55
FACWNo
1128
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
25
10
(A)
(B)
(A)
75
15
40
Multiply by:
10
2.55Prevalence Index = B/A =
5
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
15
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FAC
OBL
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
20 M
DP8 Wetland ESOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
5Y 4/1 2.5YR 4/60-12
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey80 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP9 Wetland F-G
11/19/18
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1concaveFloodplain
Datum:-80.98476936.322441LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP9 Wetland F-G
2
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
180
0
70
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes30Juncus effusus
Unknown carex 40
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
70
1435
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
40
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
120
0
0
Multiply by:
60
2.57Prevalence Index = B/A =
30
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FAC
FACW
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
% Texture
DP9 Wetland F-GSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 4/20-6
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Bedrock
6
Remarks:
Redox features disturbed by cattle. Auger refusal at 6 inches.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes
Yes
Yes X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP10 Upland
11/18/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
3noneSide Slope
Datum:-80.98456636.322462LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP10 Upland
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
400
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
No
No
10Cynodon dactylon
10Trifolium repens FACU
Schedonorus arundinaceus 80
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
2050
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
100
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
400
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
M20
Texture
C Prominent redox concentrations
DP10 UplandSOIL
11-12 2.5YR 4/1
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
90
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 4/6
%
10
Matrix
D2.5YR 4/6
5YR 4/4
2.5YR 4/14-11
0-4
Loc2
M
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
The area is impacted by pond constuction, dredge, and fill activities.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP11 Wetland H
11/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1noneFloodplain
Datum:-80.98725536.318160LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
Remnants of dead Polygonum spp. and Vernonia spp.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACWYes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10 4 0
Yes
Yes
FAC
FAC
60
0
0
Multiply by:
20
2.67Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
25
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
10
Juncus effusus 10
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Diospyros virginiana
30' )
20
Indicator
Status
15
5
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP11 Wetland H
3
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
80
0
30
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Soil profile appears disturbed
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
7.5YR 5/6
Loc2
M
95
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
M
10
Matrix
C7.5YR 4/1
7.5YR 4/6
907.5YR 4/1 10
7.5YR 5/62-4
0-2
6-12
DP11 Wetland HSOIL
4-6 7.5YR 5/6
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
90
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
C
7.5YR 5/3
% %
PL5
Texture
Loamy/Clayey
Prominent redox concentrations
D
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes
Yes
Yes X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP12 Upland
11/20/18
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2convexFloodplain
Datum:-80.98743136.317663LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP12 Upland
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
360
0
90
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
No10Schedonorus arundinaceus
Cynodon dactylon 80
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
90
1845
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
90
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
360
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
M10
Texture
DP12 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
D7.5YR 5/6
10YR 3/1
7.5YR 6/32-12
0-2
Loc2
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP13 Wetland J-M
11/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2NoneFloodplain
Datum:-80.98869636.317495LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
6
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP13 Wetland J-M
3
4
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
335
0
130
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
75.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Nyssa sylvatica
30' )
65
Indicator
Status
50
15
Dominant
Species?
No
Yes
5Trifolium repens
40Murdannia keisak OBL
Schedonorus arundinaceus 20
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
65
1333
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
65
25
(A)
(B)
(A)
195
40
100
Multiply by:
0
2.58Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
33 13 40
Yes
Yes
FAC
FAC
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
PL/M15
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
15 PL
DP13 Wetland J-MSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
10YR 3/1 10YR 4/6
10YR 5/83-12
0-3
Loc2
85
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
85 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP14 Wetland O
11/20/18
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1concaveFloodplain
Datum:-80.98767336.316202LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
45 18 0
Yes
Yes
FAC
FAC
270
0
80
Multiply by:
0
3.18Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
90
20
(A)
(B)
(A)
410
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
20
20
Ilex opaca
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Nyssa sylvatica
30' )
90
Indicator
Status
70
20
Dominant
Species?
Yes FACU
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
66.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP14 Wetland O
2
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
350
0
110
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
96
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 5/1
10YR 2/1
10YR 6/86-12
0-6
DP14 Wetland OSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% %
M4
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP15 Upland
11/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1nontoeslope
Datum:-80.98745336.316349LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
0
0
400
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
100
(A)
(B)
(A)
2050
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
Yes
No
40Unknown Ranunculus
10Schedonorus arundinaceus FACU
Cynodon dactylon 50
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP15 Upland
0
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
400
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
96 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
7.5YR 6/8
10YR 4/3 10YR 6/6
4-12
0-4
DP15 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% %
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
4 PL
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

Appendix 4

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project Information
PCO ect Name: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Count Name: wakes county
EEP Number: 100085
Project Sponsor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Carolyn Lanza
Pro eCt Contact Address: 312 W. Millbrook, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
EEP Project Mana er: Matthew Reid
Project Description
The Bug Headwaters mitigation site is a stream mitigation project located approximately 9 miles northwest of Elkin
and 5.5 miles South of Roaring Gap in Wilkes County. The site is located on three parcels by two different families
and is used for agriculture (primarily livestock production). The project includes Big Bugaboo Creek and 5 unnamed
tributaries for a total of 8,375 linear feet of stream. The project will provide stream mitigation units to the Division of
Mitigation Services in the Yadkin River Basin (03040101).
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
11 /5/2018iG¢orr
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval /By:
>
Date or Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 7
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the species and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 8
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 9
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
SUMMARY

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a
Federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous -waste sites as well as accidents,
spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment.
As the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project; an EDR Radius Map Report with
Geocheck was ordered for the site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc on July 10, 2018. Neither
the target property nor the adjacent properties were listed in any of the Federal, State, or Tribal
environmental databases searched by the EDR. The assessment revealed no evidence of any "recognized
environmental conditions" in connection with the target property. The Executive Summary of the EDR
report is included in the Appendix. The full report is available if needed.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
The National Historic Preservation Act declares a national policy of historic preservation to protect,
rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American
architecture, history, archaeology, and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal agencies take
into account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion in,
the National Register of Historic Places.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) requested review and comment from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archeological and architectural resources related to the
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site on July 11, 2018. SHPO responded on August 16, 2018 and stated they
were aware of "no historic resources which would be affected by the project" and would have no
further comment. All correspondence related to Section 106 is included in the Appendix.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act provides for the protection and preservation of places of
religious importance to American Indians, Eskimos, and Native Hawaiians.
Wildlands requested review and comment from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) Tribal
Historic Preservation Office (THPO) with respect to any archeological or religious resources related to
the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site on August 15, 2018. The Cherokee Nation and United Keetoowah
Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma THPO were contacted on October 5, 2018. The Cherokee nation
responded on November 2, 2018 saying Bug Headwaters is "outside the Cherokee Nation's Area of
Interest". At this time, Wildlands has not received a response from EBCI and United Keetoowah Band of
Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. All correspondence related to AIRFA is included in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
These acts, collectively known as the Uniform Act, provide for uniform and equitable treatment of
persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit associations, or farms by federal and
federally -assisted programs, and establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies.
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of
the fair market value of the project property and the lack of condemnation authority by Wildlands was
included in the signed Option Agreements for the project properties. A copy of the relevant sections of
the Option Agreements are included in the Appendix.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the
Secretary of the Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or

carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species.
The Wilkes County listed endangered species includes the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii),
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionolis), and the rusty -patched bumble bee (bombus
offinis).The the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) does not currently list any Critical
Habitat Designations for the Federally -listed species within Wilkes County nor are there any known
occurrences of the NLEB documented within the County
(https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html). The project site is over 40
miles from the nearest known hibernaculum for the NLEB. A pedestrian survey conducted on August 9,
2018, indicated that the Site provides potential habitat for the bog turtle, rusty -patched bumble bee and
potential summer roosting for the NLEB but no individuals were located at the time.
Forested habitats containing trees at least 3-inch dbh in the project area provide suitable habitat for
NLEB. Due to the decline of the NLEB population from the White Nose Syndrome, USFWS has issued the
finalization of a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA to addresses the effects to the NLEB resulting
from purposeful and incidental take based on the occurrence of WNS. Because the project is located
within a WNS zone and will include the removal/clearing of trees, it is subject to the final 4(d) ruling. A
review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP records did not indicate any known NLEB
populations within 2.0 mile of the study area; therefore, the project is eligible to use the NLEB 4(d) Rule
Streamlined Consultation Form to meet regulatory requirements for section 7(a)(2) compliance 4(d)
consultation.
To meet regulatory requirements, a letter requesting comment from the USFWS was sent on July 11,
2018. No response from the USFWS was received within the 30-day response period. Therefore, the
signing of the NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form by the FHWA determines that this project
may affect the NLEB, but that any resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d)
rule. Due to the absence of the species, the project has been determined by Wildlands to "to may affect
but not likely to adversely affect" the bog turtle; however, it is listed as threatened due to similarity of
appearance and as such is not subject to Section 7 consultation. The rusty -patched bumble bee in
Wilkes County is listed as endangered from "historic" records. The species was last seen in the county
more than 50 years ago. The project is 160 miles from the nearest High Potential Zone (HPZ). The HPZ is
determined by USFWS to be the area where the presence of the species should be presumed for ESA
Section 7 purposes. Therefore, Wildlands has determined the project will have "no effect: on the rusty -
patched bumble bee. A FHWA signed 4(d) consultation form and the correspondence associated with
this determination are included in the Appendix.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
The FPPA requires that, before taking or approving any federal action that would result in conversion of
farmland, the agency must examine the effects of the action using the criteria set forth in the FPPA, and,
if there are adverse effects, must consider alternatives to lessen them.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD-1006
has been completed and submitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The
completed form and correspondence documenting its submittal is included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and the appropriate state wildlife agency on projects
that alter or modify a water body. Reports and recommendations prepared by these agencies document

project effects on wildlife and identify measures that may be adopted to prevent loss or damage to
wildlife resources.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site includes stream restoration. Wildlands requested comment on the
project from both the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on July
11, 2018. NCWRC responded on August 7, 2018 and had no objections to the project. At this time,
Wildlands has not received a response from USFWS. All correspondence with the two agencies is
included in the Appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or
export any migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by
the MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a taking.
Wildlands requested comment on the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site from the USFWS regarding
migratory birds on July 11, 2018. At this time, Wildlands has not received a response from the USFWS.
All correspondence with USFWS is included in the Appendix.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
APPENDIX
Regulatory Correspondence
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
July 11, 2018
Renee Gledhill -Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site.
A Site Map and USGS Topographic Map with approximate project areas are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The
project will include stream restoration on Big Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed tributaries to Big
Bugaboo Creek, which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim Pond will also be
removed as part of the restoration process. The site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use.
There are no existing structures within the project area. Furthermore, no archeological artifacts have
been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning the project.
Sincerely,
Lcfr:cr,cr:'
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton 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
August 16, 2018
Carolyn Lanza
Wildlands Engineering
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Re: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site, Wilkes County, ER 18-1614
Dear Ms. Lanza:
Thank you for your letter of July 11, 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
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
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
August 15, 2018
Mr. Russell Townsend
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
PO Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Townsend,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. A USGS
Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream
channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project will
include stream restoration and enhancement on Big Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed tributaries to Big Bugaboo
Creek, which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim Pond will also be removed as part of
the restoration process. The site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
cc: via email
Ms. Holly Austin, Federal Cultural Resource Law Liaison, EBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Mr. Donnie Brew, Federal Highway Administration
Mr. Matthew Reid, Division of Mitigation Services
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
CNGINEERING
October 5, 2018
Ms. Sheila Bird
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
PO Box 746
Tahlequah, OK 74465
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Bird,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. A USGS
Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream
channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project will
include stream restoration and enhancement on Big Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed tributaries to Big Bugaboo
Creek, which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim Pond will also be removed as part of
the restoration process. The site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea Eckardt
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
CNGINEERING
October 5, 2018
Ms. Elizabeth Toombs
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Cherokee Nation
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Toombs,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. A USGS
Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream
channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project will
include stream restoration and enhancement on Big Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed tributaries to Big Bugaboo
Creek, which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim Pond will also be removed as part of
the restoration process. The site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea Eckardt
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

Andrea Eckardt
From: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 3:31 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt
Subject: RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
Good Afternoon, Ms. Eckardt:
Many thanks for the follow-up email. While Wilkes County is within Cherokee Nation's Area of Interest, both the Bug
Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites are outside the Cherokee Nation's Area of Interest. Thus, this Office
respectfully defers to federally recognized Tribes that have an interest in this landbase.
Many thanks for the opportunity to comment upon this proposed undertaking. Please contact me if there are any
questions or concerns.
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918.453.5389
From: Andrea Eckardt [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 1:05 PM
To: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Subject: <EXTERNAL> RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
Elizabeth -
We spoke yesterday about where to email the correspondence for Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills. I just thought it
might be easier if I sent an email so you would have the email address to reply to.
Have a great weekend,
Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
From: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:49 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
Thanks so much, Ms. Eckardt.
Wado,
i

Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918.453.5389
From: Andrea Eckardt [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:23 AM
To: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Subject: <EXTERNAL> RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
The contact is Donnie Brew. Below is his contact information.
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
From: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:20 AM
To: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
Many thanks for the details, Ms. Eckardt. To follow-up, who is your contact for FHWA, North Carolina division?
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918.453.5389
From: Andrea Eckardt [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:17 AM
To: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Subject: <EXTERNAL> RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
This is a NC Division of Mitigation Services project, so we are working on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration in
this case.

Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
From: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 6:00 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
Good Afternoon, Ms. Eckardt:
This Office recently received two review requests for Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites, and I have a
follow-up question. Is Wildlands Engineering working on behalf of a federal agency or grant program?
Many thanks for your time and any clarification.
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918.453.5389

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
July 11, 2018
Marella Buncick
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Buncick,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds, or other trust resources associated
with the proposed Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. A USGS Topographic Map and an Overview
Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was
prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as
significantly degraded. The project will include stream restoration and enhancement on Big
Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed tributaries to Big Bugaboo Creek, which eventually drains to
the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim Pond will also be removed as part of the restoration
process. The site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use.
According to your website (https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/wilkes.html) the
threatened or endangered species for Wilkes County are: the bog turtle (Glyptemys
muhlenbergii), Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and the rusty -patched bumble
bee (bombus affinis). If we have not heard from you in 30 days, we will assume that you do not
have any comments regarding associated laws and that you do not have any information
relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra-Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance:
YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone'?
❑
❑X
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency' to determine if your project is near
©
❑
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑X
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
❑
hibernaculum?
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
❑
❑X
any time of ear?
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
❑
other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question #1 or yes to question #2 and no to
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the
BO.
Agency and Applicant3 (Name, Email, Phone No.):
Carolyn Lanza, clanza@wildlandseng com, 919-851-9986 ext 113
Donnie Brew, [e-mail], 919-747-7017
Project Name: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Project Location (include coordinates if known): 36°19'24.7"N 80°58'59.0"W
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Bug Headwaters mitigation site is a stream mitigation project located approximately 9 miles northwest of Elkin and 5.5
miles South of Roaring Gap in Wilkes County. The site is located on three parcels by two different families and is used for
agriculture (primarily livestock production). The project includes Big Bugaboo Creek and 5 unnamed tributaries for a total of
8,375 linear feet of stream. The project will provide stream mitigation units to the Division of Mitigation Services in the
i http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
'See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nhisites.html
s If applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation.

Yadkin River Basin (03040101). Construction of the stream restoration project will include sonic tree removal (>3"DBH) —
approximately 2.10 acres.
General Project Information
YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculurn?
❑
E
Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree?
❑
E
Does the project include forest conversion"? (if yes, report acreage below)
E
❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
2.10 ac
If known, estimated acres] of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
2.10 ac
If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 31'
Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
E
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to duly 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from .tune I to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines'? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑
Estimated wind ca acit (MW)
Agency Determination:
By signing this form, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any
resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from Submittal of this form, the action agency may
presume that its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project
responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5,
2016, Programmatic BO. The action agency will update this determination annually for multi -year
activities.
The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as
described herein. The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field
Office with the results of any surveys conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the
appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding a dead, injured, or sick NLEB.
Signature: � � rl / ��Date Submitted: 1 — GQ —)y
"Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, training, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO).
5 If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than O} I acre.
I If the activity includes tree clearing is June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.

From:Brew, Donnie (FHWA)
To:[e-mail]
Cc:Reid, Matthew;Carolyn Lanza;Andrea Eckardt
Subject:Bug Headwaters site DMS_mitigation project_Wilkes County_NLEB 4(d) rule consultation
Date:Friday, September 21, 2018 3:34:50 PM
Attachments:NLEB 4(d) rule streamlined consultation form Bug Headwaters site 9-20-18.pdf
Fig1_Site Map.pdf
Fig2_USGS_Bug.pdf
Good afternoon Marella,
The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined
consultation framework for the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site in Wilkes County, NC.

Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form, as well as site
maps/figures.

Thank you and have a great weekend,

Donnie

Notifying the Service Under the Framework
Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation
Form
Federal agencies (or designated non-federal representatives) should use the Northern
Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form to notify the Service of their
project and meet the requirements of the framework.
Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form (Word document)
Information requested in the Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined
Consultation Form serves to
(1) notify the field office that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework;
(2) describe the project with sufficient detail to support the required
determination; and
(3) enable the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of
consultation for the 4(d) rule is required. This form requests the minimum
amount of information required for the Service to be able to track this
information.
Providing information in the Streamlined Consultation Form does not address section
7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017
***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County And State
PART II Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Major Crop Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
Yes No
Acres: % %Acres:
PART III Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B.Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C.Total Acres In Site
PART IV Land Evaluation Information
A.Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B.Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C.Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D.Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted
PART VI
Site Assessment Criteria
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2.Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3.Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4.Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5.Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6.Distance To Urban Support Services
7.Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8.Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9.Availability Of Farm Support Services
10.On-Farm Investments
11.Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12.Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII
Relative Value Of Farmland 100
Total Site Assessment 160
TOTAL POINTS 260
Site Selected:Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes No
Reason For Selection:
Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff
From:Carolyn Lanza
To:"Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC"
Subject:RE: AD1006 Form - Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site - Wilkes County, NC
Date:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 7:00:00 AM
Attachments:Bug Headwaters AD1006.pdf
image001.png
Milton,
Attached is the completed Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Bug Headwaters Stream
Mitigation Site for your files.
Thank you for your help,
Carolyn Lanza | Environmental Scientist
O: 919.851.9986 x113 M: 313.969.7318

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:47 PM
To: Carolyn Lanza <[e-mail]>
Subject: AD1006 Form - Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site - Wilkes County, NC
Importance: High
Carolyn;
Please, find attached the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating evaluation for Bug Headwaters Stream
Mitigation Site.
Pease let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Best Regards;
Milton Cortes
Acting State Soil Scientist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
From: Carolyn Lanza [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 11:05 AM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for AD1006 Form - Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site - Wilkes County, NC
Milton,
I have a request for a completed AD-1006 form for a NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
stream restoration project (Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site) located in Wilkes County. Please find a
Soils Map attached in addition to the AD-1006 form with Parts I and III filled out. The soil breakdown
is included on the Soils Map.
Thank you for your assistance and please let me know if you need any additional information.
Carolyn Lanza | Environmental Scientist
O: 919.851.9986 x113 M: 313.969.7318

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended
recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information
it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
July 11, 2018
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. A
USGS Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed.
The topographic figure was prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The
project will include stream restoration and enhancement on Big Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed
tributaries to Big Bugaboo Creek, which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim
Pond will also be removed as part of the restoration process. The site has historically been disturbed
due to livestock use.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
L4f� 4"n-1
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

Mailing Address:
Telephone:Fax:

Appendix 5

MEETING NOTES
MEETING: IRT Site Walk 
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site 
Yadkin 03040101; Wilkes County, NC 
DEQ Contract No. 7617 
DMS Project No. 100084 
Wildlands Project No. 005‐02176 
DATE: Wednesday, September 26, 2018  
LOCATION: King Billings Road 
Traphill, NC 
Attendees 
Todd Tugwell, USACE 
Todd Bowers, USEPA 
Mac Haupt, DWR 
Paul Wiesner, DMS 
Matthew Reid, DMS 
Kirsten Ullman, DMS 
Periann Russell, DMS 
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands 
Jeff Keaton, Wildlands  
Materials 
Wildlands Engineering Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Technical Proposal dated March 28, 2018 (in
response to RFP #16‐007406)
Meeting Notes 
Shawn Wilkerson of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) led the group on a tour of the proposed mitigation 
site on September 26, 2018.  The purpose of the tour was to present the site to a group of IRT members and to 
get input into the management/mitigation options proposed for the site. During the tour, the group discussed 
the approaches proposed by Wildlands and the design options they felt would be most appropriate to enhance 
and restore the streams on the site.   
1.UT2
The tour began with UT2 Reach 2. There was a considerable amount of discussion on the
appropriate approach for this reach.  Todd raised concerns about raising the bed for Priority 1
restoration while Mac said that he did not have a problem with the proposed restoration
approach.  Shawn suggested beginning the reach with restoration, tying into some existing
bedrock features, and then transitioning back to a Priority 1 below the bedrock. The plan is to
move forward with restoration of this reach with possibly a short section of E1 at the bedrock
section.
There is also a short tributary to Reach 2 where Wildlands proposed to put a BMP.  Several
members of the group commented that much of that channel now appears to be jurisdictional.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 2 
BUG HEADWATERS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
Shawn indicated that when the site assessment was done, this channel had been called 
ephemeral.  Given this situation, the group agreed that the best approach would be to buffer 
the wetland pocket, stabilize side slopes of the pocket wetland and complete fence out cattle 
and plant the small tributary for E2 credit. This reach will be referred to as UT2B. 
 Next the group looked at UT2 Reach 1. Shawn explained that this reach, which was originally 
proposed for enhancement 2, is not as incised and is in a steeper, colluvial valley.  Mac stated 
that he sees work that needs to be done and that he could see this reach being more 
enhancement 1 rather than enhancement 2.  Todd said that he didn’t see a lot of difference 
between Reach 1 and Reach 2 and seemed to agree that enhancement 1 might be more 
appropriate.  There is also a BMP proposed for the top of this reach that would likely be an 
ephemeral step pool conveyance. Wildlands agreed to look at this reach in more detail before 
deciding the level of intervention but that E1 maybe appropriate. 
2. UT2A 
 The next stream the group looked at was UT2A which is a small tributary that flows into UT2.  
This reach was proposed as enhancement 1 and was intended to be a mix of enhancement 2 
approaches and some sections of restoration with an overall ratio of 1.5:1.  Mac said that he 
thought the degree of intervention on this reach would support a restoration approach.  Todd 
agreed.  Wildlands commented that due to the headwater nature of the stream, that we didn’t 
want to push on the ratios substantially but if a full restoration approach appeared necessary, 
that 1:1 credit proposal will be considered, and would be presented in the mitigation plan.  
There is a BMP proposed for the upstream end of this reach.  Todd said to make sure that BMPs 
are not built in wetlands at headwaters or on a jurisdictional part of the stream.  He said that he 
doesn’t think a BMP would be necessary for this reach since the existing wetland is functioning 
as a BMP.  In this case, protecting the wetland with the conservation easement and starting the 
stream work below the wetland would be ideal.  Wildlands agreed to this approach. 
3. UT1 
 Next Shawn showed the group a small headwaters stream called UT1 that has been badly 
trampled by cattle.  The stream is in very bad condition and the group agreed that restoration is 
the best mitigation approach.  Some side channels have formed from cattle wallowing and 
Shawn indicated that those would be plugged to prevent draining adjacent wetlands but 
probably not filled.  The conservation easement around this tributary will be extra wide to 
protect adjacent wetland areas.  There is a BMP proposed at the upstream end. 
4. Big Bugaboo Creek 
 The review of Big Bugaboo Creek began with Reach 1 which is adjacent to UT1.  This reach is in 
similar condition to UT1 and the group agreed that restoration of this reach is appropriate.  
There is a BMP proposed at the upstream end.  Todd said that for all BMPs, before the BMPs are 
designed, jurisdictional determinations must be completed to ensure that the BMPs will be 
installed above the jurisdictional extents of the reaches. 
 The next reach reviewed was Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 which extends from the confluence of 
Reach 1 and UT1 to just upstream of the existing pond called Wood Pond. This reach is less 
incised, less impacted by cattle, and has less erosion on the banks. The proposed approach for 
this reach is enhancement 2 and Mac and Todd again pointed out that an E1 approach could be 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 3 
BUG HEADWATERS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
appropriate.  Shawn pointed out that there is a crossing near the bottom of Reach 2 that will 
cross both Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 2.  Wildlands will consider an E1 approach and will justify in 
the mitigation plan. 
 Big Bugaboo Reach 3 begins just above the pond, continues through the Wood Pond, and then 
continues for several hundred feet downstream of the pond to the confluence with UT3.  The 
dam will be removed and the stream will be restored through the pond bed with excess 
sediment removed.  The section below the pond transitions from being narrow and incised to 
being overwide with a thalweg channel moving through sediment and aquatic vegetation.  There 
was some discussion about the approach along the over‐wide section, however after more 
closely considered, it was agreed that the restoration was the best approach.  There is a crossing 
planned near the downstream end of Reach 3. 
 Big Bugaboo Reach 4 extends from the confluence of Big Bugaboo and UT3 to the southern 
property boundary (approximately.  This reach is significantly larger and appears to have been 
channelized. The channel is extensively eroded and somewhat incised, with both fluvial erosion 
and cattle trampling present on both banks. Mass wasting is occurring in some locations.  This 
reach was proposed as restoration.  There is a fairly large wetland area on the left floodplain 
that is partially wooded but severely trampled by cattle.  Shawn said that the conservation 
easement will encompass this wetland.  There was some discussion about the amount of room 
needed for a meandering channel considering the adjacent wetland and the need for full 
restoration of this reach.  After further consideration, Wildlands has changed the proposed 
approach to enhancement 1 for this reach.  This work will involve building an meandering offline 
channel to tie into the upstream restoration and then transitioning to an online channel at the 
existing bed grade with a floodplain bench to tie into the downstream end of the project.  The 
online channel banks will be stabilized.   
5. UT3 
 The last stream that the group toured was UT3.  This stream begins above a small pond (called 
the Swaim Pond) on an adjacent property.  Shawn explained that the restoration of this reach 
would begin with the removal of the pond and that the landowner did not want the section 
above the pond to be put into easement.  In addition, the section above the pond is not eroded 
and that landowner does not graze cattle on the property.  The restoration will extend down to 
the confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek.  Shawn explained that the dam is failing, and the pond 
needs to be removed.  He also explained that there is a small section on the stream downstream 
of the pond where a landowner on the right side of the stream owns a small access route to the 
stream and this landowner would not sell an easement on this very short section.  Shawn said 
the easement on the left, which is on the Wood property, should continue through this section, 
even though it is not shown on the map, so that only one side of the stream would not be under 
easement.  Shawn said that Wildlands has an agreement with the non‐participating landowner 
that work can be done to the stream to restore it.  The group agreed that restoration would be 
the correct approach for this reach.  Todd also asked that a small wetland swale on the left 
floodplain be captured and included in the easement and Shawn said that it would be. 
The approaches and ratios described above were agreed upon at this IRT field visit and will be utilized during the project 
design.   Wildlands and DMS understand that the final design approach and crediting rationale must be justified in the 
Mitigation Plan.  A revised asset table with updated approaches and agreed upon credit ratios is shown below.  A revised 
concept map showing the updated approaches for each project reach is attached.     

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 4 
BUG HEADWATERS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
These meeting minutes were prepared by Jeff Keaton October1, 2018 and reviewed by Shawn Wilkerson on October 4, 2018 
and represent the authors’ interpretation of events. 

Stream Credits proposed for the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site – Revised 
Stream Credits 
Reach Management Objectives Type of 
Mitigation 
Length 
(feet)1 Ratio Stream 
Credits  
RESTORATION 
Big 
Bugaboo 
Creek – 
Reach 1 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. Install 
habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Enhance 
native riparian buffer, exclude cattle with fencing. 
Restoration  863  1:1  863 
Big 
Bugaboo 
Creek – 
Reach 3  
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. Install 
habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish 
native riparian buffer, exclude future cattle with fencing. 
Treat invasives. 
Restoration  1,750  1:1  1,750 
UT1 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. Install 
habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish 
native riparian buffer, exclude future cattle with fencing. 
Restoration  220  1:1  220 
UT2 Reach 
2 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. This 
reach includes a 150 ft. section of EI to tie into existing 
bedrock.  Install habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain 
access. Establish native riparian buffer, exclude future cattle 
with fencing. Treat invasives. 
Restoration 
(150 ft. of EI) 1,532 1:1 
(1.5:1 for EI) 1,482 
UT3 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. Install 
habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish 
native riparian buffer, exclude future cattle with fencing. 
Restoration  1,400  1:1  1,400 
Restoration Subtotal  5,765    5,715 
ENHANCEMENT I 
UT2 Reach 
1 
Perform minor bank grading where necessary. Establish 
native riparian buffer, exclude future cattle with fencing. 
Treat invasives. 
Enhancement I  665  1.5:1  443 
UT2A 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile in areas 
where stream is heavily impacted. Use lighter intervention 
mainly consisting of minor bank grading in areas where 
stream is more stable. Install habitat structures, allow 
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native riparian buffer, 
exclude future cattle with fencing. Treat invasives.  
Enhancement I   517  1.5:1  345 
Big 
Bugaboo 
Creek – 
Reach 2  
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile in areas 
where stream is heavily impacted. Use lighter intervention 
mainly consisting of minor bank grading in areas where 
stream is more stable. Install habitat structures, allow 
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native riparian buffer, 
exclude future cattle with fencing. Treat invasives.  
Enhancement I  990  1.5:1  660 
Big 
Bugaboo 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile at 
upstream end and transition down to existing bed grade with 
an online channel with floodplain bench.  Install habitat 
Enhancement I  438  1.5:1  292 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 5 
BUG HEADWATERS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
Stream Credits 
Reach Management Objectives Type of 
Mitigation 
Length 
(feet)1 Ratio Stream 
Credits  
Creek – 
Reach 4  
structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish native 
riparian buffer, exclude future cattle with fencing. Treat 
invasives. 
Enhancement I Subtotal   2,610    1,740 
ENHANCEMENT II 
UT2B Establish native woody riparian buffer, exclude cattle, and 
protect headwater wetland. Enhancement II  168  2.5:1  67 
Enhancement I Subtotal  168    67 
Project Total  8,543 LF  ‐ ‐ ‐  
7,522 
Cool 
Stream 
Credits 

UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach 2
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1
Easement to Encompass Wetland
UT3 UT1UT2AUT
2
Big Bugaboo CreekBig Bugaboo CreekBig Bugaboo CreekUT3 UT2Pond To Be Removed
Pond To Be Removed
UT2B
Easement to Encompass Wetland
Easement to Encompass Wetland
14601440142014801
3
8
0
1520
1360 1540152013801 4 4 01380 1 5 2 0
¬«4
¬«2 ¬«1
¬«3
Figure 6 Conceptual PlanBug Headwaters Mitigatio n SiteYadkin Basin (03040 101)
0 300 600150 Feet
Wilkes County, NC¹Project Location
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossings
Utility Easement
Adjacent Parcels
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project Stream
Overhead Power Lines
Topographic Contour (4')
!(Utility Poles
!(Reach Breaks
^_BMPs
2014 Aerial Photography

Appendix 6

min max min max min max min max min max
stream type ‐‐
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross‐
sectional area Abkf SF
average velocity 
during bankfull event vbkf fps
width at bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth at 
bankfull dmax feet
mean depth at 
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width to 
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf ‐
low bank height ‐feet
bank height ratio BHR ‐
floodprone area 
width wfpa feet
entrenchment ratio ER ‐
max pool depth at 
bankfull dpool feet
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf ‐
pool width at bankfull wpool feet
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf ‐
bankfull pool cross‐
sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf ‐
pool‐pool spacing p‐p feet 18 93 22 153 84 65 53 84
pool‐pool spacing 
ratio p‐p/Wbkf ‐1.6 8.2 5.2 36.4 14.0 10.8 2.8 4.5
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schannel feet/foot
sinuosity K ‐
belt width wblt feet 9 111824
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf ‐1.5 1.8 1.0 1.3
meander length Lm feet 23 57 25 93
meander length ratio Lm/wbkf ‐3.8 9.5 1.3 5.0
linear wavelength LW ‐25 55 23 78
linear wavelength 
ratio LW/wbkf ‐4.2 9.2 1.2 4.2
radius of curvature Rc feet 9 411045
radius of curvature 
ratio Rc/ wbkf ‐1.5 6.8 0.5 2.4
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
UnitsNotation
0.12 0.50
B4
Parameter
0.06
B4 F4
0.0216
0.31
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
‐
‐‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
0.0228
1.07
16
Big Bugaboo Creek 
Reach 1
Big Bugaboo Creek 
Reach 2
Big Bugaboo Creek 
Reach 3
Big Bugaboo Creek 
Reach 4 UT1
3.4
4.2
36.3
14
1.2
2
3.3
0.5
B4F4b
0.4
0.5
11.6
2.5
2.2
2.7
0.01
4.2
2.7
1.8
0.3
11.3
3.5
3.1
0.6
1.5
1.4 0.8
5.0
0.0215
0.2
50.7
0.0165
5.4
0.8
24.6
2.6
920
1.7
4.7 9.1
0.6
7.6 10.0
0.0362
1.1
‐
‐
1.2
1.01
0.3
0.0350
14.1
3.9
18.6
1.01
0.4
3.3
6.6
5.3
6.0
1.7
1.5
5.7
1.0
0.0230
1.2
1.03
0.0160
2.6
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.04
0.0350
0.0330
2.9
0.8
4.9
0.4
0.9
3.0
1.1
5.4
3.7
1.5
3.2
23
1.2
0.8
1.1
5.3
1.7
1.6
3.9
min max min max min max min max min max
stream type ‐‐
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross‐
sectional area Abkf SF
average velocity 
during bankfull event vbkf fps
width at bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth at 
bankfull dmax feet
mean depth at 
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width to 
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf ‐
low bank height ‐feet
bank height ratio BHR ‐
floodprone area 
width wfpa feet
entrenchment ratio ER ‐
max pool depth at 
bankfull dpool feet
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf ‐
pool width at bankfull wpool feet
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf ‐
bankfull pool cross‐
sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf ‐
pool‐pool spacing p‐p feet 15 130 15 59 36 152 18 284 18 71
pool‐pool spacing 
ratio p‐p/Wbkf ‐1.6 14.0 1.6 6.3 3.9 16.3 3.9 61.7 2.7 10.8
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schannel feet/foot
sinuosity K ‐
belt width wblt feet 815
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf ‐1.2 2.3
meander length Lm feet 18 61
meander length ratio Lm/wbkf ‐2.7 9.2
linear wavelength LW ‐14 29
linear wavelength 
ratio LW/wbkf ‐2.1 4.4
radius of curvature Rc feet 528
radius of curvature 
ratio Rc/ wbkf ‐0.8 4.2
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
B4
UT2 Reach 4
1.07
0.0369
0.0338
2.0
8
1.1
10
4.0
1.6
1.3
12
3.4
3.1
23
0.4
0.9
9
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
UT2 Reach 3
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
2
3.8
5
0.7
0.5
10
1
1.4
0.4
4
0.052
1.1
9
1.8
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
0.054
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
0.0293 0.0220 0.0510
1.05
‐
‐
‐
0.0199
0.0270 0.0200 0.0490 0.0199
1.01 1.04 1.04
427
1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2
4
436
1.0 0.5 0.7 0.9
1.2 0.9 1.4
2.0 3.0 2.3 1.8
9
0.8
12 12 9
1.3 1.3 2.5 1.4
3.1 3.1 2.2
3.4 3.4 4.8 2.1
12
3.1
0.4 0.4 0.8
23 23 11 8
957
0.9 0.9 0.6 1.1
9
425
3.4 3.4 4.4 4.1
F4b A4 G4
0.07 0.10 0.03 0.15
B4
3.4
4
0.070.03
Parameter Notation Units
UT2 Reach 2
B4
UT2 Reach 5 UT2A UT3
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs 12.4 20.4 34.0 48.3 3.9
bankfull cross‐
sectional area Abkf SF 3.3 6.0 8.2 10.3 1.4
average velocity 
during bankfull event vbkf fps 3.8 3.6 4.2 4.7 2.9
width at bankfull wbkf feet 6.5 9.0 10.4 11.8 4.2
maximum depth at 
bankfull dmax feet 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.30 0.5
mean depth at 
bankfull dbkf feet 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.3
bankfull width to 
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 13.0 13.5 13.0 14.0 13.0
max depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
bank height ratio BHR ‐‐1.0 ‐‐
floodprone area 
width wfpa feet ‐814 ‐11 20 ‐23 52 ‐26 59 ‐59
entrenchment ratio ER ‐1.2 2.2 ‐1.2 2.2 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐1.2 2.2
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schnl feet/foot ‐0.0315 0.0346 ‐0.0196 0.0216 ‐0.0173 0.0189 ‐0.0127 0.0138 ‐0.0329 0.0362
riffle slope Sriffle feet/foot ‐0.0377 0.062 ‐0.0236 0.039 ‐0.0225 0.057 ‐0.0165 0.0413 ‐0.0395 0.065
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl ‐1.2 1.8 ‐1.2 1.8 ‐1.3 3.0 ‐1.3 3.0 ‐1.2 1.8
pool slope Sp feet/foot ‐0.000 0.1380 ‐0.000 0.0086 ‐0.000 0.0151 ‐0.000 0.0113 ‐0.000 0.0145
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl ‐0.00 0.40 ‐0.00 0.40 ‐0.0 0.80 ‐0.0 0.80 ‐0.0 0.40
pool‐pool spacing Lp‐p feet ‐9 32.5 ‐12.6 45 ‐31.0 58.0 ‐35 66 ‐5.88 21
pool spacing ratio Lp‐p/wbkf ‐1.4 5.0 ‐1.4 5.0 ‐3.0 5.6 ‐3.0 5.6 ‐1.4 5.0
pool cross‐sectional 
area Apool SF ‐6.6 9.8 ‐12.0 18.0 ‐18.8 24.5 ‐23.6 30.8 ‐2.7 4.1
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf ‐2.0 3.0 ‐2.0 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0 ‐2.0 3.0
maximum pool depth dpool feet ‐1.0 1.8 ‐1.3 2.3 ‐2.4 3.1 ‐2.6 3.5 ‐0.6 1.1
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf ‐2.0 3.5 ‐2.0 3.5 ‐3.0 4.0 ‐3.0 4.0 ‐2.0 3.5
pool width at 
bankfull wpool feet ‐7.8 9.1 ‐10.8 12.6 ‐12.5 15.6 ‐14.2 17.7 ‐5.0 5.9
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf ‐1.2 1.4 ‐1.2 1.4 ‐1.2 1.5 ‐1.2 1.5 ‐1.2 1.4
sinuosity K ‐ ‐‐‐‐
belt width wblt feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐26 83 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2.5 8.0 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
linear wavelength 
(formerly meander 
length)
LW feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐51 114 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
linear wavelength 
ratio (formerly 
meander length 
ratio)
LW/wbkf ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5.0 11.0 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
meander length Lm feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐57 137 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5.5 13.2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
radius of curvature Rc feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐21 44 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
radius of curvature 
ratio Rc/ wbkf ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2.0 4.2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐
‐
1.0
0.0208
‐
‐
1.0
‐
‐
1.02 1.02 1.16
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4UT1
C4 B4
0.50 0.01
‐
‐‐‐
0.0346 0.0216
1.02 1.00
1.0 1.0
‐
‐
0.0165 0.036
‐‐
‐‐
Parameter Notation Units
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2
B4 B4
‐‐
C4
0.06 0.12 0.31
‐‐
‐‐
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3
‐
‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐
‐
‐‐
Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs 7.2 14.6 14.6 18.8 7.3 24.6
bankfull cross‐
sectional area Abkf SF 2.1 3.8 3.8 5.5 2.0 6.8
average velocity 
during bankfull event vbkf fps 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.7
width at bankfull wbkf feet 5.3 7.1 7.1 8.8 5.1 9.5
maximum depth at 
bankfull dmax feet 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.60 1.1
mean depth at 
bankfull dbkf feet 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.7
bankfull width to 
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 13.0 13.0 13.0 14.0 13.0 13.0
max depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
bank height ratio BHR ‐ ‐‐‐‐1.0
floodprone area 
width wfpa feet ‐612 ‐16 36 ‐16 36 ‐19 44 ‐611 ‐21 48
entrenchment ratio ER ‐1.2 2.2 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐1.3 2.2 ‐2.2 5.0
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schnl feet/foot ‐0.0493 0.0542 ‐0.0244 0.0266 ‐0.0282 0.0307 ‐0.0183 0.0200 ‐0.0454 0.0514 ‐0.0142 0.0154
riffle slope Sriffle feet/foot ‐0.0591 0.098 ‐0.0317 0.059 ‐0.0366 0.068 ‐0.0238 0.060 ‐0.0561 0.093 ‐0.0185 0.046
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl ‐1.2 1.8 ‐1.3 2.2 ‐1.3 2.2 ‐1.3 3.0 ‐1.2 1.8 ‐1.3 3.0
pool slope Sp feet/foot ‐0.000 0.0217 ‐0.000 0.0107 ‐0.000 0.0123 ‐0.000 0.0080 ‐0.000 0.0925 ‐0.000 0.0062
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl ‐0.00 0.40 ‐0.00 0.40 ‐0.00 0.40 ‐0.0 0.40 ‐0.0 0.40 ‐0.0 0.40
pool‐pool spacing Lp‐p feet ‐727 ‐21 36 ‐21 36 ‐26.0 45.0 ‐726 ‐29 48
pool spacing ratio Lp‐p/wbkf ‐1.4 5.0 ‐3.0 5.1 ‐3.0 5.1 ‐3.0 5.1 ‐1.4 5.0 ‐3.0 5.1
pool cross‐sectional 
area Apool SF ‐4.2 6.3 ‐8.6 11.3 ‐8.6 11.3 ‐12.6 16.5 ‐4.0 5.9 ‐15.7 20.5
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf ‐2.0 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0 ‐2.0 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0
maximum pool depth dpool feet ‐0.8 1.4 ‐1.6 2.1 ‐1.6 2.1 ‐1.9 2.5 ‐8.0 1.4 ‐2.2 2.9
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf ‐2.0 3.5 ‐3.0 4.0 ‐3.0 4.0 ‐3.0 4.0 ‐2.0 3.5 ‐3.0 4.0
pool width at bankfull wpool feet ‐6.4 7.4 ‐8.5 10.7 ‐8.5 10.7 ‐10.6 13.2 ‐6.1 7.1 ‐11.4 14.3
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf ‐1.2 1.4 ‐1.2 1.5 ‐1.2 1.5 ‐1.2 1.5 ‐1.2 1.4 ‐1.2 1.5
sinuosity K ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
belt width wblt feet ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐26 70 ‐‐‐‐24 76
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐3.0 8.0 ‐‐‐‐2.5 8.0
linear wavelength 
(formerly meander 
length)
LW feet ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐44 97 ‐‐‐‐48 105
linear wavelength 
ratio (formerly 
meander length 
ratio)
LW/wbkf ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5.0 11.0 ‐‐‐‐5.0 11.0
meander length Lm feet ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐48 116 ‐‐‐‐57 136
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5.5 13.2 ‐‐‐‐6.0 14.3
radius of curvature Rc feet ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐17 26 ‐‐‐‐18 29
radius of curvature 
ratio Rc/ wbkf ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐1.9 3.0 ‐‐‐‐1.9 3.0
0.0540 0.0293 0.0220 0.0514 0.019
1.00 1.04 1.06 1.03 1.21
0.0338
1.07
‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐
1.0
‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐
‐
C4b
0.03 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.15
B4 B4 C4b B4aB4
0.07
‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐
‐
Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
Parameter Notation Units
UT2 Reach 2UT2 Reach 3UT2 Reach 5 UT2A UT3UT2 Reach 4

Appendix 7

Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as-built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary DA
authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided
written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of
the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if
performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release
schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be
released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended,
depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release
of project credits will be subject to the criteria described in the table below.
For ILF sites (including all NCDMS projects), no initial release of credits (Milestone 1) is provided because
ILF programs utilized advance credits, so no initial release is necessary to help fund site construction. To
account for this, the 15% credit release associated with the first milestone (bank establishment) is held
until the second milestone, so that the total credits release at the second milestone is 30%. In order for
NCDMS to receive the 30% release (shown in the schedules as Milestone 2), they must comply with the
credit release requirements stated in Section IV(I)(3) of the approved NCDMS Instrument.
The following conditions apply to the credit release schedules:

A. A reserve of 10% of a site’s total stream credits will be released after four bankfull events have
occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards
are met. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period,
release of these reserve credits is at the discretion of the NCIRT.

B. For mitigation banks, implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan must be initiated no later
than the first full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (credit sale).

C. After the second milestone, the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis,
assuming that the annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance with
Section IV (General Monitoring Requirements) of this document, and that the monitoring report
demonstrates that interim performance standards are being met and that no other concerns
have been identified on-site during the visual monitoring. All credit releases require written
approval from the USACE.

D. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a
determination by the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined in
the Mitigation Plan.
Credit Release Schedule – Stream Credits
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated above) 0% 0%
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan 30% 30%
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 40%
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
standards have been met
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 10% 50%
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 10% 60%
6 Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 5% 65%
(75%**)
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 15% 75%
(85%**)
8* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 5% 80%
(90**)
9 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 10% 90%
(100**)
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring
years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull ev ent performance standard has been met.

Appendix 8

Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed in Table 1. This area totals 22.2 acres. The deed book and page number
listed are for the agreements on an option to purchase a conservation easement. A conservation
easement will be recorded on the parcels and includes streams being restored along with their
corresponding riparian buffers.
Table 1: Site Protection Instrument
Property Owner Parcel ID Number County Site Protection
Instrument
Memorandum of Option Deed
Book (DB) and Page Number
(PG)
Horace Randle
Wood 4914-42-2297 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106
Horace Randle
Wood 4914-51-6430 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106
Horace Randle
Wood 4914-62-7075 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106
Horace Randle
Wood 4914-51-2940 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106
Hilda Gaye Lyon
Swaim Life Estate
and Nathan Harold
Swaim
4914-31-4177 Wilkes CE DB: 1293, PG: 46

All site protection instruments require 60-day advance notification to the USACE and or DMS prior to
any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by
the State.

Appendix 9

Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service’s In‐Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided
the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to
satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.

Appendix 10

Maintenance Plan 
The site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a 
minimum of once per year throughout the post‐construction monitoring period until performance 
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require 
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two (2) years 
following site construction and may include the following: 
Table1: 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 
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to 
prevent bank erosion.  If beaver become active on the site, Wildlands will contract with 
the USDA to trap the beaver and remover the dams. 
Vegetation 
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted 
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include 
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species 
shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control 
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of 
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. 
Site boundary 
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the 
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, 
bollard, post, tree‐blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or 
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be 
repaired and/or replaced on an as‐needed basis.  
A
s
AUS�/�TRAPN/�� �9op/�cF2 i
R� 'PO r
c
z
SR Igzp z
0
o GHQ
i
_WNNAMED ROAD) JQ'
QL�
�P
0
JOP Z s
0
SITE F
o �
Q
Z
m
1�20
5
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
Bug Headwaters
Wilkes County, North Carolina
for
NCDENR
Division of Mitigation Services
60% SUBMITTAL
BEFORE YOU DIG!
CALL NE-CALLCEN E ISSUED MARCH 25 2020
N.C. ONE -CALL CENTER /
IT'S THE LAW!
Sheet Index
Title Sheet
0.1
Project Overview
0.2
General Notes and Symbols
0.3
Stream Plan, Profile and, Typical Sections
1.01-1.45
BMP Overview
2.00
BMP Plans
2.01-2.04
Planting Tables
3.00
Planting Overview
3.01
Erosion & Sediment Control Overview
To Be Added
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
To Be Added
Fencing Plan Overview
To Be Added
Fencing Plan
To Be Added
Details
6.01-6.09
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jeff Keaton, PE, Project Manager
Nicole Millns, PE, Project Engineer
919-851-9986
Surveying:
Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA
88 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Phillip B. Kee, PLS
828-645-8275
Owner:
DEQ NCDMS
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Attention: ???
919-707-8976
NCDEQ Contract No. 7620
DMSID No. 100085
zp
G°

A
DAVID LEE WOOD _ -
AND WIFE, AUSTIN FULL GOSPEL FELLOWSHIP
KATHY A. WOOD (LIFE ESTATE) D.B. 661, PG. 483
TERESA ANN WOOD NORMAN PIN: 4914-63-0248
D.B. 1083, PG. 276 s SYLVIA ARMES BOLES
DENNIS K. CANTER, JR
PIN:4914-53-2763 %^, D.B. 685, PG.882
. � a � � , V
D.B. 1276, PG. 325 0;0 \ %R PIN:4914-63-9787
PIN:4914-53-4051 } (S lglo
TIMOUTHY LEE BENGE o�� C R 1"S'7/zz /�
D.B. 975, PG. 29 BEGIN UT2 REACH 1 Z/ o DAVID RAY ADAMS
HOWARD WILSON I PIN: 4914-42-9942 (ENHANCEMENT II) D.q0 PINB4914, PG. 71
D.B.988
40,PG.81 �o� STA.301+O1
PIN: 4914-43-3154 A tv1 ROBNOERT L. MILLS
/ R DFE
`� JAMESANDADAMS \ JDANIET MILLS
/ \C\NG g� R IC33 / GRACE MAE ADAMS D.B. 775, PG. 432
D.B.440, PG. 386 PIN
:4914-72-3708
PIN:4914-62-8649
SURRY YADKIN EMC
BEGIN UT2A
/ 40' WIDE CORRIDOR q /A (ENHANCEMENT II) \ ,
/ I HORACE RANDLE WOOD /// OF
N STA.400+00 I TRUSTEES CH
W UT2A p, KNOBS BAPTIST CHURCH
D.B. 1156, PG. 106 a3a �I 3' °w ouE�oUe D.B. 757, PG. 107
/ (EXHIBIT"L") SURRYYADKIN EMC o�O I m W3no,�3n0 ti
/ PIN:4914-42-2297 40' WIDE CORRIDOR ° oue� PIN:4914-72-2437
/L3no
3no= —o0E 3 ° _,,35 3J END UT2A
/
/ 3no ° ouE G- ENHANCEMENT II \ KNOBS BAPTIST CHURCH
TOBY LEE SPEAKS I 3no— ono 6UE�n�E ��� 1 ( ) D.B. 339, PG. 29
AND WIFE, 3np�3f 0 �OUE� BEGIN UT2A HORACE RANDLE WOOD
/ TERESA M.SPEAKSo -300 ow OUE�oUE END UT2 REACH 1 (RESTORATION) D.B.1156,PG.106 �/ PIN:4914-72-3389
D.B.77'�`;47 —0" UE�oUE J q`�1 (ENHANCEMENT II) STA.402+10 (EXHIBIT"M")
/ PIN:4914-32=A93 BEGIN UT26 , BEGIN UT2 REACH 2 PIN:4914-72-2214
HORACE RANDLE WOOD / 1 i (RESTORATION) / — —
/ (ENHANCEMENT II) \ COMMIE LYON,
I D.B. 1156, PG. 106 / , STA.307+30 \ ��
STA. 500+25 1 l / END UT2A � I _ RAYMOND HARRIS, AND
(EXHIBIT "D')
/ PIN:4914-51-6430/ (RESTORATION) BEGIN UT1 BEGIN BIG BUGABOO CREEK J. ALBERT SPICER,
W OJ END UT2 REACH 2 STA. 406+55 (RESTORATION) REACH 1(RESTORATION) THE TRUSTEES FOR
END UT213 W '� / (RESTORATION) STA.200+63 STA.101+01
KNOBBS BAPTIST CHURCH
BEGIN UT2 REACH 3 D.B. 630, PG. 753
I (ENHANCEMENT II) (ENHANCEMENT I) / �, '\� C PIN: 4914-72-4169
BRAD PHILLIPS STA.501+93 F y
AND WIFE, /1 rp STA. 311+66 / THOMAS SHORES
END UT2 p2 HORACE RANDLE WOOD
KENNA S. PHILLIPS / �i i �JJ 1• y D.B. 1217, PG. 140
D.B. 1233, PG. 222 / REACH 3 (ENHANCEMENT I) / / `\�1 Q3 D.B. 1156, PG. 106 pIN-4914-71-4985
PIN:4914-31-1692 / BEGIN UT2 (EXHIBIT"E")
REACH 4 (RESTORATION) ^ 1 p5 1 UTS (NOT FOR CREDIT) PIN: 4914-62-7075
STA. 314+77 -1<04 _
HILDA GAYE L. SWAIM M — —
AND HUSBAND, / — — — THOMAS RAY SHORES
JERRY SWAIM / END BIG BUGABOO CREEK D.B. 1235, PG. 219
D.B. 523, PG. 660 I I i REACH 1(RESTORATION) PIN: 4914-71-4584
PIN: 4914-31-0485 N i BEGIN BIG BUGABOO CREEK
M Q REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT I) I
STA.109+69
— J HILDA GAYE SWAIM I ! / = QSO END UT1 (RESTORATION)
O
DALE G. COTHREN / D.B. 688, PG. 637 v M O , STA. 204+45
AND WIFE, PIN:4914-31-4177 rl?
KAREN E. COTHREN / / w ' \ I ^� �9 19 (/
D.B. 1202, PG. 107 \ /
PIN:4914-11-9177/ HORACE RANDLE WOOD p Q END BIG BUGABOO CREEK
D.B. 1156, PG. 106 r �� REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT I)
BEGIN UT3 (EXHIBIT "C") } BEGIN BIG BUGABOO CREEK ,
(RESTORATION) I / PIN: 4914-51-2940 r/ �fy REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
_ STA.600+00 / ti' STA.119+99 / 1
DAVID R. COTHREN 1 F WOOD POND / END UT2 / \
AND WIFE, �� I ! TO BE REMOVED } �� REACH 4 (ENHANCEMENT I) \
AMY B. COTHREN / ,� STA. 322+71
D.B. 1202, PG. 109 A / j _ �� \
} � GARY C. MESSER
PIN: 4914-20-6822 1 / �� �� �� AND WIFE,
SWAIM POND \ DONNAS. MESSER I
� TO BE REMOVED 1 / / C7P / \ D.B. 441
� •� � J PIN:491914-60-0-8868 I
O d JOHN D. SPICER
AND WIFE,
HORACE RANDLE WOOD \ I MARY C. SPICER
� \1 D.B. 1269, PG. 12
DAVID R. COTHREN 1 4 i D.B. 1156, PG. 106
I / AND WIFE, — — — tih (EXHIBIT "D" ) PIN:4913-79-1286
1 AMY B. COTHREN \UT6 (NOT FOR CREDIT) A PIN:4914-51-6430
D.B. 1224, PG. 39 \ I
\1
PIN:4914-20-7641 \ +
DEBBIE C. Q / I
D.B. 1202, PG. PG. 108 108
PIN:4914-20-4546
END BIG BUGABOO CREEK
a
REACH 3 (RESTORATION) /I
C7 M m CLYDE COTHREN HEIRS BEGIN BIG BUGABOO CREEK I N
D.B. 276, PG.442 LARRY DALE GAMBILL ii Imo, REACH 4 (ENHANCEMENT I)
j y PIN:4914-20-8247 D.B. 1078, PG. 389 ti STA.138+14 /
e PIN:4913-59-4175 END UT3 (RESTORATION)
_ 91 STA.614+82
� t.p I
BEGIN UT4 ` `�Qc 2 END UT4 (ENHANCEMENT II) RANDY SCOTT WOOD
(ENHANCEMENT II) V ��j STA. 701+30 LARRY DALE GAMBILL AND WIFE,
STA. 700+02 ti 1 D.B. 1078, PG. 389 DEBBIE C. WOOD
O PIN:4913-59-4175 D.B. 866, PG. 179
PIN:4913-59-9047 l END BIG BUGABOO CREEK — — —
REACH 4 (ENHANCEMENT I) / 0' 200' 400' 600'
STA.142+08
I (HORIZONTAL)
gni
11

General Notes
(To be included with final plans.)
Features
1Existing
r
EXISTING SPRING
UTILITY POLE
EXISTING GUY WIRE
•
EXISTING WELL
-- TB --
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
--— 100 — — — -
EXISTING THALWEG
X X
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING STORM PIPE
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
— — — — —
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
OHE OHE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
—OUEOUE—
OVERHEAD UTILITY EASEMENT
EXISTING BEDROCK
EXISTING FARM PATH
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
III —III EXISTING DEBRIS AREA
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
Proposed Features
100+00
+
PROPOSED THALWEG
—• • • • —• • • — —
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
—CECE—
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
—CE-IXCE-IX—
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
EASEMENT INTERNAL CROSSING
\�
LOG VANE
Q� LOG SILL
OZxDC= BOULDER SILL
Q Q�Q Q COVER LOG
ROCK STEP POOLS
PROPOSED
CASCADE
PROPOSED FARM PATH
tu..
Construction Sequence
(To be included with final plans.)
- PROPOSED ANGLED LOG RIFFLE
- PROPOSED CHUNKY RIFFLE
- PROPOSED LOG -ROCK CASCADE RIFFLE
- PROPOSED NATIVE MATERIAL RIFFLE
- PROPOSED WOODY RIFFLE
PROPOSED STREAM BANK GRADING
PROPOSED ROCK OUTLET
PROPOSED BRUSH TOE
PROPOSED TRANSPLANTED SOD MAT
PROPOSED VEGETATED SOIL LIFT
PROPOSED BOULDER TOE
Q
�
Z
bU
�lw
t
oz °z
Q 7
,mow
3
i�
Al

1420
1415
1410
1405
1404
1420
Q �
z�
�w N ^ 6
alw 8z�z
z
I-yW �aFa
1415
b°\p��o _6~��
5�
1410 60
1405
1A-
111+50 112+00 112+50 113+00 113+50 113+60
�I
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.0' BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.0'
� N
3.0' 3.0' 3.0' 3.0' 6.0' 3.0'
TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK
TIE TO EXISTING • • • •— • • • — — — — • • • TIE TO EXISTING — — — T — H
4-1
GRADE Dmax=1.0' PROPOSED GRADE 1}5� T PROPOSED i~
PROPOSED 3I 3'•1 Dmax =1.5' TO 2.3'
BANKFULL PROPOSED 2: 1 3 U
GRADE I ti• BANKFULL O
GRADE
4.5' 'Q
BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 2 BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 2 ` — J to
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL 2:g
STA:109+69 TO 119+99 STA:109+69 TO 119+99 f bIJ O
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" - 2' 6.0'
--- -
CE� cn
-
- — -----------------------O
_-
--� ---- --
--1420--- '
--------------------- ; _
BIGBUGABOOCREEK
tih
-----------------
--- _-_ __-------_-_
_--- ----_ - -- ----_ -- " -- --- ------
---- -
W-- - RL — — — — — 81 — — — — — 81— — — — - ---------------------------------- -------------- __
- � "� 81 � 81
------- • • . _ _
81 81
z I i — — _ - ---
-
J— — .: _ _----- —
= --- _ - - —
i -
11 '
— 1— — "" 113+00.— — _ r --- —
1 415
-1z"oo
— — —
m ;-- — l0�
--' =
s-------------
I--------------- -- '
o
---------- ------; — — — —
-
-
u-------II _ ---LU
gr'-
1— - —
4 _--—81-----81----=8 gl\\\ �yi Iz z
0.
2 4 6 � o O
_ ----- - -- 111 NeancALl
ti
I i
7 I 3737-37,'3J-3J-3J-3Jf-37-37—r3J-3J-3J-37-3J-3J-37�-�-37-3J-3J-37-3737-3J-3J37—�J`— 0' 10 (HORIZONTAL)2
30'
0
0
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
V
+
+
m
ti
a
�
W
.... .2.6%
3.6516
—
EXISTING
GROUND
PROPOSED
GRADE
m
m
m
c-I
+
y
1n
w
Q
W
J Q

1405
1400
1395
1391
Q
zp a g,Ooo
1405 8z�6
z
I-y W a944
1400
y�
zp
GIO
1395
1391 CZ5
117+60 118+00 118+50 119+00 119+50 119+70
�I
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.0' BANKFULL WIDTH = 12.0'
� N
3.0' 3.0' 3.0' 3.0' 6.0' 3.0'
TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK
TIE TO EXISTING — — — — — TIE TO EXISTING — — — T — �— H
GRADE Dmax=1.0' PROPOSED GRADE 1(5' T PROPOSED i~
PROPOSED 4-1
3:1 3'•1 Dmax =1.5' TO 2.3'
BANKFULL PROPOSED 2: 1 3 U
GRADE I ti• BANKFULL 0
GRADE
4.5' 'Q
BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 2 BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 2 ` — J to
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL 2:g' rl-I
STA: 109+69 TO 119+99 STA: 109+69 TO 119+99 f bIJ
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' 6.0 0 O
------ +
O L , w CE CE. CE u')LD ��� u _ ,, ; ; CE CE CE CE
�+ 1pOp �- - -�400.
L
• - - i'`
PROPOSED 24" CMP.-
�"� SEE DETAIL 1 PAGE 6.06. Q
BIG BUGABOO CREEK
— + 24" CORRUGATED PLASTIC I
LU - u �PIPE TOBEyREMOVED.
TB
JI LLJ
—TB
=TM INTERNAL CROSSING INTERNAL CROSSING
J
'U1 _ BIG BUGABOO CREEK x BIG BUGABOO CREEK I
REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT I) u REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT I) \ T9 -- — ` 1pp0' U
Q I —STA. 117+70 STA. 118+20 \`z� ------- _ ------
u ` $ T8 = TB F
bI - :. ----- _ __ ------
8 -.. y. _.. ...... .... - � - � 1I9 _ ----- ._ -- -.... -
�. .�.. .ice% _ • .. ,
—.. ...... .._ ..... - - _ _
m — — 118+00 — B---------- — O _P
" - ------
al
x PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING. >1,. �;'�' �'�� �; �,. �' ' �' z
u SEE DETAIL 1 PAGE 6.06. Y �'
x u \�
m r EXISTING FENCING TO BE �, �' �' �. �,. �,. �' 'IV 0 3 z Iia
x � REMOVED WITHIN THE �. �, � � �' �' �'' � �* �, I � � �'' � ,� V
8 x u CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
0. 2q' 6'
1 ( ^1 'b' �r '�. rAr �• 'Br �, 9rr I 'A (VERTICAL) \ '
� � •' X '� � '9' � A �, � � � A. i ia. 'Ai. � � � �, �C1C1 � '®r �"' �. r )r 'mr im � � y � 5.
x u 0' 10, 20' 30' z v
�. i �" 'Or / 'dR ; )HORIZONTAL) 0 0 l
PROPOSED 57" x 38" CMP
PIPE ARCH CULVERT.
o
N
oo
N
INV. EL.: 1401.1' U/S
o
a
INV. EL: 1400.3' D/Sob
FF
u
a
o
o
+
^n
PROPOSED BANKFULL
^
In
�n
r
�w
>
¢
r>
u
N
u
m
� rn
m
o+
°
ooi
m
N
m
+
--
w
J
�>
w
u
,
>
m
�Imi
II
+
m
vri
r
II
>
'm'I
u
-2.2%
... _...
-2
roz
' -
_..
�o
PROPOSED
GRADE
+
o
�
a
u
¢
r
m
+
ao
a
a
m
EXISTING
GROUND
+
w
u
w
w
OOP
+ ^
N
F
W
Vrl
II II
¢�>.,
M
N
1�
m
m
N
'-I
'I
II
cy
a
mm
•-I
ei
+
ei
'-I
N w
a
w
a
r
w
�
a
r
w

A
1400
1395
1390
1386
119+70 120+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 10.4'
3.6' 3.2' 3.6'
1400
1395
1390
1386
121+80
BANKFULL WIDTH = 14.0'
TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK TIE TO EXISTING I 10.5' 2.0' 1.5'
TIE TO EXISTING ..... .•••—••• — — ••—•••• TIE TO EXISTING ••••—••••—••••—••••—••••. •• GRADE
GRADE Dmax=1.2' PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED 31 3'1 BANKFULL PROPOSED BANKFULL BANKFULL Dmax = 2.4'
GRADE GRADE 3;1 I PROPOSED 3 Dmax=3.0c7
m
m
+
+
O1
O
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
F
u
>
+
m
m
m
EXISTING
GROUND
V
+
6
J
M
J
m
i
m
m
o
^ W
W
ti
II
+
v
N
c-I
m
V
a0
I
II
M
m
cN-I
r
ID
_
....
11J
II
m
N
•
r
>
II
N
M
-2.9%
II
PROPOSED
GRADE
—
----
4.4%
a
v
+ v
+ M
O �
Q w
�
17, W
m
+
N
II
II'
.+-I
�
t~/f
w
II
II
w
II
II
w
a
�
N
120+50
121+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 14.0'
7.2' 2.0' 4.8' TOP OF BANK —
121+50
5 2'
GRADE 5;1
BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: SHALLOW POOL
BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
5TA:119+99 TO 138+14
STA:119+99 TO 138+14
5 8'
STA:119+99 TO 138+14
SCALE: 1" = 2'
SCALE: 1" = 2'
SCALE: 1" = 2'
—CE�—
r r r r r r + r r r r r r r r r r r r r �O
00
• � m j
OI r r '•� r r r r r —J, r r r r r r r r r r �C14
+ b�. ;' irrr r� r� rrrr,WOODPOND—rrr
O) � Q—
'�
Q
BIG BUGABOO CREEK -
END
Z
BIG BUGABOO CREEK
REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT 1) r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ::5
LJ.1 j� BEGIN BIG BUGABOO CREEK
`REACH 3 (RESTORATION) �
J STA.119+99
----TB' END UT2(RESTORATION)
IU— _� a STA. 322+71 r r ­'
—Q�" ,�--ffi--�. ,� � r r r � r•'r r � r r r r r r r rj r r r r r .�
-- � �_ _— --- -,W,___,a� "� � gym. u, � � / te r r �• r �- r r r � r r r r r r I r r r r
❑ ❑ o �- _ _ �- �,; • :� r r � �, r r ,'-mac. r k00
_ - ........ .r r r r r\r r r r� r•� r r rlr r r r
❑ 1 00
-: �r..-� . ;".. � ,�91,� : ,�. .�.. •,e.' ,� ,�. .�' ,� r r r r r r r r .�' ♦ � � r r I r � � rrr .���� r
,ou - ,w. - wn - ,uv. - wn - ; '-� Cal ,3z. w.. wu`. ,� r r r\ r r r r r `�� • �. i r
x EXISTING FENCING TO BE
REMOVED WITHIN THE
r r r r r r r r r
CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
2.5'
yJi
zp
GIO
gni
N
z
0' 2' 4' 6' �1
(VERTICAL)
0' 10' 20' 30'
)HORIZONTAL)

1395
1390
1385
1381
Q
zD ng�o
1395 d w z
�aw 8z�z
Z
F-I w
F-I N
1390
-16
zp
GIO
1385
1381 CZ5
121+80 122+00 122+50 123+00 123+50 123+90
BANKFULL WIDTH = 10.4' BANKFULL WIDTH = 14.0' BANKFULL WIDTH = 14.0'
� N
3.6' 3.2' 3.6' 7.2' 2.0' 4.8' TOP OF BANK 10.5' 2.0' 1.5' U
TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK TIE TO EXISTING
TIE TO EXISTING ...._ ..... .... ...._ . _ ...._ .... TIE TO EXISTING ...._ .... ...._ ..... ...._ ...._ .... _ ...._ ...._ . .. GRADE _ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ .... .... .... +� '- w P-
4-1
GRADE 3 Dmax=1.2' 1 BANKPROPFULL GRADE PROPPROPOSED BANKFULL BANKPROPOFUII 3 O
PROPOSED 1 3' CS
GRADE GRADE 3: Dmax=2.4' 1 PROPOSED O
cz
5 2' 1 Z GRADE 3.5, Dmax = 3.0' `
BIG BUGABOO CREEK -REACH 3 BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 3 BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 3 1 o I� to
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: SHALLOW POOL TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE r�-I
STA: 119+99 TO 138+14 STA: 119+99 TO 138+14 5.8 STA: 119+99 TO 138+14 bIJ
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' 2 5 U
V) C!)
.��rrrrrrry=rrrrr,�rrr,�-rrrrrr�rrrrrrr�=-�
� x
,'r r,� r r r r r ,-✓ r r r r r r r r -:% — r r r r r r ,yoi� r r r r Y �--
4....—��� 'BIG BUGABOO CREEK r r r
yo
co
b r r r r r r r r r r r f r +00
r r r r �. r r r r r r r �' • r r r r ,�-� �r
m ;�� �rrrrr,'�: rrrr •. �r rr �••r •'`,r rr
s 4� r r r r r r r• r r r r r r rrr r r r r r r .��M
(am
o (� rrrrrrr '� � ;—%rrrrrr.rrrr �r-
�i--rrrrrr rrr Q�
W
�Z—
r r r r r r r r r r r r r--r r r r r J ai
r--- r r r r r r rl r r r r r r r r r r r r r raw r r r r AZ— 0, 2, 4- 6-
(VERTICAL) �
��rrrrrrr rrrrrrrr�,rrr,WOODPOND�rrrrrrrr 'err Q— T
s �r��rrrrrr.rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rxr
0' 10' 20' 30'
(HORIZONTAL)
++ .-i
O
In
N r
+
N
M
+
C5
D
EXISTING
GROUND
0
PROPOSED BANKFULL
00
w
r
II
0~1
ry
Oi
N
W
F
>
M
1ID
00
j .0
'rv-I
ry M
O
+
+ pp
- _
_
- -
w
-3.30
�...
-----
--
PROPOSED
GRADE
-2.7%
a
+m
R
F J
m
+
N
m
u
a
a0
aw
N
W
o+
N
e-I
M
N
ry+j
II
VI w

1390 -
1385 -
1380 -
1377
123+90
+
�^
oo
o
+
Ol
O+l
Ol
EXISTING
GROUND
Q
v~i
II
w
e-I
II
II
+
v
�
v
�
II
II
II
II
+
N
00
It
n
00
PROPOSED BANKFULL
II
�'
II
II
N
•m-I
W
3.8%
_...
_.... _
_.... _.
_
-2.9%
PROPOSED
GRADE
F
N
M
V
u
w
+
oo
'o
m
N
a
V~f
w
II
II
N
M
c-I
Vf W
II
,
F
V1
�
W
124+00
124+50
125+00
125+50
1390
1385
1380
1377
126+00
3.6' BANKFULL WIDTH = 10.4' 3.6 7 2 04 8 TOP OF BANK lO S
BANKFULL WIDTH 2 14.0' BANKFULL WIDTH = 14.0' 2 0' 1.5'
TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK TIE TO EXISTING
TIE TO EXISTING —••••—•••• — — ••••— ••—.... TIE TO EXISTING —••••—••••—••••—••••. GRADE
GRADE Dmax=1.2' PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED 31 3'1 BANKFULL PROPOSED BANKFULL BANKFULL
GRADE GRADE 3: Dmax=2.4' . PROPOSED
1 2 GRADE 3.S Dmax = 3.0'
5.2' 2 0
BIG BUGABOO CREEK -REACH 3 BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 3 BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: SHALLOW POOL 5 8, TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA:119+99 TO 138+14 STA:119+99 TO 138+14 STA:119+99 TO 138+14
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' 2.5'
- ---. Lr
O �CECE— — — — — — — — — r r r r r
I
Ar r r
%A- BIG BUGABOO CREEK
r r r r r r ?ate r p�
Jr
�JNrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrAw ti
r rrrrr �J
go—
r r r T r �•G. r r r r r ' r .' r r
r r r r r r r r r r
�r ri r r�r
WOOD POND
Q
z0
�
�aw
Z
Ql
8z�z
�
0
F-I Z.
q3q
~
N
gni
z
ti s� ad
Mo �
0' 2' 4' 6' �1
(VERTICAL)
0' 10, 20' 30'
)HORIZONTAL)
N

i� 1390
1385
1380
1375
1374
1390
Q �
z0 ng�o
�w N H W
alw 8z�z
Z
1--I Z. FG E'
~ N
1385
5�
1380 God
1375
1374
126+00 126+50 127+00 127+50 128+00 128+10
BANKFULL WIDTH = 10.4' BANKFULL WIDTH = 14.0' BANKFULL WIDTH = 14.0'
� N
3.6' 3.2' 3.6' 7.2' 2.0' 4.8' TOP OF BANK 10.5' 2.0' 1.5' U
TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK TIE TO EXISTING S- _'4 w
TIE TO EXISTING _ ...._ .... ...._ . _ ...._ .... TIE TO EXISTING ...._ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .Dma
............_ ..... ...._ . .. GRADE _ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ .... .......... +� '- w P-
GRADE 3 Dmax=1.2' PROP1 BANKFOSED ULLL GRADE -PROPPROPOSED BANKOSED FULLL BANKOFULL 3 O
PROPOSED 1 3."CS
GRADE GRADE 3: x=2.4' 1 PROPOSED Z O
cz
5 2' 1 Z GRADE 3.S Dmax = 3.0' `
BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 3 BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 3 BIG BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 3 1 o I� t ct
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: SHALLOW POOL TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE r�-I
STA: 119+99 TO 138+14 STA: 119+99 TO 138+14 5.8 STA: 119+99 TO 138+14 bIJ
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' 2 5 U
�r r r�,r�4r i II �iI
� 111 I I i � I �u � �u. wu aua yu. au. ,uu we -,uu we nn au. f
r r �, rlr aJ II
,W. � � �
EXISTING FENCING TO BE ''`- - - - - "". - - - "I.
��
r t— EXISTING POND EMBANKMENT m REMOVED WITHIN THE - Y
TO BE REMOVED. CONSERVATION EASEMENT.- - - - - m - - - -
r r 11 r 1 r �'� du mu 11 I mu ,uv. wu /� - - - - - - - - - -
BIG BUGABOO CREEK,
I �y
• ' .. '� V `S yw
28
12 00 r ♦.I I 128+00
i i q
I I II ♦ I I
O r r r r O
OI-------- - - - - --
rlj I �� ,�' �' ,�' �� I r r III \ IZj ! I I ,iwi �,m. �!- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t0 r r r m +0p A
`n WOOD POND INS ��3a
�m �M" + I
U
J ni o J
ZI r
'Q U r ,(--� .;'- �r r �-r � � tl I rn
ill. .- - - - - - -lI�QGG 0' 10' 20' 30' Z v
vyvyyvyIHoxlzoNrAy
rr 1 o . ail
_
mj .0
� tT7
Y
O•
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
\
m
_
m
m
\
EXISTING GROUND
ei
+
N
CII
+
N
fIl
\
ti
¢
II
w
¢
II
w
N
II
\
\
+
,y
01
rj
m
+
Ib I,
n c-I
¢ II
w
II
N
rl
N
00
m
+ e4
1,
m
n 00
+
\
\
LLI
¢
N
j
Q
II
c
m
._
•—
..—
_
N
u
J
_-
3.7%
-2.2%
—
• .......
-3.3%
PROPOSED
GRADE
rn
ti
^'
+
0
m
m
co
+
o
+
V
00
V~1
w
II
ry
m
'-I
+
+
00
N
F
J
]
>
w
I
w
W
n
w
In
¢
H

0
m
O
�
+
+
v
~
m
OR
m
'}
NO
N
+
N
V O
y }
N
O
N
W
NO
II
N
N
Q
w
II
H
i
w N
II
+
II
w
F
N
'n
N
e-I
V
ry
V1
0
e-I
O
1430
m
N
w
Q
v~
w a
J
p
N
II
+
o
v
v
i—,
O
1430
\
N 0o
m
v
v
m
v
n
EXISTING
GROUND
w
Q
w
m
o
V +
N o
H
ao
W N
O
w
F
J
II
N
II o
m
y
n
M
m
M C�
..-I
00
\
.
II
+
V
Vf
W
F
N
II II
O
N
N
a
N
c-I N OO
V W
W
N II C V
-4.1%
—
—
N
\\
`3.8'6�
—'
N w
II
>
1425
r
1425
_
4.0%
!.. .
PROPOSED
GRADE
00
-4.'1
_
N
�
II
i
p
N
N
a
O
a
F
u
'
+
EXISTING GROUND
—
W
r
N
N
n
V
N
N
W
r-I
II
+
M e
p
�
1420
w
F
'�
W
V
M
V +.4
v
1420
¢—^'
.H
m
W
w H
W
w
+
ON
c-I
W n
0 tV
ID O
7
W
N
.+I
p
VO1
N
p
0
N
a
to
II
II
W
a
(I
"
II
V
N
Q
e1
Q
II
V~i
N w
w
Vf
w
w
II
W
1417
1417
202+50
203+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 4.2'
TOP OF BANK 1.5' 1.2' 1.5'
TIE TO EXISTING _ ...._ . .._ . I.._ .. ._ — ... .
GRADE
PROPOSED 3'1 3'•1 PROPOSED
GRADE BANKFULL
UT1
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA:200+64 TO 204+47
SCALE: 1" = 1'
203+50
204+00
TOP OF BANK —
TIE TO EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
UT1
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA:200+64 TO 204+47
SCALE: 1" = 1'
204+45
BANKFULL WIDTH =5.5'
— 1.6' 2.3' 1.6'
_ ...._ .... ...._ .... .....
.....
... .....
....
...
-'1 0. ' Dmax=0.8'TO1.1' BULL
1.11'
I~ 2.75'
------------
iZp
_
i k k
61
z 3 - ,"1425 i\� r
-
ul
--' =
14254'�-----
-
4
'� .�' , ..
-
i --- — +
Op ;-
- -------' � -- -
—..._ —... .._'203+00
A END UT I v v V � -
4 4
\� (RESTORATION)
STA.204+45 \
Zg V v END BIG BUGABOO CREEK
% - REACH 1(RESTORATION) i
— 1 BEGIN BIG BUGABOO CREEK
4 v`,k REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT 1)`�
STA.109+69 \\ N.
N
A
?' 3 d
�o
0' 2, 4' 6' N
(VERTICAL)
0' 10, 20' 30'
)HORIZONTAL)

A
1460
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
-EXISTING GROUND
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -
302+30 302+50
303+00
CE—CE-77—Cf-__-CE77:7-CE—_�CE E
-------
-----------
------------------------------------------- ----------
-----
----------------------------
-----------
--------
---
-----------
146--- ---------- -
--&- ------- _EL "
- " -
---------
-------------------- ---------------------------------- -- I - - - -
---------------------- 1455----
--------------------------- - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------
---------- ---------- ------------- -----------------------
------------------------- ------ ------------- 00- ----------------------
----------------- --------------------
21 + 2% - — ----------------------------
--- ---------------------
cn
- ------ ------ -----
----- ------- ------------------
r --------- ---------- -----
__0 ----------- ------------ ------------
----------
_T ----------------------------- -
1455
1450
1445
1440
303+50 304+00 304+40
-------- ----------
CE _CE7--CE:7CE
CE CE ------CE CE
--------------
-------
-----------
-------------------- --------
r2
-- ------------ --
------------------
--------------------------
------------- -------------- --- _J
----- - --------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - ----------
- - - - - - - - --- - - --------------------------
------------ -------- --- ------------------
------------------- --------------------------
----- -- 04+00----
1455 -------------
------ --------------------------------------------------
---------------
------
10
------------
-
----- ------------------------------------
------------------ �:�B�
---- --
---------- 1450 --
-----------
------
-- -------------------------------
-- ------- ------
-
- --- -----------
en
------------------
------------------------------
-----------------------
---------
--- -----------------------
- -- ----------
----------- ----------
----- :::
-----------------------
--------- ----- ------
------------------------------------------------------
--------- 14SO -------------
---- -- - - -
---
GRADE ERODED BANKS TO MATCH, T�_
ADJACENT STABLE BANK GRADES
14SS__
-----------
T1_3 --------------- TB - - ------
--- --------------
_:_1
---
--- ------- --------
Tu -----------
14
- -------- 60 - --- - ------
-----------------
----------
-------------------------
----------
----------------
---------- --------
-------- --------------------- -----------------------
--------------------------- -----------------
---- ---- - ---- ---- ---- ---- - ----- -------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------- ----------- ----------- -------------
------------------------------
1 4ss--
----------------------------- ........ -------- ----------------
-------------
-----------------------
------
---------
------------------
-----------------------------------------
7,
3511-
----------------
--------
_7�P-33
!!3 - --------- ------------- --------- ------
_3a _ -
----------- 3-3, 33--
------ ---------------------------------------
----
------
--- ---- ---------------------
------ ------------------
-33 ­�33-33-33-31:)
---------------- ------- -----------------
-------------------------------------------------
yj ------
------- - - - - - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1465
- -------------
-------------------------------
0. 1. 2' 3'
ol 10, (VERTICAL) 20' 30,
(HORIZONTAL)
4-1
V)
Z7
6
z
Z. 944
w

1405
1400
1396
Q �
z0 ng�o
Z ti a
1410 d'w xU� 6
�lw gzPz
Z
NlO �q�q�v
1--I W
1405
b0\00 o o�~��
1400
1396
317+00 317+50 318+00 318+50 319+00 319+10
BANKFULL WIDTH = 8.4' BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.5' BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.5'
� N
TOP OF BANK 3' 2.4' 3' TOP OF BANK 5.7' 2.0' 3.8' TOP OF BANK 8.05' 2.3' 1.15' U _O
TIE TO EXISTING I
GRADE• • • •— • • • ._ ...._ . 1.._ .... ...._ .... TIE TO EXISTING ...._ ...._ ..... ..... .........._ ...._ ..... ...._ .. TIE TO EXISTING ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ .... .... QJ �
Dmax=1' GRADE } GRADE
PROPOSED 3:1 3.1 PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED � O
GRADE BANKFULL PROPOSED Dmax=1.9' BANKFULL GRADE N BANKFULL 3 3:1 ti1 Dmax = 2.3' >✓
GRADE 3.g,1 p. Z N
UT2 - REACH 5 4'2 UT2 - REACH 5 UT2 - REACH 5
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL 4 $, TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 314+84 TO 322+76 STA: 314+84 TO 322+76 STA: 314+84 TO 322+76 2 3' rl-I �i
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' O
II/ h I V) (,i)
r i
r �
r '
UT2 ----
- �V = _
9+00
j
e
. — - . -'cam All
----- - : ;
- 24" CORRUGATED PLASTIC I +
— ---4- --- _ -- -- A -� �� — ----- PIPE TO BE REMOVED. Cl
---- ---- ----
— -- m
- —---------- -- - -
- 0 — — - — _----
"s A � _ �" 4 - — - -- �7 ---- TB ---------------------------------- __ �I 4 � 4 � _--
' 4
°n -
LLJ
�a --- ------ ==---- - "
NM / ---------241p 4_ _ j$ — -_- — TB I J
xI ------
w fe ��------------
EXREMOVED WITHINISTING FENCING TOTHE ' y
J
ZJ-- ; ___- - - _ - CONSERVATION EASEMENT.— , 1Q r
'I -___ ____-- _________ 3 cc k _ o 0
---------- — — — -- — — �,_�130 3'' I veancAU
_ -
_ 0' 1. 2' 3'
z I -141p ' 3'' 30 h 0' 10, 20' 30,
- (HORIZONTAL)
—3D-3D
+
v
M
a
+
m
a
m
0
.�.I
II
r'
II
m
e'I
'^-I
m
a
ti
+
e-I
tG
c
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
m
u
n^
o
o 0
+
w
M a
o0 0
'H ui
V
M N
w
H>
II II
p+p
m a
ao
n
umi
C,
m
+ a
N w
II
>
m a
+
00
0
N
..._
w
W
a
—'
.....
w
`—
— — — —
— — — — —
— —
2.1%
_
— —
..
2.6%
/
0
CDPROPOSED
EXISTING
GROUND
GRADE
/
ti
o
M
II
m
+
O
Q w
w
00 V
+ o
`1
vri
M
II II
Q w
N
N �
O
tr/f w
+
M ra-I
+
N
C
Lq
w
m
~
+
a
Vri w
F
u
J
mill
II
n
w
F
M
>
w

A
1465
1460
\ EXISTING GROUND
1455
1450
1447
400+00 400+50
CE- CE
CE
r CE �� CE rE�mp 1
CE �r CE
\DV6= CE CE/— �MO\i Mp /
PROPOSED SPSC. SEE
SHEET 2.04 FOR DESIGN.
w 3g90Z
+ _-T
f C
Y
�O
Ua \
I+a \\ —_________—
Ca ` a`
W I
I
BEGIN UT2A
(ENHANCEMENT II)
STA.400+00
s u
I 1
1
3JI� I
°n II 3J
5
X
\
401+00
mo\
W . iTgl\ kL
-- — aJ --
--
---
"— ail,- +14 '
�� 401+00-----
�----'ar--a�---,�---�---"l`---'�`---
i
-----
ID
-----------------
UT2A
J
-------- \ \3J
� �0
I N�1
I
-
---
_—
aw yu.
/
/
auy/ a�
.a�
1465
1460
1455
1450
1447
401+50 402+00
+J4 I yW iltr IaY4 �W yW ra iltr ilL � yW Wai aYL � � � >� fir' iltr J4
I r !
- - as - - as - ,u0
---�
II '� aY4 a0a a� '� aY4 a0a a'i4 iltr aJ4 a0a ilLa � aY4 a0a � a� a14 �a L4
I sue r i � 1 I
INTERNAL CROSSING �I �
UT2A (ENHANCEMENT II)
STA. 401+94
91
Jla aVu aW aJ� aVu iltr Ju' aW SJ� aVu aJ4 �yy--&—`lGz—��IG. - ally' 11
---- 00/
--40
-1455- ------
� _—
MO
__ � — � __ � — � __________ _
aWa aYc aye. are _-
au�(rau�Mp-----__ --_- __-- r
�—
a4a r
i
- --' ' --
/ — — ---- \
.�
���$�� ,k TQmp_
----------------------------
_
- - -INTERNAL CROSSING
- UT2A (ENHANCEMENT II) ---------------- _ STA.401+19 --I W---
---------- - 0 -/ a, J
��3
37 -137 Iqs \OU .0
- ------------------ ° ~
3�
3�
3o------
/ 37
0)
0
r~
�I
gni
z
o� 3d
A/
�o l'M1
0' 2' 4' 6' :11
(VERTICAL)
0' 10, 20' 30' m m
z v �
)HORIZONTAL)

1390 -
1385 -
1380 -
1375
602+10 602+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
TOP OF BANK 3.3' 2.9' 3.3'
TIE TO EXISTING
GRADE ...._ ...._ .. ._ ...._ ..._ ..._ .... ..
Dmax =1.1' PROPOSED
PROPOSED 3:I 3.1 BANKFULL
GRADE
4.75'
UT3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA:600+00 TO 614+82
SCALE: 1" = 2'
cq
o
tO
r
+
00
rn
v
u
+
00
STA = 602+10
aMo
0
0
ELEV = 1384.80
v~i
w
II
II
w
II
II
w
M
M)
I^n
M
mo
M
m
^
oMo
rn
M
In
?
u
Vf
W
r
t0
II
II
>
t0
II
H
>
V m
O ..H
EXISTING GROUND
_
1.9%
T
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
2 4%
PROPOSED
GRADE
N
N
Ol
M
M O
N
OQu~II
O�~QiII
O
N+ O^
w
.^+'-I
i
f wMmII
0m
,o
oam
II
Q
II
II II
Q
+
MO
m
M
+
MO
0
M
m
N
+
N .0
a +
+
IN,+
a
1~if
J
N J
II
II
M
O
� M
00 O
m—
~
00
m
w
w
F
u Q
� F
n w of
u
�
w
—NA
603+00
TOP OF BANK
TIE TO EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSE
GRADE
603+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.0'
6.6' 2.0' 4.4' —
...._ ..... ..... ..... .... ..1.._ .... ..... .... .
D 3.1 Dmax = 2.2' 1,1
1
UT3
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA:600+00 TO 614+82
SCALE: 1" = 2'
5.4'
604+00
1390
z z��o
zIt
8z�z
z
Ql� �v
d)aw
F-I Z. E+ .]
N
1385
- 1380
1375
604+20
BANKFULL WIDTH =13.0' -
9.45'
TOP OF BANK
TIE TO EXISTING ••••—••••—••••—••••—••••—••••—••••—••
GRADE
PROPOSED PROPOSED
BANKFULL GRADE
3•S.1
UT3
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA:600+00 TO 614+82
SCALE: 1" = 2'
+err-rrrrrrrrrrr"rrrrrrrrrr-rrrrrrrrr�r
o—
=o, rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr—UT3-rr
Co
y<"rrrrrrrrrr
I
�
��� —tD
2
� Z
H�
� J
Q� .. �,
ri' j u
% 3
..... .....
i
SWAIM POND r r r r r r r'4r r r r r
O
S-I
2.2' 1.35'
r�
4-1
ti
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
O
Dmax 2.
=7'
-6 E7
oy
x �
�
2.45'"
O
�
� U
V
x
z
o� 366d
H o U
no t J
0' 2' 4' 6' �1
(VERTICAL)
0' 10' 20' 30'
)HORIZONTAL)

1390
1385
1380
1375
1374
604+20 604+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5'
TOP OF BANK 3.3' 2.9' 3.3'
TIE TO EXISTING
GRADE ...._ ...._ .. ._ ...._ ..._ ..._ .... ..
Dmax =1.1' PROPOSED
PROPOSED 3:I 31 BANKFULL
GRADE
4.75'
UT3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA:600+00 TO 614+82
SCALE: 1" = 2'
a
a
o
m
oo
n
ti
c0
n
EXISTING
GROUND
O
ti
F
J
w
O
•"I
II
O
c-I
II
N
+
a0
000
1�
+
00
000
/
/
VI
%
%
Ill
m
H
Irl
m
O
O
/
vl
w
In
w
'D
11 Q
II
w
ID
w
~
9
w
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
w
v
-
._....
--
.... --
----
/
------
-
-----
- -
... _..
_
-
-3.0%-
_
-4.2%
PROPOSED
GRADE
N
m
m
rn
l00
m
l00
m00
N
O
N
00 ."
O l0
I m
l0
II
F
~
w
II
H
~
w
t0
I j
O
00
N
ua1
W
n
l�0
00
+
01
r
'-I
_w
O
II
v~ild
M O
O
II "
w
M
II
N
Q
•my
I
w
w
Q
0
J
w
O
II
eH
w
O
I
v~i
I~il
F>
In
F>
I,
w
605+00 605+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.0'
TOP OFBANK 6.6' 2.0' 4.4' —
TIE TO EXISTING ...._ ..... ..... ..... ...._ .. ._ ..�.._ . .._ ..... .... .
GRADE
PROPOSED 3.1 Dmax=2.2' 1,1
GRADE
UT3
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA:600+00 TO 614+82
SCALE: 1" = 2'
5.4'
606+00
- 1390
Q
�
N 6
w
�az 2
~ N
- 1385
5
STA = 606+29
r
ELEV = 1380.00 �V S bob o -16
I p�
- 1380 co
- 1375
1374
606+30
BANKFULL WIDTH =13.0'
TOP OF BANK
9.45' 2.2' 1.35'
TIE TO EXISTING ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....
GRADE
PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED ti BANKFULL
BANKFULL GRADE Dmax-2.7' v
3 S.0,
UT3
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA: 600+00 TO 614+82 2 45'
SCALE: 1" = 2'
r r r r r — — — — — r r r r r
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr,=rrr-UT3-r-_� rr`,,r;•,r`•,`
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrirrrrrrrr�r�,ter `,T `
�' • r r r r r r r r r r r r� r — r r r r r r ,;--r r•, �� r`, ��.
r r r r r r r rl r r.•r r r r r'r r r
SWAIM PONr+
D
'� .r r r ,}- r r r r r r r r r r '; r .�-r r• .,� r r =r ,�; �; `
•, , r••�: r '•, r r — r r r r r r r�,� •r r r ��� ,� r �; �. r`,`. i•.
r r •,�- r r r r r r r r r r l ,=-r r �. � �, �� r`r •
r r �. ••r r r r r r r r r r%I r ram•..._.., •;•.,' `
O ,� r r �• — r r r r r r r r'� ;� `� h
g0,
10
Loll
LiJ� ���� �.•; � r r r r r r r r r r r r� r r '� � �,lD �
EXISTING 6" CORRUGATED T, Q
�I -• • • _ METAL PIPE TO BE REMOVED. I—
\ L.L(
Q .. Gas+oo — - - - - - - - - - - -
r—-—————————— — — — — —— fu,
N
z
o� 366d
H o U ¢ O
o d�
0' 2' 4' 6' �1
(VERTICAL)
0' 10' 20' 30'
)HORIZONTAL)

1375
1370
1365
1361
Q �
z�
1375 d w a N w
�az 8z�z
z
F-I Z.
~ N
1370
y�
-16
zp
GIO
1365
1361
610+50 611+00 611+50 612+00 612+50 612+60
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.5' BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.0' BANKFULL WIDTH =13.0' 0
TOP OF BANK 3.3' 2.9' 3.3' TOP OF BANK 6.6' 2.0' 4.4' TOP OF BANK 9.45' 2.2' 1.35' r�
TIE TO EXISTING TIE TO EXISTING TIE TO EXISTING •••-••••-••••-••••-••••-••••-••••-••••-••••-••••-•••• `J 0
GRADE ..._ _ ...._ . P'-I
Dmax=1.1' PROPOSED GRADE GRADE �- +�
PROPOSED 3:I 31 PROPOSED
BANKFULL PROPOSED Q
GRADE PROPOSED 3.1 Dmax=2.2' 1.1 BANKFULL PROPOSED Dmax=2.7' y BANKFULL
GRADE GRADE o Z c�')
4.75' 3'S:1 (� [� >✓i
UT3 UT3 5 4' UT3 x
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH STRUCTURE
STA:600+00 TO 614+82 STA:600+00 TO 614+82 STA:600+00 TO 614+82 245'
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' U
C CE— CEiEE
—CE—CE—CE -"-
—CEcn
C�
VE — CE CE — CE — CE —,-F- 13T0- I
I �
\ UT3
I I
\
I
I
I I
\ I �
I
I �-
\ I -
.. _....
I
xi ; = _ . • � • • � EXISTING FENCING TO BE-
\� - REMOVED WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT. _
s �•
s ,
s— — - --- --
_- - -----------
o Y
;- N
a
- ---------- s
310- - ; : ; ;-; - - =1365 - - I
J1-- 1 ------------------- - Id -- - ----- ---- Q
------- -_/ -- , - - - - - - - __ - ""`- ---
Z\ - --- 1370--- = " �� --- - ----
"s J - ---- ---- _
- ___--------_ --- 0' 2' 4' 6'
________ (VERTICAL)
---' _ - �~
X Wia � yW. aW aiW. aiL. - aW Wia aW. Wia --
_--_ ____ (HORIZONTAL)
___ --_-_—__—____ __ 0 A
M
N
a
N
+
o
CDO1
o
O
a
w
a
w
+
a
rn
II
II
I
^ W
+ W
F
VI
W
Q
w
ti .M-I
eN-I 'M-I
M
N
V M
— ---
----
Vf
W
1p II
II
+ 10
'+ to
-3.9%
• • �•
\ �
-
--
�
w
v~i
w
1D II
`O
II
..
--
-- ..
--
----
In w
of
w
"
" -'
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
-
PROPOSEDGRADE
-2.9%
-_-
m
I,
o
my
m a0
o
m
m
o
EXISTING
GROUND
u
u u
u
m a
m
wv~i
w
N
a
m
±I
6
ti
ti
II
II
c-I
�'
a
w
Q
w
II
II
II
II
N
w t~/f
w
vII
V~f
Q
F
W
a
F
>
W
W
VI
V1
W

A
TOP OF BANK
BURY INTO BANK 3' MIN. (TYP)
THALWEG FLOW
0.5' MAX.
NORMAL WATER
SURFACE
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
TO BE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER.
-
5' MIN.
(TYP)
DEPTH
DEPTH 1.Sx
RIFFLE DMAX
BANKFULL�
FILTER FABRIC
SectionA-A'
RECOMMENDED
RIFFLE MATERIAL
TABLE -ALL RIFFLE TYPES
BOTTOM
RIFFLE
RIFFLE MATERIAL STONE SIZE EQUIVALENTS
EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL
THAN REST THALWEG o. OF R FDEEPER
LE TO
REACH
WIDTH (FT)
THICKNESS (IN)
(% OF MATRIX)
0.3' UP BANK
PROVIDE LOWFLOWPATH..�
UTl
2.4
12
CLASS A (45%), CLASS B (45%), ABC STONE (10%)
TOE OF
UT3 - REACH 1
1.7
12
CLASS A (45%), CLASS B (45%), ABC STONE (10%)
SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK
UT3 - REACH 3
2.0
12
CLASS A (45%), CLASS B (45%), ABC STONE (10%)
2%- 4%
UT4 - REACH 1
1.0
12
CLASS A (45%), CLASS B (45%), ABC STONE (10%)
UT4 - REACH 3
1.3
12
CLASS A (45%), CLASS B (45%), ABC STONE (10%)
-
_
g�
UT5
1.4
12
CLASS A (90%), ABC STONE (10%)
0_,
NOTES:
1. ALL RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED IN LIFTS AT A THICKNESS NOT TO EXCEED DMAX.
n Riffle Material Table
6.0 Not to Scale
LENGTH VARIES PER PLAN CLASS 1 STONE OR SALVAGED
`ONSITE BOULDERS MIN
TOP OF BANK (TYP) F— B / 0.5'x1'x1.5'
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE POINT PER PROFILE
FLOW q A'
THALWEG
FLOW
Log Section B-B'
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT PER
PROFILE
LOG STEP VARIES
0.5' MAX. TOP OF BANK
[IF
NORMALWATER
SURFACE
Q
�
z�
N
6
w
z
�
z
F-I w Ci E' .]
55° TO 65° (TYP)
N
12" DIAMETER OR
GREATER (TYP)
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
TO BE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER.
EXCAVATE SMALL POOLS
0.3' IN DEPTH DOWNSTREAM
OF IMBEDDED LOGS.
o3I Imo_ q' gr
PLACE LOG SILL AT END OF RIFFLE WHERE
THERE IS A DROP OVER DOWNSTREAM
POOL. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 6.05. Plan View
NOTES:
(�
1.
RECOMMENDED STONE SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION
"-
n Angled Log Riffle
NOTED BY REACH IN RIFFLE MATERIAL TABLE.
Q
2.
MINIMUM LOG DIAMETER 12".
\Q.OV Not to Scale 3.
MINIMUM THREE LOGS PER STRUCTURE.
C5
4.
IF NECESSARY, SALVAGED ONSITE ROCK MAY BE
U
SUBSTITUTED WITH QUARRY ROCK OF SIMILAR
SIZE.
4-1
�z
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
(�
POINT PER PROFILE
q
3 70° TO 900 (TYP)
0
BOULDER OR LOG STEP -LOGS 12" DIA OR
�/ BANKFULL
Q
U
GREATER, BURY INTO BANK 2' MIN. (TYP)
V)
POOL WIDTH PER
TYPICAL SECTION
KEY PIECES (TYP)
OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
LAL
NT PER PROFILE
KEY PIECES
BOULDER OR LOG STEP
(TYP)
g' 16" (MIN) j \— ROCK STEP HABITAT LOGS/BRUSH
Plan View FILTER FABRIC (TYP) (VARY) ROCK STEP (VARIES PER PLAN)
kit
RIFFLE MATERIAL
MORING WITH RIFFLE SEE DETAIL 1 SHEET 6.01
CLASS 1 STONE OR SALVAGED
6" SALVAGED ONSITE ONSITE BOULDERS MIN 0.5'xl'xl.5'
rr 6" SALVAGED ONSITE COBBLE/GRAVEL
COBBLE/GRAVEL BED FLOW 3" MAX
MATERIAL t_ BED MATERIAL
CLASS 1 STONE OR SALVAGED RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
ONSITE BOULDERS MIN 0.5'xl'xl.5' TOP OF BANK (TYP)
3" MAX
Section A -A'
Section B-B'
3 Chunky Riffle
\Q-0y Not to Scale
MATERIAL TO 16" OR DEPTH OF
POOL, WHICHEVER IS DEEPER
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT GRADE DROPS IN CASCADE BASED ON ROCK AND LOG STEP DETAIL.
2. VARY THE SEQUENCE, TYPE AND ORIENTATION OF STEPS (DROPS). USE ROCK STEP
DETAIL AS A GUIDE FOR VARIATIONS IN ORIENTATION/CONFIGURATION.
3. KEY PIECES ARE LOWER MOBILITY STONE THAT PROVIDE GRADE CONTROL AND
TOE PROTECTION. USE CLASS 1 STONE OR SALVAGED ONSITE BOULDERS MIN
0.5'x1'x1.5'. HABITAT LOGS SHOULD BE WORKED IN AS EQUIVALENT OF KEY PIECES.
4. ROCK/LOG STEP BOULDERS AND LOGS TO BE EMBEDDED MINIMUM 3' INTO
STREAM BANKS.
5. ROCK STEP OR LOG STEP AT END OF CASCADE RIFFLE PAID SEPARATE. THESE ARE
DEPICTED ON PLAN VIEW.
6. NUMBER OF INTERNAL STEPS (INCLUDING STEPS AT THE BEGINNING OF A CASCADE
SEQUENCE) VARIES BASED ON LENGTH AND SLOPE. RIFFLES SHALL BE 1.2 -1.8
TIMES THE AVERAGE CHANNEL SLOPE. STEP DROPS SHALL BE BETWEEN 0.2-0.5'
MEASURED AT THE WATER SURFACE.
7. FOOTER ROCK OR LOG SHOWN. FOOTER ONLY REQUIRED WHEN MINIMUM
UNFOOTERED DIMENSION OF ROCK OR LOG IS NOT MET. A MINIMUM OF 16" OF
RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED OVER FILTER FABRIC TO PROTECT.
8. REFER TO RIFFLE MATERIAL TABLE ON THIS SHEET FOR RIFFLE MATERIAL SIZING.
T
ROCK STEP (OR LOG
STEP PER PLANS)
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE (INVERT OF ROCK OR
LOG STEP - ROCK STEP SHOWN) 3
� � O
s
A' a
Plan View 3 a
o�
M � O
n Log -Rock Cascade Riffle
\tOy Not to Scale
o '° Rd

m
NOTE:
1. RECOMMENDED STONE SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION
NOTED BY REACH IN RIFFLE MATERIAL TABLE.
2. IF NECESSARY, SALVAGED ONSITE ROCK MAY BE
SUBSTITUTED WITH QUARRY ROCK OF SIMILAR
SIZE.
SEE PROFILE
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATI
POINT PER PRO[
FLOW
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
TO BE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER.
FLOW
SALVAGED ONSITE—
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL TO
BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
n Native Material Riffle
op
Op (el
DOE
OF S�Op<_
"o l�ypl
"_
p S�-
Op
�O�O
_� Op
Not to Scale
Plan View
EXTEND RIFFLE
MATERIAL
0.3' UP BANK
RIFFLE BOTTOM
WIDTH PER
TYPICAL SECTIONS
I
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
REFER TO TYPICAL SECTION
FOR THALWEG OFFSET
RIFFLE ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
EXTEND RIFFLE
MATERIAL 0.3' UP BANK
Section B-B'
DENSELY PACKED WOODY DEBRIS
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
NOTES:
MICRO POOL HABITAT DOWNSTREAM_
1. WOOD SHALL COMPRISE 20%TO 50%OF THE RIFFLE SURFACE AREA.
OF LARGER WOODY DEBRIS
2. BRUSH SHOULD BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO CHANNEL UP TO A
15° ANGLE DOWNSTREAM.
3" TO 6" DIAMETER WOODY
3. ANY MATERIAL GREATER THAN 1" DIAMETER THAT IS NOT
DEBRIS WORKED INTO RIFFLE SUBSTRATE
PERPENDICULAR TO THE CHANNEL SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT
THE EXPOSED END IS POINTING DOWNSTREAM.
HEAD OF RIFFLE
4. WOODY MATERIAL SHOULD NOT PROTRUDE GREATER THAN 3"
ABOVE RIFFLE BED.
S. BRUSH CUTTERS OR OTHER DEVICE MUST BE USED TO ENSURE
PROTRUSION LIMITED TO TOLERANCE IN NOTE 4.
6. IF NECESSARY, QUARRY ROCK OF SIMILAR SIZE MAY BE
SUBSTITUTED.
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
HEAD OF RIFFLE SALVAGE ONSITE GRAVEL/COBBLE
ELEVATION POINT MATERIAL TO BE APPROVED BY ENGINEER
PER PROFILE B
A A'
1 GLIDE RIFFLE RUN 1
RIFFLE BOTTOM FLOW
WIDTH PER
TYPICAL SECTIONS
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
3" TO 6" DIAMETER WOODY
j
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
DEBRIS WORKED INTO RIFFLE
B'
V/
SUBSTRATE, PREDOMINANTLY
PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW
MICRO POOL HABITAT TOP OF BANK
DOWNSTREAM OF LARGER
WOODY DEBRIS
3'
6"
ELEV. 3" ABOVE j
DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE INVERT
\\ BRUSH MATERIAL TO ELEV. 6" BELOW
NATIVE SOIL
INSTALLED FLUSH WITHH BANK POOL DEPTH
WITH
3 Brush Toe
6.0 Not to Scale
Section A -A'
TOE OF SLOPE
n Woody Riffle
.0 Not to Scale
WIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS
BACKFILL
— EROSION CONTROL MATTING
DENSELY PACKED BRUSH,
WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL
17
TOE OF SLOPE c
5' MIN NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
Section A -A'
REMAINDER OF ROCK
TO RIFFLE ELEVATION
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TAIL OF RIFFLE
RUN
SEE RIFFLE MATERIAL
TABLE FOR DEPTH OF
RIFFLE MATERIAL
LAYER OF WOOD
Q
�
�w
W
��N^'
~l W
z
22
THALWEG 0.1-0.2' DEEPER
THAN REST OF RIFFLE TO
PROVIDE LOW FLOW PATH
REMAINDER OF ROCK
TO RIFFLE ELEVATION
3" TO 6" BRUSHY MATERIAL
WORKED
INTO ROCKY SUBSTRATE
ANCHOR 5'
INTO STREAM
BANK
e
LOG EXPOSED 1" TO 3"
ABOVE FINISHED
MAX 3" PROTRUSION
RIFFLE ELEVATION
Section B-B'
•ti
0
S-a
o5
U)
U
-1
-z
�o
a,
U
TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL)
~
iAiA�
T
NOTES:
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BAN KFULL).
e
a
2. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH
SHALL CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS
COLLECTED ONSITE AND SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE.
LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.
o 3 az
3. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY
PARALLEL AND POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
M o
O
4. INSTALL MATTING OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.
5. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER BRUSH/WOODY LAYER
ACCORDING TO TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
6. SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING
v
AND BANK STABILIZATION PER PLANS.

TOP OF BANK
TRANSPLANTED SOD
AND ROOTMASS
o.
i
i
Section A -A'
FLOW
TRANSPLANTED SOD AND ROOTMASS
� A
Plan View I —A'
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
INSTALL ADDITIONAL VEGETATION SUCH
AS LIVE STAKES, ROOTED SEEDLINGS, ETC.
COMPACTED SOIL 12" TO 18" THICK
LIVE CUTTINGS
BIODEGRADABLE EROSION
CONTROL FABRIC (SEE INSET "A")
DENSELY PACKED
BRUSH OR ROCK BASE
BASE FLOW
STREAMBED
NOTES:
1. PREPARE THE BANK WHERE THE SOD MAT WILL BE
TRANSPLANTED BY RAKING.
2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT SOD MATS WITH A WIDE BUCKET
AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE.
3. PLACE TRANSPLANT ON THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED. (SOD
MAT ONLY TO BE TOUCHED ONCE.)
4. SECURE WITH SOD STAPLES.
5. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT. �+
6. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED. Transplanted Sod 1Vlat7
7. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT 1
llk� *ktu
THEY TOUCH. \tOY Not to Scale
8. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ABOVE TRANSPLANTED
SOD MATS.
A
ONSITE BOULDERS
2'x2'xl'
�Q\
F
O�y �
� A'
EXISTING
ERODED BANK
HEADER ROCK(
EXCAVATE EXISTING BANKT,
INSTALL BOULDERS, AS NEEDE
FOOTER RC
NOTE:
1. FOR STREAM BEDS WITH COARSE
SUBSTRATE, PROVIDE FOOTER ROCKS.
3 Boulder Toe
\k-_0_3J Not to Scale
Section View
2 Vegetated Soil Lift
6.03 Not to Scale
Q �
z�
z
260Z/YD' dj-, yO
COIR MATTING 'l z g Z E z
mil 7 E: a
~W 3
Inset "A"
Matting and Blanket
HEIGHT VARIES 2,
2" �� tPHILL
,37
16 PENNY NAIL
18" TO 36"
Typical Stakes
NOTES:
1. ROOTED/LEAFED CONDITION OF THE LIVING
PLANT MATERIAL IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.
2. BOTTOM OF FIRST COMPACTED EARTH LIFTTO
BE PLACED 6" ABOVE NORMAL BASEFLOW.
3. NUMBER OF COMPACTED EARTH LIFTS TO
VARY DEPENDING ON DESIGN TOP OF BANK
HEIGHT. LIFTS NOTTO EXCEED 18" THICKNESS.
INSTALL BRUSH TOE OR ROCK
TOE U/S OF LUNKER LOG
PER FIELD CONDITIONS FOOTER LOG
COVER LOG
A
�O/
INSTALL BRUSH TOE OR ROCK /
Plan View TOE D/S OF LUNKER LOG J
TO STABILIZE LOG
M.ATCOrO'FLOG„EVA7TION
F J
HEADERLOG
FOOTER LOG
BURIED 6" BELOW
MAX POOL DEPTH
NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC
EXTENDS MIN 5' FROM LOG
4 Cover Log
\LOY Not to Scale
s
z
T

01
Z
m � �I
O 0
0 0
20°-30° /�- B
/ SCOUR
POOL
5' OF LOG
BURIED IN BANK
Plan View
NOTE:
STABILIZATION BOULDER MAY BE REMOVED
PER ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.
12" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
HEADERLOG
STREAMBED
NONWOVEN FOOTER LOG
FILTER FABRIC
MIN. UPSTREI
Section A -A'
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE TOP OF BANK HEADER LOG
39/-5 FOOTER LOG
TOE OF SLOPE
STABILIZE VANE WITH
ONE BOULDER ON
EACH SIDE lz—ti— R-R'
EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
1 Log Vane
0Y Not to Scale
Y
A
0
r
5'
B'
A' B
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
Plan View
TOP OFBANK-\
SILL
ELEVATION -
PER PROFILE
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
EXTEND FILTER
FABRIC 5' MIN.
UPSTREAM
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER ROCK
2' MIN,
IF FOOTERED
EMBED 5' INTO
Section B-B' BANK (TYP)
3 Boulder Sill
NOTE: •04 Not to Scale
1. 2.0' X 2.0' X 1.0' MINIMUM BOULDER DIMENSION.
FILTER FABRIC
NN�
ADD ROOT WAD, BRUSH TOE, OR
TRANSPLANTS TO STREAMS WITH RIFFLE
BOTTOM WIDTH GREATER THAN 2FT (BIG
BUGABOO CREEK - REACH 2, 3, AND 4;
UT2 - REACH 3 AND 5; AND UT3) OR AS FLOW DIRECTED BY ENGINEER SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILE
12" - 15" DIAMETER LOG
BACKFILL POOL LENGTH PER PROFILE
10' - 15' ANGLE STREAMBED
i POOL DEPTH PER PROFILE
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP) NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC OR C125BN
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER
FLOW FOE
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
BACKFILL J SLOPE TYP Profile View
Ill
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
A CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH
Plan View
,��, .�Z-. ✓�s • a,
�0.2'
EMBED LOG SILL ELEVATION 12" -15" DIAMETER LOG
4' (MIN.) PER PROFILE (TYP)
Section A - A'
Angled LogSillLogSill
•0 Not to Scale
Q
�
�w
W
��N^'
~lW
z
8z�z
~W
N
0
U
41
�z
o
U
V)

ON
NOTE:
1. MINIMUM 2'x2'x1' BOULDERS TO
BE USED FOR HEADER AND FOOTER
ROCKS.
2. BOULDERS MUST BE INSTALLED
SUCH THAT THEY EXTEND INTO THE
CHANNELBANK.
CLASS A/B MIX
RIP RAP (TYP)
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER LENGTH
r PER PLANS
\\\ (�\\\\'\ \1MIN 12"
STREAMBED
NONWOVEN SALVAGED ONSITE
LENGTH LENGTH FILTER FABRIC LENGTH COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL TO
PER PLANS PER PLANS PER PLANS BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
Section B-B'
WIDTH
PER PLANS
DEPTH PER PLANS
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC �\�\\ \\,
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
n Rock Step Pools
6.05 Not to Scale
Q �
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
TO BE APPROVED BY THE Z
ENGINEER.
mil= �a�E:a
FLOW W N
LENGTH VARIES
SEE PLAN SHEETS
Section A -A'
NGTH VARIES
E PLAN SHEETS
S' ^�
i VARIES PER PLANS i may)
x<
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
TO BE APPROVED BY THE NONWOVEN
ENGINEER. __..__ FILTER FABRIC
2 Rock Flood lain Outlet
05 Not to Scale
NOTE:
1. IF NECESSARY, SALVAGED ONSITE
ROCK MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH
0
QUARRY ROCK OF SIMILAR SIZE.
U) U
41
�z
�o
a, U
x

NOTE:
1. INSTALL 24" CMP TO CONVEY CONCENTRATED FLOW
WITHIN THE IMPACTED WETLAND BENEATH THE ELEVATED
CROSSING. EACH END OF THE PIPE SHOULD BE EMBEDDED
6" BELOW THE FINISHED GRADE AND BACKFILLED.
TOP 4" ABC STONE
TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
45' OVERFLOW CHANNEL
TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING
ROAD CREST 11' GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
MINIMUM
12" COVER
ON PLANS
CREST EL.
OVER PIPE
1405.7' TYPE 2 WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
INV. EL.
1404.4'
1'
2'-
MINIMUM 12" COVER
EXISTING GRADE
OVER PIPE,
\\
6" MIN. BEDDING,
INITIAL BACKFILL
#57 STONE
\ PLACED IN 6" LIFTS,
i
AASHTO CLASS II
6" MIN. BEDDING,
EMBED CULVERT 6" AS MATERIAL
INITIAL BACKFILL
#57 STONE
SHOWN ON PROFILE. BACKFILL
PLACED IN 6" LIFTS,
V DEEP 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP.
WITH 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP
AASHTO CLASS II
ELEVATIONS PER GRADES SHOWN ON PLANS
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
EMBED CULVERT 6" AS
CMP PIPE ARCH CULVERT
57" SPAN, 38" RISE
SHOWN ON PROFILE. BACKFILL
INV. EL: 1401.2' U/S
CLASS A RIP RAP MATERIAL
INV. EL: 1400.3' D/S
24" CMP
Big Bugaboo
Creek Sta 117+93 Culvert Crossing
6.06 Not to Scale
XI-3 Xt-
--yXI-34-)W3JXI-9D XI-3J XI-3J XI-3J XI-K) XI-3J-3J XI-3J XI-3J XI-3J XI-33-TXI3J XI3J 37 3J
CONSTRUCT OVERFLOW OUTLET
o
o
TO PROVIDE DIFFUSE FLOW
'�+'
�'
CLASS A & B OUTLET
STABILIZATION
m
u
CLASS A & B OUTLET STABILIZATION _
OUTLET STATION
-
0 0
�
18+14
I
w
,
i
o
0 0
I
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 o m
i
i
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
o d o 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u
\
OVER FLOW CHANNEL (TYP.)
m
SEE CROSS-SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
i
m
MAXIMUM
2(H):1(V)
SIDE SLOPES
--
i0
ROAD CREST ELEV. 1405.7'
x
COVERED
IN MINIMUM
CLASS
B STONE
3
n
a
0
on
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
r^
" 24CMP
;
_
I
m
I
I
I
O O O O O O
O O
O O O
�
O O O O O O O O
O O
m
O O O O O O O O I
� W
u
57" x 38" CMP PIPE ARCH CULVERT �� o o
-------
I
INV. EL.: 1401.2' U/S
� � � �
� �� � �
INV. EL: 1400.3' D/S
INLET
STATION
I
w I
u XI-3J
i
� XI-3J
�
"XIS �(I 3 X(3J XI 13� Xo:) X 3J XI-3J XI-3J
XI 3J
117+72
XI-3
`
XI-3J XI-3J XI-3J XI-3J XI-3J XY 3J XI-3J �n
Q
zz
�
�aw
z
Ql�
8z�z
�v
F-I Z.
E+ .]
gni
N,

A
TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
18' OVERFLOW CHANNEL
I'DEEP 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP.
ELEVATIONS PER GRADES SHOWN ON PLANS
EXISTING GRADE
SURFACE WATER
CONVEYANCE STRUCTURE
60" SPAN
EMBED 12" MIN. BELOW GRADE
50/50 CLASS A AND
CLASS B RIP RAP
MINIMUM 12" COVER
OVER STRUCTURE
TYPE 2 WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
TOP 4" ABC STONE
---------------
------------
INITIAL BACKFILL
PLACED IN 6" LIFTS,
AASHTO CLASSII< 6"MIN. BED[
\ KAATCQIAI �Y
ROAD CREST 13'
#57 STONE
CMP PIPE ARCH CULVERT
64" SPAN, 43" RISE
INV. EL: 1370.0' U/S
INV. EL: 1369.1' D/S
CREST EL. 1374.5'
50/50 MIX CLASS A AND
CLASS B RIP RAP PER
GRADES SHOWN ON
PLANS
TYPE 2 WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
TOP 4" ABC STONE
- :rP'7c91� zcryaa -
MINIMUM 12" COVER
OVER PIPE
EXISTING GRADE
EMBED CULVERT 6" AS
SHOWN ON PROFILE. BACKFILL
WITH 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP
MATERIAL \
MINIMUM 12" COVER
OVERSTRUCTURE
SURFACE WATER
CONVEYANCE STRUCTURE
60" SPAN
EMBED 12" MIN. BELOW GRADE
50/50 CLASS A AND
CLASS B RIP RAP
TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
ROTES:
CONSTRUCT1. • ON
FLOODPLAIN TO ENSURE THE MAX ELEVATION
GRADE ELEVATION AT THE ROAD TIE-IN ON THE RIGHT FLOODPLAIN.
Bugaboo
Creek Sta 134+58 Culvert Crossing
(2)Big
2. FILL ABANDONED CHANNEL ON LEFT FLOODPLAIN PER GRADING SHOWN
�07 Not to Scale
ON • THE PROPERDEPTH FOR• OF
CONVEYANCESURFACE WATER •
ON ••.• TO ENSURE THE MAX ELEVATION
EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION AT THE ROAD TIE-IN ON TH E LEFT FLOODPLAIN.
IN
CONSTRUCT OVERFLOW OUTLET
i� • PROVIDE
134+80—
DIFFUSE FLOW
./
��
_�_•
•
c_
II
• I I • • I .�[I
�R
"II I111�
SI N
jap
���ZNG�►ZN�ZN�N�Z�N�J®®!►�!�■�■©�rl•�I���■fit
����■
��►►Y�.�Y��Y��■Y��I►r�Y�1�����I���r��
/I■�����I®!1®JL�i®■®®IT�Z®]L?!!^�����
/I■�������►��■:�■��I�Y���■Y�1��®I��
��1��'U■►�iUir■li��'Ui.7��N������1����������1■�'L�i/■�.i��N�'■�i©����I��
ib=
twwl��Ti
Yd•;I1T�������i1�1w'■A�����N���/�r�����I��
7w
:�(i■f��ITi��(w
r���1��
:w p1mile-A
IN
:���:I�PNi:Y:1�1�I��■��I/�I�����Ii►�i��:wfli��1®�
I�� 1f�
�cY�*��N�i•'�7�'Y��iY��I����--�1��—�--��—�1—��Y1F�:■®—I1��
1������I®�
`.�l�J�.��J�i�:'!`tLJ�:�li�■■N1�12c�
/■11�11�■■II����I����
�/■�
_
��At�ItNls�`��.■�■�ItI�J������■��
:TC�ti[w�f'tii�!�:I`(l�l��■CI�I����I©�!���/!��
�/��
��■�11�����■����C_����®����■��■
li�l•�■11•�II��X�®�i�I�®�II���R"i•i�®JI���/I��L
1�/��
��®®•91e9■
a�■®®1��9■�®®N"1�����■
��C�ZNLZNCZN�■PL��i,U�
i■!i■I�ZN���i1■,�i���1■•��II/��
��Nli1■�iC±Zii■�i71i1■ui►�f7�i7�1■�i���
����■��►►�I�Y■11®Y■��Y1�■IIl1►�/�Y■III�II�-A�1���1■■���I/������■■■II�II�N1��■Xs�■■I�■■II�I■U��■��■I�■■■■1!N■���
��`L�'U�'Ui�`i�s�i\■�I!���7�Ia1���1■■
7�NII��������N�'LI�'l■��INi'L�i®�®�N��1
I�T��(���d•Ti�iT�(IL�Y��T�7\\J©i�_Y!`��,'!�'�!©����/■r
�1�1I������1�le*!
�Y■■��,T�*!
�®l�Ile���
5�����.��ii�i��■1�1��i�"�:�Ia1���IN1�F
�/��������N►�i�s■��I��ii��®®�■��
��'1\I,����YVCiy■C'�iI�1���.51N�i'9�®■�I��NL1�1�
�l■������©®©'�,il/ytl®®®I■=�,il�®���\��
�.t-_ �r_w�:
�._�..r
.r_,�1�■:Yo-�-_�,:�,�la�l�■�■■����ir������w•1��1■.-�rw■I��I��i■-_
�r■�I��I��Iw���
����/�C�r�'/isGNI�i�r�'��I�7■i1i�f�■1�It��/Il�������►-Wig■��i��/��1i1�7i�ii1��
_"—,\I�t■�N►�.My
.W
I/��\
III■III��.11
�1'11
■ll�ll��■/�1��/I'������
■III■II1Nf�■h�tl■■
■III�III■►�■I/mlNll■
■III♦IIf
��
m�mrafop
iir"��!
P,tif_
��\�c!���
i�■�I�ir���_�R
�N��������N���'f�i■��I:����-f��_
r
PA
I
N,

A
TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING 26' OVERFLOW CHANNEL
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
-----------------
�
EXISTING GRADE
\ N
V DEEP 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP.
ELEVATIONS PER GRADES SHOWN ON PLANS \
\
CONSTRUCT OVERFLOW OUTLET
TO PROVIDE DIFFUSE FLOW
J
OVERFLOW CHANNEL (TYP.)
SEE CROSS-SECTION FRO DIMENSIONS
MAXIMUM 2(H):1(V) SIDE SLOPES
COVERED IN MINIMUM CLASS B STONE
J
CE-IX CE-IX
ROAD CREST 11'
MINIMUM 12" COVER CREST EL. 1404.5'
OVER PIPE TOP 4" ABC STONE
TOP 4 ABC STONE TYPE 2 WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
--------------
INITIAL BACKFILL
0.4411 PLACED IN 6" LIFTS„
6" MIN. BEDDINGAASHTO CLASS II
i
#57 STONEMATERIAL
CMP PIPE ARCH CULVERT C
57" SPAN, 38" RISE EMBED CULVERT 6" AS
SHOWN ON PROFILE. BACKFILL
INV. EL: 1400.4' U/S WITH 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP
INV. EL: 1399.6' D/S MATERIAL
�UT2 Sta 320+21 Culvert Crossing
6.08 Not to Scale
OUTLET STATION
320+42
CLASS A & B OUTLET STABILIZATION
IL
�mwmm�l
�mmw�l
��11111•IIA�I��
E-11 RR
w • •gogfgy t• '� 1� • Re 1114
ems:
IIINV.1411
1 11
TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
137
�
U
a
a)
®
�
o
a),
(oj
`r
Q�
i
i
i
CE-IX CE-IXTCE-IX „
WE
66z 00 H o U
o O
d A l

TOP OF
BANK
SPACING PER
PLANTING PLAN Section View
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH ATRIANGULAR CROSS
SECTION AND SHALL BE 12" LONG,
4" WIDE, AND 1" THICK AT CENTER,
ROOTING PRUNING
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED TO
AN APPORIATE LENGTH TO
PREVENT J-ROOTING.
® 6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
O O 3 O O O 6' SPACING FOR HERBACEOUS PLUGS
Plan View
Zone 1 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 - Reach 4,
UT2 Reach 5, UT3)
EROSION CONTROL LIVE STAKES PLANTED IN TOP
MATTING HALF OF BANK SLOPE. MAY BE
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE TO REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR STAGGERED WITHIN THIS RANGE
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES IN SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF THE SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM HERBACEOUS PLUGS
INTO THE SOILTO THE FULL SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO FRONT OF THE SEEDLING FULL DEPTH OF THE BLADE. PLANTING HOLD. THEN PUSH UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR AT NORMAL BASEFLOW
DEPTH OF THE BLADE AND THE PLANTING HOLE. PULL THE AND PUSH THE BLADE FORWARD TO CLOSE THE TOP, HEEL. BE CAREFUL TO AVOID
PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE SEEDLING BACK UP TO THE HALFWAY INTO THE SOIL. ELIMINATING AIR POCKETS DAMAGING THE SEEDLING. TOE (TYP) \ jTlT%/�\✓/ %l\Y\
TO OPEN THE PLANTING CORRECT PLANTING DEPTH TWIST AND PUSH THE AROUND THE ROOT.
/
HOLE. (DO NOT ROCK THE (THE ROOT COLLAR SHOULD BE HANDLE FORWARD TO TOE OF SLOPE
SHOVEL BACK AND FORTH 1-3" BELOW THE SOIL CLOSE THE TOP OF THE SLIT
AS THIS CAUSES SOIL IN THE SURFACE. GENTLY SHAKE THE TO HOLD THE SEEDLING IN BASEFLOW
PLANTING HOLE TO BE SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE PLACE.
COMPACTED, INHIBITING ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT.
ROOTGROWTH. DO NOT TWIST OR SPIN THE��G�/��������:�.h
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE ROOTS
J-ROOTED.
NOTES: Section View
1 Bare Root Planting Zone 1 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and Reach 4,
1. ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER
%1 g UT2 Reach 4, UT3)
PLANTING AREA SHALL BE DISKED, AS 6.09 Not to Scale
REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PLANTING. T.,
2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY 2 Zone 1 Streambank Planting
HANDLED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION TO 6.09 Not to Scale
INSURE SURVIVAL.
® 6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
6' SPACING FOR HERBACEOUS PLUGS
Plan View
Zone 2 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1, UT1, UT2
Reach 2 - Reach 4, MA, UT2B)
EROSION CONTROL MATTING LIVE STAKE AT
�TOPOFBANK
HERBACEOUS PLUGS BETWEEN
NORMAL BASEFLOW AND TOP
OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE
Section View
Zone 2 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1, UT1, UTZ
Reach 2 - Reach 4, UT2A, UT26)
3 Zone 2 Streambank Plantin
6.09 Not to Scale
BUDS (NODES)
POINTED UPWARD
�2" DIAMETER
2-3' LIVE STAKE
BASE CUT AT 45°
TAPERED AT BOTTOM
I iva Ctaka natail
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TO FOLLOW PLAN VIEW
DETAILS BY REACH SHOWN ABOVE
2. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPER STORAGE,
HANDLING AND INSTALLATION.
3. FORM PILOT HOLE IN HARD SOIL OR STONY CONDITIONS
TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO LIVE STAKES.
4. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS SHOWN ON
PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
5. INSTALL DORMANT PRIOR TO LEAF OUT. DEPICTED
CONDITION WITH LEAVES NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF
STAKES AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.
6. ZONE 2 HERBACEOUS PLUGS TO BE PLANTED ALONG
OUTSIDE BENDS WHERE BANK REVETMENT STRUCTURES
ARE NOT SHOWN AND PLANTED ABOVE AND BELOW LOG
AND ROCK SILLS AS SHOWN.
Q
�
BUDS (NODES)
POINTED UPWARD
a w
c Z� z
Z
2'-2" DIAMETER
�
a z
2-3' LIVE STAKE
IIASECUTAT45-1
TAPERED AT BOTTOM
I iva Stakes natail
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TO FOLLOW PLAN VIEW
DETAILS BY REACH SHOWN ABOVE
2. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPER STORAGE,
HANDLING AND INSTALLATION.
3. FORM PILOT HOLE IN HARD SOIL OR STONY CONDITIONS
TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO LIVE STAKES.
4. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS SHOWN ON
PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
S. INSTALL DORMANT PRIOR TO LEAF OUT. DEPICTED
CONDITION WITH LEAVES NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF
STAKES AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.
s
A
0
S-a
z
0
U
V7
T