20161200 Ver 2_Mitigation_Plan_5-1-20_final_20200619

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

CESAW -RG/Browning March 27, 2020

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan Review

PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received during 30-day comment period in accordance
with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule in response to the Notice of NCDMS Mitigation Plan
Review.
NCDMS Project Name: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site, Randolph County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2019-01363
NCDMS #: 204
30- Day Comment Deadline: March 7, 2020

DWR Comments, Mac Haupt & Erin Davis:

1. Page 7, Table 1.1 – The 1:1 ratio proposed for NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB do not appear
appropriate for the outlined E1 level approaches. However, DWR appreciates that proactive
enhancement activities, such as cattle exclusion, have been implemented and are contributing
to functional uplift. DWR would support a 1.5:1 ratio for the three proposed E1 / R equivalent
reaches. DMS has revised the proposed mitigation for these reaches, per IRT input during the
4/24/2020 Millstone Mitigation Plan meeting, to restoration with a 1:1 credit ratio based on work
proposed,
2. Page 28, Section 5.1 – The USFWS website was consulted on August 27, 2007. Please revisit
this source to confirm that there have been no changes to listed species. The USFWS website
was consulted on 3/30/2020; there have been no changes to listed species; this section of the
plan has been updated with current information.
3. Page 35, Section 8.2 – Should Header be labeled as UTA R1 instead of UTA R2? This was
mislabeled and has been fixed.
4. Page 36, Section 8.2.1 – DWR is concerned that by raising the channel bed by 5-6 feet at the
top of UTA R1 and NT R1 that flow may not be maintained, and jurisdictional stream status may
be lost. Flow documentation in the upper sections of these reaches will be critical. Surface
gauges have been included in the monitoring plan to address this concern.
5. Page 39, Section 8.2.4 – Please correct UTA R2 and UT R2 to UTA R1. This comment has
been addressed.
6. Page 48, Table 8.9 – Are live stakes included in the stem counts (e.g. silky dogwood)? If not,
please include live stake species and estimated quantities. The revised document specifies live
stake quantities in Section 8.6 Re-Vegetation Plan, Table 8.9.
7. Page 52, Section 8.7 – Are sod mats still being proposed? They do not appear in the design
sheets. If proposed, please add a typical detail. Sod mats are proposed as an option in Section
8.7 of the revised Mitigation Plan, detail on page 6.1 of the plan sheets.
8. Page 53, Section 8.9 #3 – The proposed transition from perennial single thread channel to
wetland will be an area to monitor for signs of instability. Additionally, with the wetland ditch
plugged and the previously proposed log-step outfall not included in this design version,
monitoring any concentrated flow areas developing between the wetland and Mill Creek for
instability will also be important to address. The existing transition from single thread to
wetland at the bottom of Ut B is currently stable due to very low gradient at the bottom of
Ut B, the design will not cause instability. The transition between the wetland and Millstone
Creek will be visually assessed twice annually throughout the monitoring phase of the project;
the lack of excessive erosion or scour on the current ditch indicates a low energy system.
9. Page 56, Section 9.5 – The proposed wetland enhancement is based on hydrologic functional
uplift, as such DWR recommends the hydrologic performance criteria of a minimum 8 percent
hydro period. DWR also requests an additional wetland groundwater gauge, for a total of
two wetland monitoring gauges. A hydrological performance standard of 8% along with an
additional groundwater gauge has been included in the revised mitigation plan.
10. Page 56, Section 10 – Please confirm that the record drawings and baseline monitoring report
will be submitted after completion of Phase 2 construction. Phased monitoring periods are not
proposed, correct? Phased monitoring is required for the paired watershed study to document
efficacy of RSC as designed. Record drawings will need to be completed on phase I project
components upon completion of construction and planting. A complete record drawing and
baseline monitoring report including phase I and phase II project components will be submitted
for IRT review when both phases have been completed. The required seven-year monitoring
phase will begin after the finalization of the baseline monitoring report.
11. Design Sheets - Please include the following items:
a. Location of existing and proposed fencing; The fencing component of this project has been
completed; DMS funded the design and installation of the easement fencing. Construction
access will require small areas of existing fencing to be removed and replaced. The existing
and proposed locations of fencing have been included on design sheets.
b. Details: ford crossing, BMP wetland feature, ditch plug (specify minimum plug width), ditch
filling/partial filling (specify maximum depth from ground surface to be filled), live stake
installation, bare root and container planting Details have been included for the ford
crossing, BMP wetlands, ditch (to include plug and fill specifications) and plant installation.
12. Figure 10.1
a. In order to monitor the minimum 30-day consecutive flow performance standard, please
add flow gauges to NT R1 and UTA R1, within the upper one-third of each reach. Gauges
have been included in these locations on the monitoring map.
b. DWR requests an additional cross section along the lower section of MC R1 and an
additional wetland groundwater gauge. An additional cross section has been added in this
area.
c. Please show the easement boundaries. The easement boundary has been included on
maps and plan sheets.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:

1. When submitting the PCN, please include an estimate of the number of trees, or acres, to be
cleared for the NLEB 4(d) Rule. The PCN will include the requested information.
2. Please QA/QC this document for grammar and typos. The revised document has been reviewed.
3. There is conflicting information throughout the plan: Page 12 states that Millstone Creek is the
only perennial channel on site, while pages 22 and 39 indicate that all channels are perennial.
Page 31 states that tributaries have little to no flow. NCSAM forms indicate channels are
perennial. Please adjust the text for consistency. The revised mitigation plan clarifies that all
project reaches are currently perennial; however, UTA R1 and NT R1 were likely intermittent prior
to historic land conversion. UTA R1 and NT R1 are anticipated to be intermittent post
construction.
4. Table 1.1:
a. The 2016 NCIRT Guidance specifies that additional credit of up to 2% may be generated
for each tributary to be monitored for water quality. At a minimum, water quality and
macroinvertebrate sampling must be conducted to receive the additional credit. Additional
credit is eligible on restored and enhanced reaches of stream channels with the intent of
linking stream mitigation and functional uplift. The IRT will authorize 4% additional credits
for streams only on this site. The credit ratios proposed have been revised to reflect a 4%
credit increase on stream reaches subject to water quality monitoring only.
b. Water Quality credits are not authorized for wetlands. No Water Quality credits have been
proposed on wetland in the revised mitigation document.
c. The 2% increase proposed for success on At-Risk Tribs is not authorized. This request
has been modified to include a success metric to address IRT comment during 4/24/20
meeting. A 20% Total-N reduction on stream reaches subject to water quality monitoring
as compared to baseline Total-N is proposed.
d. Please carry out stream credits to at least two decimal places, and avoid rounding. All
stream credits have been to two decimal places.
e. Please show how the credits are being calculated by reach length, total credits, and 4%
increase per reach. For example, Reach NTR1 is proposed for 326 LF (existing 303 LF),
326 SMUs, and 13.04 additional credits at 4%. Please see example revision at the end of
this document. The project asset table has been revised to follow the requested format.

5. Reaches proposed for EI with a R Equivalent should be credited at 1.5:1, not 1:1 as proposed.
The proposed work appears to be standard Enhancement I, defined as any stream mitigation
activity that does not involve restoration of the entire stream channel. The only section that
appears to meet restoration activities is on UTB near the bend at station 16+00. Additional credit
for WQ monitoring is already being awarded on these reaches, and therefore is not justification
for a 1:1 ratio. Bank grading, in-stream structures, and buffer planting meets the criteria for EI at
1.5:1. Additionally, NTR1 is already receiving a 1:1 ratio, and the WQ treatment on that reach is
not justification to increase the ratio on other reaches. Since cattle are currently excluded from
project reaches, that is not justification for an increased ratio. The restoration level and ratios
have been revised for these reaches to reflect work proposed and completed. This approach
was discussed at the 4/24/2020 Millstone Meeting where previously undisclosed pertinent
information such as DMS having funded the design and construction of the cattle exclusion
fencing was clarified.
6. Categorical Exclusion Documents should be updated. The response letter from SHPO dated
December 12, 2003 is sufficient. However, please update the NCWRC and USFWS documents.
with current T&E species. I did receive an email response to the Public Notice from FWS on
Aug. 13, 2019 stating that they have no significant concerns with this project.
These documents have been updated as requested and appear in Appendix E of the revised
mitigation plan.
7. Page 32: Is there a WQ monitoring station downstream of the ford crossing? The only water
quality monitoring station to be located downstream of the crossing is a macroinvertebrate
sampling location; a gauge to document overbank events will also be located on this reach.
8. Table 7.1 indicates that livestock exclusion fencing will be installed. It is unclear where fencing
currently exists. Please indicate on a map or in the plan sheets. The plans sheets have been
updated to include existing livestock exclusion fencing. The only additions/changes to the
existing fencing installed by NC DMS are along the single ford crossing on Millstone, areas
where existing fencing will be removed and replaced to allow for construction access and on
terminal project boundaries across Millstone Creek.
9. Please include the water quality monitoring locations on the Monitoring Map. Water quality
monitoring stations have been included in figure 10.2 Supplemental Monitoring Map.
10. Wetland enhancement area should demonstrate functional uplift. The performance standard for
the wetland should be a minimum of an 8% hydro period, and pre-well data should be provided
in order to show uplift. Additionally, a discussion of the NCSAM functional assessment rating as
LOW for habitat might be helpful. An 8% hydrology performance standard has been included in
the revised mitigation plan, all existing wetland data has been included in Appendix E, and a
pre-construction gauge will be installed in the wetland. The NC WAM rating has been included
in Section 3.2.5 Wetland 1 discussion.
a. Please add a vegetation monitoring plot to the wetland area to ensure that with increased
hydrology the vegetation is not negatively impacted. A vegetation monitoring plot has
been included in the wetland. The wetland is not to be planted per IRT guidance.

11. Please address how fescue will be treated/removed. Fescue has been addressed in Section
8.6. Re-Vegetation plan; fescue will be treated with herbicide prior to planting.
12. It appears that the majority of the site has buffer widths that exceed the minimum 50 feet. Since
there is only one crossing on the site and you are capturing the terminal ends of the tributaries,
you may want to consider running the Buffer Tool on the project to see if you can get the additional
2% buffer credit. The crossing and the wetland area will need to be clipped from the buffered
area for credit. If it turns out to be beneficial, please include the GIS map and corresponding
table.
13. Design sheets: Several sheets are upside down and out of order, and there are three sheets
labeled page 4.5. Please correct. The document has been corrected.
a. Please include a ditch plug detail. A ditch plug detail has been included in the plan
sheets.
14. There is concern for hydrologic trespass to occur since the ditch entering the wetland will be
plugged and there is no planned outlet for the wetland. Site topography limits hydrologic
trespass potential to the southern easement boundary. The site will be monitored for hydrologic
trespass on the southern boundary of the easement between phase 1 phase 2 of the project
and if necessary a remediation plan will be developed and implemented during phase 2.
15. Page 39, Section 8.2.4: Please QA/QC this paragraph for stream labeling. Also, to be clear about
phased construction over a two-year period, the initial credit release will not occur until the
Record Drawing/As-Built is received and approved. Stream labeling has been corrected.
Millstone Creek is not subject to annual credit release due to date of project institution.
16. Ford Crossing: There is some concern with the amount of sediment coming into the system.
Without seeing the design detail it’s difficult to discern whether the structure will have an
upstream and downstream sill to hold elevation and retain substrate in place. Will it be designed
to incorporate reinforcing underlying material? Sediment load has been considered in the
design for the project, both on and off-site sources are being addressed. A ford detail has been
included in the plan sheets.
17. Page 53, #1: with the amount of sediment coming into the system, is there a concern that the pools will
fill in over time, decreasing bedform diversity?
The pools as designed contain log and boulder structures which mimic the functioning pools
located upstream and downstream of the project reach. A note to address this has been included in
the risk/ uncertainties section of the revised mitigation plan.

18. Beaver were mentioned in the document, please add this to the Risks/Uncertainties
section. A discussion about effects of future beaver colonization has been added to the
risks/ uncertainties section.
19. Page 54, Section 9: Please remove the statement “If all performance standards have been
successfully met, NCDMS may propose to terminate stream, wetland and/or veg monitoring after MY5.” 7
years of monitoring is required. This statement has been removed.
20. Section 9.4: There will be no loss of credits if this performance standard is not met; however, the
additional 2% for NTR1, NTR2, UTAR1 and UTB are not approved. DMS has revised the proposal based
on IRT input to include a measurable metric for the additional 2% credit proposed on water quality
monitoring reaches.
21. Table 10.1: The section that discusses exclusion of livestock from channels is unclear whether
fencing is existing or planned. The treatment for this section should be to install or maintain livestock
exclusionary fencing. The discussion of the conservation easement establishment should be under site
protection. The document has been revised to clarify that fencing had been previously installed by DMS.
22. Section 10.4: Please see the end of the document for example phrasing for the Adaptive
Management section. The document has been revised to include an adapted version of the example
provided.
23. Section 11: Please revise based on correct ratios. The document has been revised as requested.
24. General note: It’s helpful when all maps and figures are located in one section of the plan.
Example of how to revise Table 1.1:

Reach Existing
Length
Approach Proposed
Length
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
4% WQ
Monitoring
NTR1 303 R 326 1:1 326.00 13.04
NTR2 103 EI 103 1.5:1 68.67 2.75
UTAR1 505 R 523 1:1 523.00 20.92
UTAR2 100 EI 100 1.5:1 66.67 2.67
UTB 529 EI 529 1.5:1 352.67 14.11
MCR1 1462 EI 1462 1.5:1 974.67 38.99
MCR2 553 R 533 1:1 533.00 21.32
TOTAL 3555 3576 2844.68 113.80

W-1 1.323 E 1.320 2:1 0.660 0

EXAMPLE Project Risks and Uncertainties

Listed below are identified project risks and uncertainties that have been evaluated in the
development of design plans for the site, along with methods that have been/will be used to address
these concerns. Methods to address may be presented as adaptive management.
1. Land use development: There is potential for increased land development around the site in
the future that could lead to additional runoff and changes to watershed hydrology.
• Methods to Address: The project area has seen little development in recent years and it is
unlikely that development will threaten the site in the foreseeable future. Restoration of the
site to reconnect streams to their floodplains will reduce the likelihood of future degradation
from watershed changes, as increased flows will spread over a wider floodplain. Grade
control (in the form of constructed in-stream structures and natural bedrock outcrops) will
decrease the chances of future channel incision.

2. Easement Encroachment: Any encroachment to the conservation easement. (Including road
widening, culvert maintenance, utility easements, etc.)
• Methods to Address: The sponsor has had considerable discussions with the landowner
regarding the project requirements and limitations of easement access and is confident that
the landowner fully understands and will maintain the easement protections. The easement
boundaries will be fenced with barbed wire fencing and clearly marked per NRCS
standards. Any encroachments that do occur will be remedied by the sponsor to address
any damage and provide any other corrections required by the IRT.

3. Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring
period of the project.
• Methods to Address: The sponsor will apply adaptive management techniques as
necessary to meet the site performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include
replanting, channel damage repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive management
activities are significant, additional monitoring may be required by the IRT.

4. Beavers: While there was no evidence of recent beaver activity during recent assessments,
there is potential for beavers to colonize the site during the monitoring period of theproject.
• Methods to Address: Due to the watershed size, beaver colonization is unlikely. However,
the sponsor will take steps to trap and remove beaver if they colonize the Site during the
monitoring period.
5. Hydrologic Trespass: There is potential for the stream restoration to create conditions under
which hydrologic trespass on adjoining landowners is more likely.
• Methods to Address: The majority of the project has been designed and will be
constructed utilizing a priority 2 restoration approach, which will greatly reduce the potential
of hydrologic trespass outside of the conservation easement boundary. Along UT1 Reach
3 where the stream transitions to a priority 1 restoration approach, the conservation
easement boundary is located up the adjacent hill slopes. The ground elevations along the
conservation easement boundary in this area are approximately 2 to 3 feet above the
bankfull elevation. Based on Manning’s equation, the cross section from easement
boundary to easement boundary along UT1 Reach 3 will convey approximately 689 cubic
feet per second (cfs). Using USGS regression equations, which utilize drainage areas and
impervious surface, the estimated discharge from the 500-year recurrence interval is 185
cfs. Based off this information, the possibility of hydrologic trespass is extremely unlikely
and is not expected to be an issue.

6. Invasive/Nuisance Species: Numerous invasives, such as kudzu and Chinese privet
currently exist in the easement area. There is potential for these species to jeopardize buffer
vegetation establishment.
• Methods to Address: The sponsor will locate invasive vegetation. It will be visually
assessed, photographed, and mapped. These areas will be treated by mechanical or
chemical methods, so that invasive species are no more than 5% of the easement acreage,
and zero tolerance for kudzu. Any vegetation requiring herbicide application will be
performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.

EXAMPLE Adaptive Management
An integral part of a successful compensatory mitigation project is early detection of problems during
implementation, determining the cause(s) of those problems, and attempting to correct those
problems so that the compensatory mitigation project achieves its objectives and ecological
performance standards. Interim performance standards are crucial to ensuring compensatory
mitigation performance follows a trajectory to attain final compensatory mitigation success.
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the
necessary performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the
members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions. Large
scale corrective measures may require an Adaptive Management Plan. Large scale corrective
measures may include, but are not limited to, re-grading part of the mitigation site, replanting more
than 20% of the site to improve composition or species diversity, or the addition of stabilization
structures. The Adaptive Management Plan review will follow Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008
Mitigation Rule, part of the streamlined review process, which requires an IRT review period of 15
calendar days.
Once the Adaptive Management plan is prepared, the sponsor will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide Permit 27 general conditions.
2. Notify NCDWR if necessary for 401 conditions.
3. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirementsas
necessary.
4. Obtain other permits as necessary.
5. Submit the Adaptive Management Plan for IRT review and approval.
6. Implement the Adaptive Management Plan.
7. Provide the IRT a Record Drawing/As-Built of corrective actions.
The Final Mitigation Plan should include:
1. Identify responsible parties who will identify problems.
2. Potential problems that may arise during the monitoring period, particularly if performance
standards are not met.
3. Potential causes of those problems.
4. Identify a process for determining measures to correct deficiencies in compensatory mitigation
projects, such as site modifications, design changes, revisions to maintenance requirements,
and revisions to monitoring requirements (see 33 CFR § 332.7(c)(3))
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
1
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site
Randolph County, North Carolina
FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Cape Fear Basin: HUC 03030003
NCDMS IMS# 204; USACE AID: SAW -2019-01363
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment Quality Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
May 7, 2020
Prepared by:
Barbara A. Doll, PhD, PE and Jonathan L. Page, PE
Biological & Agricultural Engineering Department, NC State University, Box 7625, Raleigh, NC
27695
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following
documents, which govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation:
•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).
•NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 5
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 5
1.PROJECT INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 6
2.WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION ............................................. 11
2.1 River Basin and Watershed Planning Context ..................................................... 11
2.2 Stream Use Classification .................................................................................... 12
3.BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................ 12
3.1 Watershed Processes and Landscape Characteristics ........................................ 12
3.1.1 Watershed and Site Geology ......................................................................... 12
3.1.2 Watershed and Site Land Use ....................................................................... 14
3.1.3 Site Soils ........................................................................................................ 16
3.1.4 Site Vegetation .............................................................................................. 19
3.2 Site Resources .................................................................................................... 22
3.2.1 NT R1 and UTA R1 ....................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 NT R2 and UT R2 .......................................................................................... 22
3.2.3 UTB ............................................................................................................... 22
3.2.4 MC R1 and MC R2 ........................................................................................ 25
3.2.5 Wetland 1 ...................................................................................................... 26
5.REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 28
5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................. 28
5.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 30
5.3 404/401 ................................................................................................................ 30
6. FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL .......................................................................... 30
6.1 Stream Functional Uplift Potential ........................................................................ 30
6.1.1 Hydrology ...................................................................................................... 30
6.1.2 Hydraulics ...................................................................................................... 31
6.1.3 Geomorphology ............................................................................................. 31
6.1.4 Physicochemical ............................................................................................ 31
6.1.5 Biology ........................................................................................................... 32
6.2 Constraints to Functional Uplift ............................................................................ 32
7.MITIGATION SITE GOALS AND FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES ............................. 33
8.DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN ........................................ 35
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
3
8.1 Design Approach Summary ................................................................................. 35
8.2 NT R1 and UTA R1 Basis for Design ................................................................... 35
8.2.1 Design Channel Size and Discharge ............................................................. 36
8.2.2 Reference Streams and Morphological Design Criteria ................................. 38
8.2.3 Nutrient Processing and Treatment Capacity ................................................ 39
8.2.4 Implementation Plan ...................................................................................... 40
8.3 NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB Basis for Design .......................................................... 40
8.3.2 Implementation Plan ...................................................................................... 41
8.4 MC R1 and MC R2 Basis for Design .................................................................... 41
8.4.1 MC R2 Design Channel Size and Discharge ................................................. 41
8.4.2 Reference Streams and Morphological Design Criteria ................................. 42
8.4.3 Morphological Design Criteria ........................................................................ 43
8.4.4 Sediment Transport ....................................................................................... 45
8.4.5 Implementation Plan ...................................................................................... 48
8.5 Wetland 1 Enhancement ...................................................................................... 48
8.6 Re-vegetation Plan ............................................................................................... 48
8.7 Post-Construction Stabilization Plan .................................................................... 54
8.8 Stream Crossings ................................................................................................. 54
8.9 Project Risks and Uncertainties ........................................................................... 54
9. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................ 57
9.1 Streams ................................................................................................................ 57
9.1.1 Dimension ...................................................................................................... 57
9.1.2 Pattern and Profile ......................................................................................... 58
9.1.3 Substrate ....................................................................................................... 58
9.1.4 Photo Documentation .................................................................................... 58
9.1.5 Bankfull Events .............................................................................................. 58
9.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 58
9.3 Visual Assessments ............................................................................................. 59
9.4 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 59
9.5 Wetlands .............................................................................................................. 59
10.MONITORING PLAN ........................................................................................... 59
10.1 Mitigation Monitoring Components ..................................................................... 60
10.2 Supplemental Monitoring Components .............................................................. 65
10.2.1 Supplemental Monitoring Objectives ........................................................... 65
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
4
10.2.2 Supplemental Monitoring Rationale and Approach ...................................... 65
10.3 Site Maintenance Plan ....................................................................................... 69
10.4 Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................... 69
10.5 Long-Term Management Plan ............................................................................ 71
11.DETERMINATION OF CREDITS......................................................................... 71
12.REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 73
13.APPENDIX A: WATER QUALITY AND BIOLOGY MONITORING ...................... 75
13.1 Water Quality .................................................................................................... 75
13.2 Biology .............................................................................................................. 82
14.APPENDIX B: FIELD MORPHOLOGY DATA ...................................................... 88
15.APPENDIX C: DETAILED STABILITY AND SEDIMENT SUPPLY ANALYSIS . 112
15.1 Field Collected TSS Data and USGS Equations to Estimate Sediment Loads 112
15.2 ArcSWAT Modeling of Historical Annual Sediment Supply .............................. 114
15.3 HEC-RAS Modeling of Annual Sediment Transported through Millstone Creek115
15.4 Millstone Reach-wide Sediment Erosion and Deposition Analysis ................... 118
15.5 Streambank Stability and Erosion Assessment ................................................ 127
16.APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL MAPS AND FIGURES ......................................... 135
17.APPENDIX E: NC SAM, NC WAM and ERTR .................................................. 139
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Millstone Creek Site Mitigation Credit Summary ............................................ 7
Table 3.1: Watershed Temporal Land Use Summary by Site Resource ....................... 16
Table 3.2: Site Existing Stream Summary ..................................................................... 23
Table 5.1: Regulatory Considerations for Millstone Creek Mitigation Site ..................... 28
Table 5.2: Federally Endangered Species Listed for Randolph County, NC ................. 29
Table 5.3: Federal Species of Concern Listed for Randolph County, NC .................... 29
Table 5.4: Wetland 1 Temporary and Permanent Impacts ............................................ 30
Table 7.1: Mitigation Site Goals, Treatments and Expected Outcomes ........................ 34
Table 8.1: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Restoration Approach Summary ................. 35
Table 8.2: NT R1 and UTA R1 Design Summary .......................................................... 38
Table 8.3: Select Reference Streams ........................................................................... 39
Table 8.4: Summary of RSC Water Quality Treatment ................................................. 40
Table 8.5: MC R2 Channel Size and Discharge Analysis ............................................. 42
Table 8.6: Millstone Creek Design Summary ................................................................ 44
Table 8.7 Millstone Creek Design Stream Summary (Continued) ................................. 45
Table 8.8: Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Summary ................................................ 46
Table 8.9: Woody Vegetation by Planting Zone ............................................................ 50
Table 8.10: Permanent Seed Mixes .............................................................................. 51
Table 8.11: Temporary Seeding Schedule .................................................................... 52
Table 10.1: Mitigation Monitoring Plan .......................................................................... 61
Table 10.2: Millstone Creek Mitigation Monitoring Components ................................... 63
Table 10.3: Millstone Creek Supplemental Monitoring Components ............................. 67
Table 10.4: General Site Maintenance Plan .................................................................. 69
Table 11.1: Determination of Mitigation Credits ............................................................ 72
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Vicinity Map ................................................. 8
Figure 1.2: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Resources ................................................... 9
Figure 1.3: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Summary ................................................... 10
Figure 3.1: Watershed and Site Geology Photos .......................................................... 14
Figure 3.2: Millstone Creek Site Soils ........................................................................... 18
Figure 3.3: Millstone Creek Site Existing Vegetation .................................................... 21
Figure 3.4: Tributaries ................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.5: MC R1 and MC R2 ..................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.6: Wetland 1 ................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.7: August 29, 2019 wetland delineation map (USACE) .................................. 27
Figure 8.1: Step-pool systems ...................................................................................... 36
Figure 8.2: Reference Reaches .................................................................................... 43
Figure 8.3: Riparian Vegetation and Planting Plan ....................................................... 53
Figure 10.1: Millstone Creek Site Mitigation Monitoring Plan ........................................ 64
Figure 10.2: Millstone Creek Site Supplemental Monitoring Plan ................................. 68
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
6
1.PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Millstone Creek Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the Deep River sub-basin of the
Cape Fear River Basin in Randolph County, North Carolina (HUC: 03030003, N35°41'48.06"
W79°37'26.24"). The Site is located approximately 3 miles southeast of the Town of Ramseur off
Highway 22 (Figure 1.1). The site and contributing rural watersheds are located within the
Carolina Slate Belt (EPA Ecoregion 45c) with rolling hills typical of the NC Piedmont. Land
adjacent to the Site and within the established conservation easement has been heavily impacted
by cattle grazing and the land application of swine waste for 20+ years. This agricultural
production has led to severe water quality and aquatic habitat impairment, streambank trampling
and degradation of the riparian and wetland vegetation on all of the Site’s mitigation resources.
Streams at the Site are divided into seven (7) reaches (Figure 1.2). The tributaries include:
NT R1 (303 LF), NT R2 (103 LF), UTA R1 (505 LF), UTA R2 (100 LF), UTB (529 LF) and the
Millstone Creek mainstem reaches are: MC R1 (1,462 LF) and MC R2 (553 LF). The total existing
stream length is 3,555 LF. A single jurisdictional wetland feature (1.323 AC) is on the Site (Table
1.1). Stream restoration using a Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance (RSC) step-pool system
and underlying sand layer is proposed for NT R1 and UTA R1 to process nitrogen and improve
downstream water quality. Restoration is proposed for NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB. For Millstone
Creek, Enhancement 1 treatments are proposed for MC R1 and restoration is proposed for MC
R2. Hydrologic enhancement filling a ditch is proposed for Wetland 1. A summary of the mitigation
approach for the site resources is provided in Figure 1.3. In addition to the required mitigation
monitoring, rigorous supplemental water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring is proposed on
UTA R1 & R2, UTB, NT R1 & R2 for a 4% increase in SMUs as calculated by designed linear
footage on each of these reaches. On the same tributaries (NT R1, NT R2, UTA R1, UTA R2 and
UTB), an additional 2% increase is proposed for meeting an estimated 20% total reduction in
nitrogen as compared to baseline pre-construction monitoring results. The proposed work and
mitigation credits will result in 3,178.13 SMUs and 0.662 WMUs. Implementation at the Site will
be phased: Phase 1 will include NT R1, NT R2, UTB, MC R1 and MC R2 and Phase 2 will include
UTA R1 and UTA R2.
Through a research partnership established in August 2014 between North Carolina State
University NC Sea Grant and the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering (NCSU
BAE) and the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NC DMS), substantial effort has been
made to collect detailed hydrologic, hydraulic, water quality, macroinvertebrate, geomorphic and
functional data at the Site. The field-collected data has been used to develop and guide the
mitigation planning effort. The proposed restoration approach for the Site is designed to optimize
functional uplift with respect to existing conditions, site constraints, specific landscape processes,
in-stream fluvial processes and onsite constraints.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
7
Table 1.1: Millstone Creek Site Mitigation Credit Summary
Mitigation Credits
Type SMUs Riparian WMUs Non-riparian
WMUs
Riparian
Buffer
Nitrogen
Offset
Phosphorus
Offset
Project total 3,088.67 + 63.24
= 3,151.91 - 0.662 - - -
2% Subject
to
monitoring
results*
26.22 - - - -
Project Total 3,178.13 - 0.662 - - -
•2% of SMUs are subject to meeting specified water quality metrics, these credits will not be realized if this standard is
not met
Project Components
Resource
Existing
Length
(LF)
Approach
Proposed
Length
(LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
WQ Credits
4%
2%
NT R1 303 R: Step-pool system 326 1:1 326.00 13.04
6.52
NT R2 103 R: Bank grading, in-
stream structures 103 1:1 103.00 4.12
2.06
UTA R1 505 R: Step-pool system 523 1:1 523.00 20.92
5.06
UTA R2 100
R: Bank grading, in-
stream structures,
invasive removal
100 1:1 100.00 4.00
2.00
UTB 529 R: Bank grading, in-
stream structures 529 1:1 529.00 21.16
10.58
MC R1 1462
E1: Bank grading, in-
stream structures, bank
treatments, planting
1,462 1.5:1 974.67 0
MC R2 553
R: Priority 2 approach.
Appropriate bankfull
channel dimensions,
minor floodplain
grading, in-stream
structures, bank
treatments, planting
533 1:1 533.00 0
Total 3555 3,576 3,088.67 4% = 63.24
2%= 26.22
Wetland 1 1.323 AC Enhancement 1.320 AC 2:1 0.662 .662
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
8
Figure 1.1: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Vicinity Map
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
9
Figure 1.2: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Resources
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
10
Figure 1.3: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Summary
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
11
2.WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
2.1 River Basin and Watershed Planning Context
Millstone Creek (HUC 03030003) is 7.22 miles long and flows into the Deep River, which
is a tributary to the Cape Fear River. The proposed Millstone Creek Mitigation Site is located 1.39
miles above the confluence of Millstone Creek and the Deep River. Neither Millstone Creek nor
the sub-basin of the Deep River (HUC 03030003020030) that it lies within are included in DMS’s
Compensation Planning Framework (CPF). Further, there is no site specific benthic or water
quality monitoring data available for Millstone Creek from the NC Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) or the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA). There is no specific
mention of Millstone Creek in any watershed plans available from neither the NCDEQ, NC DMS
nor the Piedmont Triad Regional Council (PTRC).
(NC-DEQ, 2005) Cape Fear River Basin-Wide Plan noted that the Deep River from Haskett
Creek to Brush Creek (20.9 miles) is supporting of aquatic life because of a “good” benthic
community qualitative rating just D/S of the Town of Ramseur. The location of this “good” benthic
macroinvertebrate rating is approximately 5 miles U/S of the Deep River’s confluence with
Millstone creek. However, turbidity was noted as exceeding water quality standards on several
occasions at the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA) ambient monitoring station
B5100000, which is located a short distance of approximately 0.4 miles D/S of the Millstone Creek
confluence with the Deep River. Ambient monitoring data for this station from 2008 to 2012
reported 8 occurrences of exceeding the fecal coliform standard (200/400) and 4 for exceeding
the turbidity standard (50 NTU) (n=60 samples). The station reported no exceedance for
Nitrate/Nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorus (TP),
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Total Suspended Sediment (TSS), Temperature, pH, or specific
conductance. Similarly, the upstream ambient monitoring station on the Deep River in Ramseur
(B5070000), approximately 5 miles upstream of the Millstone Creek confluence, reported 3
exceedances for Turbidity and 8 for fecal coliform during the same four-year monitoring period
(NC-DEQ, 2014).
This reach of the Deep River is not rated for recreational use because of the fecal coliform
bacteria screening criteria at these stations both U/S and D/S of the Millstone Creek confluence.
In contrast, the current 319 Watershed Restoration Plan Map lists the 18.2 mile reach from
Gabriel’s Creek to Brush Creek as impaired, which spans U/S and D/S of the confluence (NC-
DEQ, 2015). However, this impairment is attributed to Copper concentrations and Mercury in fish
tissue. The reach is currently meeting the 50 NTU criteria for turbidity and fecal coliform of 200
counts per 400 mL. The draft 2016 303(d) list does not include this stretch of the river citing
inconclusive data for Chlorophyll a (40 ug/l standard) and no mention of copper or mercury
(NCDEQ, 2016). PTRC (2016) also indicates that 20 miles of the Deep River are currently listed
as impaired for biological community either due to low dissolved oxygen levels and/or high
chlorophyll-a levels, both indicative of high nutrient inputs and eutrophication. This impairment is
likely the result of large contributions of nutrients from agricultural production practices in the sub-
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
12
basin. Exacerbating the effects of these pollutants are several small dams - most are poorly
maintained and slow water flow. The stagnant river flows allow algal growth and possible river
eutrophication, which can lead to hypoxic water conditions and biological die-off. PTRC (2016)
speculates that the rare and endangered species endemic to the Deep River may be driven from
this river system under these conditions.
PTRC (2016) has outlined the need for an Asheboro Municipal Watershed Restoration
Plan and is currently seeking funds to produce a comprehensive watershed restoration plan
including a detailed watershed assessment, policy and program recommendations to address
water quality needs. Based on the NCDEQ Cape Fear Basin plan assessment of the Deep River
D/S of the Millstone Creek confluence combined with the observations and priorities of the PTRC
and TJCOG, reducing the export of sediment, nutrients and pathogens to the Deep River should
be a priority for the watershed and its tributaries, which includes Millstone Creek. Given the
presence of cultivated and pasturelands in the watershed, the conclusion that Millstone Creek is
contributing substantial loading of sediment, nutrients and fecal pollution to the affected segment
of the Deep River is reasonable. The mitigation plan for the Site should be targeted at addressing
these pollutant issues.
2.2 Stream Use Classification
Millstone Creek is the only stream on the project site with a designated stream use
classification (DWQ Stream Index Number 17-19). DWQ classifies Millstone Creek as “C”. The
“C” classification indicates waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and
aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. There are
no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges.
3.BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Processes and Landscape Characteristics
3.1.1 Watershed and Site Geology
The Site and contributing watersheds are located within the Carolina Slate Belt. The
Carolina Slate Belt consists mostly of rocks originally deposited on or near the earth’s surface by
volcanic eruption and sedimentation (North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985). The major rocks
of the slate belt are volcanic argillites, basic and acid tuffs, breccias and flows (Daniels et al.,
1999). Volcanic igneous rocks rise above the surrounding slates as high rolling hills and small
mountains. The interfluves are irregular, and sharp topographic breaks like knolls and saddles are
common. The valley sides are relatively short. Thick soils tend to occur on the smoother parts of
the Slate Belt and thin soils occur on the broken or sharply irregular landscapes. Alluvial fills in
the small streams draining the Slate Belt tend to be narrow, shallow to hard rock, and contain an
abundance of slate fragments. The small first and second order streams or drainage ways tend
to be short and stubby with high angle junctions. Alignment of tributaries across the main stream
is common and may be related to the underlying rock structures. Right angle turns are also
common in the main channels (Daniels, Buol, Kleiss, & Ditzler, 1999). Most of the non-eroded or
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
13
moderately eroded soils have silt loam surfaces and over 30 percent silt with fine sand in the B
horizon. Soils formed in the Carolina Slate Belt have relatively high silt contents and overlie
relatively thin saprolite compared to soils formed in the felsic crystalline areas. Soils in the Slate
system have more slowly permeable B horizons and saprolite than their felsic crystalline
counterparts.
The Slate Belt is cut in several places by coarse-grained intrusive rocks, generally termed
granites, which are relatively un-deformed due to intrusion following the metamorphism that
affected the sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Millstone Creek and nearly the entire contributing
watershed are located in a sub-region characterized by primarily intrusive rocks and
metamorphosed granite rock. Intrusive granite material has been observed as outcroppings within
and adjacent to the existing easement as well as in the upstream reaches of Millstone Creek
(Figure 3.1). The substrate of the reach of Millstone Creek that is within the Site is dominated by
sand, however in the upstream reaches cleaved rock and rounded granite boulders are common.
The cleaved rock and the erodible silty sand of the region combine to produce a bimodal bed in
these U/S reaches. Millstone Creek also contains periodic granite rock clusters and outcroppings,
which provide an important source of flow and bedform diversity.
Slopes within the watershed range from approximately 15% to 20% along some of the
interior ridges to approximately 2% to 4% along the watershed boundary and near the streams.
The highest elevations in the watershed are greater than 730 ft. above mean sea level in the
southern portion of the drainage area, and the lowest elevations are at the most downstream area
of the project at approximate elevation 425 ft. The topographic relief within in the Millstone Creek
watershed is approximately 305 ft. Topography within the Site varies widely. The valleys of NT
and UTA are relatively steep longitudinally with gentle hillside slopes connecting to the terrace.
UTB and Millstone Creek have flatter valleys with steep hillside slopes connecting to the terrace.
Elevations within the site range from 480 ft. above UTA down to 424 ft. at the downstream end of
Millstone Creek.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
14
Granite Rock Outcropping at the Site Granite Rock Outcropping U/S of MC R1
Bimodal substrate U/S of MC R1 Bimodal substrate U/S of MC R1
Figure 3.1: Watershed and Site Geology Photos
3.1.2 Watershed and Site Land Use
For the last 25+ years, land use characteristics in the NT, UTA and UTB watersheds have
been relatively constant with the majority of land being managed as pasture or hay production
and the remainder in forest cover (Table 3.1). By 2001, much of the remaining forest cover was
removed and the tributary watersheds on Site were almost entirely managed as pasture or hay
production. This land use change is supported by aerial photos that shows forest cover in the
valleys and riparian zone of the proposed mitigation site. The 2014 aerial photography shows that
most of the forested area in the valleys and along the streams was removed for hay production
and grazing. Land use changes in the Millstone Creek watershed have been relatively dramatic
since 1992. There has been a consistent trend in the conversion of forest to pasture and hay
production going from 62% forest in 1992 to 35% forest in 2011 with the majority of the land use
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
15
change occurring between 1992 and 2001. Disturbances like changes in land cover may lead to
changes in flow regime and sediment supply and vegetated boundary conditions, which can cause
channel incision, downcutting and subsequent widening. There are no major metropolitan areas,
rapidly expanding municipalities or NC DOT planned highway construction projects in the
Millstone Creek watershed. The watershed is very rural with just 4% developed and less than 1%
impervious cover. Urbanization and impervious cover are not expected to be a factor affecting
future land use changes. The Millstone Creek watershed is more likely to experience the
continued trend of forest cover conversion to pasture, hay production and heavy cattle grazing,
potentially impacting future stream flow and sediment supply. The tributary watersheds are nearly
entirely comprised of pasture and simply establishing riparian vegetation within the existing
easement will lead to a substantial increase in forested cover likely similar to the 1992 conditions.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
16
Table 3.1: Watershed Temporal Land Use Summary by Site Resource
North Tributary – 26 Acres (0.04 mi2)
Land Use1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 10% - - -
Grasslands - - - -
Shrub / Scrub - - - -
Pasture 90% 99% 99% 99%
Developed - <1% <1% <1%
Impervious - <1% <1% <1%
Other - - - -
UT Reach A – 26 Acres (0.04 mi2)
Land Use1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 18% - - -
Grasslands - - - -
Shrub / Scrub - - - -
Pasture 82% 95% 95% 95%
Developed - 5% 5% 5%
Impervious - <1% <1% <1%
Other - - - -
UT Reach B – 53 Acres (0.1 mi2)
Land Use1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 25% - - -
Grasslands - - - -
Shrub / Scrub - - - -
Pasture 75% 98% 98% 98%
Developed - 2% 2% 2%
Impervious - <1% <1% <1%
Other - - - -
Millstone Creek – 8.3 mi2
Land Use1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 62% 39% 37% 35%
Grasslands - 5% 6% 7%
Shrub / Scrub - 4% 4% 5%
Pasture 37% 48% 49% 48%
Developed <1% 4% 4% 4%
Impervious <1% <1% <1% <1%
Other - <1% <1% <1%
1Land use data and category obtained from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD)
2 For 1992 and 2006, NLCD reports Pasture and Hay Production as “Planted Area”
3.1.3 Site Soils
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
17
Soils at the Site are generally described as loams on moderately steep to steep slopes.
The dominant soil type within the easement is MaC or “Mecklenburg Loam” on 8 to 15% slopes.
MaC soils tend to form in long narrow swaths and along ridges and hillslopes (USDA NRCS,
1995). Mecklenburg Loams are highly erodible on slopes with limited fertility properties unless
supplemented with fertilization inputs. This soil type is characteristic of soils across the Slate Belt
with relatively high silt contents that overlie relatively thin saprolite layers. The 8% to 15% slope
designation is indicative of the valley configuration within the site where the valley walls slope
quickly and steeply from a terrace to the valley floor. RvA or “Riverview Sandy Loam” on 0% to
2% slopes and described as “frequently flooded” is also present within the easement in the vicinity
of the D/S reach of UTB and Wetland 1. RvA soil type extends west and north beyond the existing
earthen berm towards Millstone Creek. Other soil types located within the site are CcB (“Cecil
Sandy Loam”, 2% to 8% slopes), MaD (“Mecklenburg Loam”, 15% to 25% slopes), and MeB2
(“Mecklenburg Clay Loam”, 2% to 8% slopes), however these soils are outside the extents of the
proposed restoration effort. The soil type distribution within the easement boundary is shown in
Figure 3.2.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
18
Figure 3.2: Millstone Creek Site Soils
o
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
19
3.1.4 Site Vegetation
Four types of vegetation communities are present at the Site: Piedmont Alluvial Forest,
Piedmont Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Pasture / Disturbed and Wet Meadow. These vegetation
communities are described below and their extents are shown on Figure 3.3.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Remnants of this community are located along the banks of Millstone Creek. This area
transitions into a Pasture/Disturbed community throughout the remainder of the Cox property. The
canopy along Millstone Creek is fragmented and mainly consists of yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), box elder (Acer negundo), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), hackberry (Celtis
laevigata), red elm (Ulmus rubra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum),
and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Sub-canopy and shrub species observed include black
willow (Salix nigra), box elder, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), and the invasive exotics, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense). The herbaceous layer includes poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
greenbriar (Smilax spp.), violets (Viola spp.), southern crownbeard (Verbesina occidentalis), poor
man’s pepper (Lepidium virginicum), (Bermuda grass (Cynodon sp.), and the invasive Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Piedmont Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community is confined to a narrow buffer along NT and UTA. These tributaries
converge at UTB and then transition into Wetland 1 and are encompassed by the
Pasture/Disturbed community. The canopy along NT and UTA consists of yellow poplar, sweet
gum, hackberry, red elm, sycamore, red maple, green ash, American beech, (Fagus grandifolia),
cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata), and mockernut hickory (Carya alba). Sub-canopy and shrub
species black willow, elderberry, American holly (Ilex opaca), ironwood, and the invasive exotics,
multiflora rose and Chinese privet. The herbaceous layer includes poison ivy, greenbriar (Smilax
spp.), violets (Viola spp.), polkweed (Phytolacca americana), southern crownbeard, Bermuda
grass, and the invasive Japanese honeysuckle.
Pasture/Disturbed Community
Land adjacent to and within the Site is used for animal production, primarily cattle and
hogs. As a result, pasture and disturbed conditions dominate the property mostly due to heavy
cattle grazing. This plant community is dominated by Bermuda grass, fescue (Festuca spp.), poor
man’s pepper, sow thistle (Sonchus sp.), and weedy dogfennel (Chamaemelum mixtum). There
is scattering of tree species such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweet gum, box elder, green ash,
and Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) in these open areas. Shrub and herbaceous species
such as multiflora rose, blackberry (Rubus spp.), and the invasive exotic Chinese privet are
present and often common along community ecotones.
Wet Meadow
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
20
Woody species within the wetland include swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), black
willow (Salix nigra), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The
herbaceous vegetation was dominated by common rush (Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex sp.),
Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pennsylvanica), switchgrass (Dicanthelium sp.), monkey
flower (Mimulus ringens), arrowhead (Sagitaria latifolia var. latifolia), seedbox (Ludwigia sp.),
water hemlock (Cicuta maculata), and orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis).

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
21

Figure 3.3: Millstone Creek Site Existing Vegetation
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
22
3.2 Site Resources
A summary of general watershed and morphology characteristics for all stream reaches is
provided in Table 3.2 and photos of the reaches are shown in figures 3.4 and 3.5.
3.2.1 NT R1 and UTA R1
NT R1 and UTA R1 are small headwater tributaries that lie within confined valleys with
relatively small drainage areas managed nearly 100% as pasture. These reaches are deeply
incised and entrenched due to severe headcuttting and associated bed and bank erosion. Both
reaches are currently perennial channels; however, their flow regime has likely been impacted by
downcutting that has intersected the groundwater table. These systems were most likely
intermittent prior to the historical disturbance, and are likely to return to intermittent status post-
restoration after the channel is lifted to connect to the old floodplain. Headcutting that migrated up
valley has resulted in incised channels and the export of approximately 2,500 tons of sediment
from each reach (determined by surface comparison in AutoCAD C3D). The exported sediment
was deposited in what is now Wetland 1 below UTB. Additional stressors to these reaches include
extreme channel incision, cattle access, bank trampling and high nutrient inputs from land applied
swine wastes.
3.2.2 NT R2 and UT R2
NT R2 and UTA R2 are both relatively short perennial streams in confined valleys located
below NT R1 and UTA R1, respectively. NT R2 is a B5 stream type (Rosgen, 1994). Entrenchment
varies from entrenched to moderately entrenched (ER = 1.4 to 2.0). UTA R2 is an F5 stream type
with low sinuosity (1.07) and low entrenchment ratio (1.1) (Rosgen, 1994). The D50 for NT R1 and
UTA R1 is sand, however both reaches also contain some coarse riffle material and the streambed
is dominated by riffle/run with little habitat heterogeneity with few to no pools. Additional stressors
to these reaches include extreme channel incision, cattle access, bank trampling and high nutrient
inputs from land applied swine wastes. Pre-restoration water quality monitoring within NT R2 and
UT R2 indicated that Total Nitrogen (TN) concentrations in streamflow were between 10 – 15
mg/L. Similar TN concentrations would also be expected in NT R1, NT R2 and UTB.
3.2.3 UTB
UTB is a 2nd order perennial system that begins below the confluence of NT R2 and UTA
R2 in the vicinity of a former impoundment for cattle watering. The drainage area is 56 ac and
managed mostly as pasture. The valley floor rises steeply to a high terrace at the edge of the
existing pasture. UTB is incised through the upstream and middle reaches and has been impacted
by historical channelization along the southern hillslope toe, livestock trampling, heavy cattle
grazing of riparian vegetation and impoundments at the upstream and downstream extents. UTB
is nearly a plane bed system characterized by mostly riffle – run features, two log steps and no
defined pools. The channel has limited floodplain connection due to moderate degradation. UTB
terminates at a jurisdictional wetland feature (Wetland 1) that formed through sediment deposition
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
23
behind a remnant sawmill impoundment. Bank height ratios are 1.4 to 2.3 in much of the reach.
UTB is also heavily impacted by high nutrient and sediment inputs from agricultural operations
and land applied swine wastes.
Table 3.2: Site Existing Stream Summary
Parameter
Reach
NT R1 NT R2 UTA R1 UTA R2 UTB MC R1 MC R2
Drainage Area 19 AC 25 AC 20 AC 26 AC 56 AC 8.2 mi2 8.3 mi2
Stream Order 1st 1st 1st 1st 2nd 4th 4th
Flow Regime Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial
Existing Length (LF) 303 103 505 100 529 1,462 553
Stream Type G5 / F5 B5 F5 F5 G5 / E5 E5 / C5 E5
QBKF (ft3/s) 8.7 6.7 9.7 171 - 295
ABKF (ft2) 2.3 – 3.7 2.3 8.0 - 9.9 14.6 2.1 – 3.7 75.3 –
123.6 105.8
WBKF (ft.) 5.8 - 5.9 4.9 11.3 - 11.9 14.5 4.4 – 5.6 28.9 – 46.6 30.9
DBKF (ft.) 0.4 – 0.6 0.5 0.7 - 0.8 1.0 0.5 – 0.7 2.6 – 3.3 3.4
W/D 9.4 - 14.5 10.2 14.3 - 15.8 14.3 6.6 – 9.3 11.1 – 17.6 9.0
BHR 3.0 - 3.2 1.5 3.1 – 3.5 2.0 1.0 – 2.3 1.0 - 1.1 1.2
ER 1.4 - 1.5 2.0 1.2 - 1.5 1.1 1.8 – 20 7.1 – 7.5 12.3
K 1.03 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.08 1.09 1.13
Valley Confinement Confined Confined Confined Confined Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined Unconfined
Valley Type Colluvial Colluvial Colluvial Colluvial Alluvial Alluvial Alluvial
Valley Slope (ft./ft.) 0.0237 0.0405 0.0265 0.0421 0.0163 0.0023 0.0023
Channel Slope
(ft./ft.) 0.0230 0.0370 0.0270 0.0405 0.0144 0.0021 0.0021
D50 (mm) 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6
D84 (mm) 38 38 23 23 9 1.6 1.6

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
24

NT R1

NT R2

UTA R1

UTA R2
UTB UTB

Figure 3.4: Tributaries
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
25
3.2.4 MC R1 and MC R2
Millstone Creek is a 4th order sand bed system with a large watershed (DA = 8.3 mi2), low
sinuosity and low channel water surface slope (0.0021 ft./ft.). There are two reaches of Millstone
Creek within the Site: MC R1 north of the easement break and MC R2 south of the easement
break. Existing conditions and stressors within each reach are very similar. The valley is flat and
moderately confined to unconfined within the easement boundaries. The hillside slopes steeply
down from terraces on the east and west sides of the valley. Channel bedform is dominated by
riffle, ripple, dune and run features with only a few pools around large woody debris (LWD). There
are a few point bars and depositional benches in the stream, however they are providing limited
storage for heavy sediment loads that are being transported to and through the reach. Rather,
sediment is accumulating across the streambed, marginalizing aquatic habitat and forming mid
channel and transverse bars. The banks have been impacted by cattle access and removal of
native riparian vegetation, which has caused mild to severe bank erosion and lateral migration of
several meander bends. In the context of Simon and Hupp’s (1989) channel evolution model,
Millstone Creek has experienced relatively recent (on geologic time scales) disturbance,
degradation and now is continuing into the degradation and widening phase (Stage IV). The
stream has incised slightly with bank height ratios of 1.0 to 1.2, but maintains access to the
floodplain. The slight degree of incision is likely due to deposition of alluvium on the floodplain
rather than downcutting of the channel bed. The existing project reach is an E5/C5 stream type
(Rosgen, 1994). The stream is not entrenched (ER = 7.1 to 12.3), has moderate width-to-depth
ratio (median = 11). The reach also has a low sinuosity (1.09), which is not indicative of a typical
E or C stream type. However, two meander bends (STA 15+00 FT to STA 18+00 FT) with tight
radii of curvature are contributing to bank erosion and lateral adjustment.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
26
MC R1 STA 1+75 MC R1 STA 3+91
MC R2 STA 17+37 MC R2 STA 19+84
Figure 3.5: MC R1 and MC R2
3.2.5 Wetland 1
A jurisdictional determination was performed by USACE on August 29, 2019 at the Site
(Figure 3.6). Wetland 1 is 1.323 acres (Figure 3.7). From the Northeast, UTB terminates within
the first 35 feet of Wetland 1 and an existing ditch runs along the eastern boundary. Wetland 1
has been degraded by damming, ditching, cattle access, grazing and deposition of eroded
sediment from NT, UTA and UTB. Anecdotal evidence was gathered from the current land owner,
who indicates that UTB was historically used for a sawmill and a small impoundment formerly
existed in the area of the wetland. This evidence is reasonable given the presence of the berm
and the ditch along the eastern boundary. Since the cattle exclusion fencing was installed in 2015,
recovery of some woody and herbaceous vegetation has occurred and the existing vegetation
community is a wet meadow as described in Section 3.1.4. A NC WAM assessment of the wetland

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
27

Wetland 1

Wetland 1
Figure 3.6: Wetland 1
Figure 3.7: August 29, 2019 Wetland Delineation Map
(see Appendices) indicates a low rating for hydrology, water quality and habitat as a result of the
altered ground surface, reduced water storage, moderate sedimentation and the presence of
invasive species

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
28
5. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Regulatory considerations for the proposed Millstone Creek Mitigation Site include Section
404/401, Endangered Species Act, Historic Preservation Act and FEMA Floodplain Compliance.
Site regulatory investigations, requirements and summary is included in Table 5.1 and the
following sections.
Table 5.1: Regulatory Considerations for Millstone Creek Mitigation Site
Regulatory Consideration Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs.
Waters of US – Section 404 Yes PCN to be prepared Appendix
Waters of US – Section 401 Yes PCN to be prepared Appendix
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix
Coastal Zone Management Act /
Coastal Area Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) digital database of rare
plants, animals, and natural areas for records of threatened and endangered species or federally
designated habitat found within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project site resulted in no
elemental occurrences. The US Fish and Wildlife Service website was consulted on March 30,
2020, to obtain a listing of all threatened and endangered species for Randolph County (Table
5.2). Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. There are two federally protected species listed
for Randolph County. The proposed project is Not Likely to Effect Cape Fear Shiner populations
in the vicinity of the project and will have No Effect on Schweinitz’s sunflower.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
29

Table 5.2: Federally Endangered Species Listed for Randolph County, NC
Common Name Scientific name Status
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas E
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E

In addition, three mussels are listed as at risk species (ARS) and the Georgia aster is
considered a candidate (C) species for listing (Table 5.3). Species with the status of C or ARS are
not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened or Endangered. Candidate (C) species are under consideration for official listing
for which there is sufficient information to support listing. In addition, C species which are listed
as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal
Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended. The only mussels encountered on
the Site during four macroinvertebrate surveys conducted during 2015 and 2016 include Corbicula
fluminea (Asiatic Clam), Physella (Snail) and Sphaerium. The Georgia aster was not encountered
during vegetation surveyed conducted in 2018, so the project is Not Likely to Effect the mussels
and will have No Effect on the aster. Table 5.3 summarizes federal species of concern listed for
Randolph Counties (March 30, 2020 USFWS list).
Table 5.3: Federal Species of Concern Listed for Randolph County, NC
Invertebrate
Common Name Scientific name Status
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason ARS
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicose ARS
Savannah Lilliput Toxolasma pullus ARS
Vascular Plant
Common Name Scientific name Record
Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum C

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
30

5.2 Cultural Resources
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch conducted a feasibility
study for the Cox Site in 2004. According to the report, files were reviewed at both the North
Carolina Archeology Office and the North Carolina State Historical Preservation Office on
December 12, 2003, and all records indicated no known archeological or historically relevant site
within the project area.
5.3 404/401
During the design phase, efforts were made to align proposed restoration stream sections
to avoid existing wetlands as much as possible and minimize grading impacts. Minor wetland
impacts will be necessary during the construction of UTB and hydrologic enhancement of Wetland
1. UTB Enhancement will permanently impact 0.003 AC and berm removal and ditch plugs will
temporarily impact 0.104 AC of Wetland 1 (Table 5.4). Stream and wetland impacts will be detailed
in the 401/404 PCN application.
Table 5.4: Wetland 1 Temporary and Permanent Impacts
Jurisdictional
Feature
Existing
Area
Permanent Impact Temporary Impact Proposed
Area Activity Impact
Area Activity Impact
Area
Wetland 1 1.323 ac UTB Stream
Enhancement 0.003 ac Berm removal
and ditch plug 0.104 ac 1.320 ac

6. FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
6.1 Stream Functional Uplift Potential
The potential for functional uplift at the Millstone Creek Mitigation Site has been evaluated
in the context of the “Stream Functions Pyramid” described by Harman et al. (2012), which uses
a hierarchy of five stream functions, each of which supports the functions above it on the pyramid
(and may reinforce those functions below it). The functions from top to bottom are hydrology,
geomorphology, physicochemical and biology. This functional approach is based on the 2008
Federal Mitigation Rule (33 C.F.R. § 332/40 C.F.R. § 230).
6.1.1 Hydrology
The primary watershed disturbance for streams at the Site has been the conversion of
forested cover to pasture lands and hay production. Potential uplift is produced for hydrology of
the tributaries by reducing reach-scale runoff through buffer planning (reforesting) and with
upstream RSCs on the tributaries. The proposed RSCs and temporary storage and treatment of
runoff above NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB will eliminate the erosional gullies (concentrated flow
points) and result in catchment hydrology more similar to a forested condition. The Millstone Creek
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
31
watershed is relatively large (8.3 mi2) and the restoration effort will not produce uplift in catchment
hydrology. Some reach-scale hydrology uplift is possible through establishment of riparian buffer
outside the right bank; however, it is insignificant in comparison to the larger catchment.
6.1.2 Hydraulics
Restoration and enhancement efforts on the tributaries and the mainstem of Millstone
Creek will create functional uplift in Hydraulics by reconnecting the streams to their floodplains.
Target BHR for all reaches is 1.0 to 1.2 after project implementation. Floodplain connection will
increase the water table elevation in the riparian zone for enhanced nutrient processing and
uptake. Increased flood frequency will provide additional opportunity for detention and spreading
of flood flows to decrease in-channel velocities and shear stresses.
6.1.3 Geomorphology
The restoration and enhancement treatments for the Site are designed to generate uplift in
Geomorphology. On the tributaries, constructed riffles with log and boulder steps will be used to
diversify bedform, hold grade and maintain pools through energy dissipation and scour. Log riffles,
log j-hooks, brush toe and bank grading will be used to stabilize the system and create appropriate
riffle lengths, pool-to-pool spacings and pool depths. LWD will be added to all reaches on the Site
within the channels and on the floodplains and native woody riparian vegetation will be established
throughout the Site.
6.1.4 Physicochemical
Rigorous surface water and groundwater quality monitoring has been conducted at the Site
since summer 2014. High nutrient and pathogen inputs from land applied swine wastes and cattle
grazing are the most prevalent physicochemical stressors on the Site’s tributaries. Treatments
are thereby designed to restore and enhance physicochemical functions, including cattle
exclusion fencing, RSCs on tributaries NT R1 and UTA R1 and re-vegetation of the riparian buffer.
Stabilization of UTB and hydrologic enhancement of Wetland 1 may also produce additional
processing and treatment of nutrients and sediment sources within the Site. Supplemental post-
implementation water quality monitoring of the tributaries will be conducted to quantify the water
quality benefits and physicochemical uplift. Riparian buffer re-vegetation, bank grading and
treatments on Millstone Creek may create moderate reach-scale lift in water quality, however no
major physicochemical impacts are anticipated due the large uncontrolled drainage area to the
project reach.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
32
6.1.5 Biology
Currently, there is little habitat in the Site streams to support rich and diverse
macroinvertebrate communities. The tributaries are plane bed systems dominated by riffle / run
bedforms with little flow or bedform diversity. Nutrient and sediment inputs to the tributaries are
extremely high and may be the greatest stressor to aquatic organisms and habitat. RSC
treatments on NT R1 and UTA R1 will be implemented to address the nutrient stressors within
the tributaries. Cobble riffles and wood will also be added to the tributaries. Millstone Creek is a
sand bed system with some small gravels deposited on bars and in riffles, but lacks larger angular
gravels characteristic of other Slate Belt streams that typically support macroinvertebrate habitat.
Wood and boulder structures will be added to Millstone Creek to support aquatic habitat
development. Supplemental post-implementation macroinvertebrate sampling on the tributaries
and Millstone Creek will be conducted to evaluation the biology uplift.
6.2 Constraints to Functional Uplift
Constraints to creating functional uplift exist within the Site. Constraints are primarily
related to heavy agricultural nutrient inputs, catchment management and size, physical site
boundaries within the existing conservation easement, and the jurisdictional wetland onsite. NT
R1, NT R2, UTA R1, UTA R2 and UTB are all heavily impacted by management practices in their
small contributing drainage areas, which are nearly 100% pasture with land applied swine wastes.
This has resulted in extremely high nitrogen and phosphorus loads in both baseflow and storm
flow of the tributaries. Some of the contributing drainage area will be reclaimed as riparian buffer
to the easement boundary, but it is not likely to impact the overall catchment hydrologic response
and condition. RSCs will be installed on reaches above NT R2 and UTA R2 to provide additional
nutrient processing and physicochemical lift, however it is unlikely that instream TN and TP
concentrations and loads of the receiving tributaries will be decreased to a reference quality
condition described by Harman et al. (2012). Ongoing and rigorous field monitoring of nutrient
concentrations and loads will continue through the post-implementation phase of the project to
evaluate the overall nutrient processing and benefits to the tributaries. The contributing drainage
area to Millstone Creek is very large (8.3 mi2) and will likely remain unchanged by any restoration
activities within the project easement.
Proposed enhancement and restoration stream lengths are relatively short and their valleys
are confined to moderately confined. Realignment is limited by the conservation easement
boundary, confined valleys and limited reach lengths. Millstone Creek in particular is constrained
by the eastern valley wall and easement boundaries. The proposed stream length is just 51
bankfull widths and is limited at the D/S extent by Wetland 1 and the existing channel at the
easement boundary along the toe of the eastern hillslope. A break in the existing conservation
easement to provide access to adjacent properties with a ford crossing also restricts the proposed
alignment configuration.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
33
7. MITIGATION SITE GOALS AND FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
The proposed mitigation Site goals represent desired outcomes that are verifiable through
physical field measurements or visual assessments. The project goals, restoration objectives and
expected outcomes are presented in Table 7.1. For the development and preparation of this
mitigation plan, substantial baseline and existing condition data have been collected and used in
the development of the post-implementation performance standards and project success criteria.
Additional supplemental monitoring of water quality and biology parameters will be included in the
post-implementation evaluation of the project for the purpose of research and advancement of
the science and practice of compensatory mitigation and stream restoration. Proposed project
performance standards and success criteria are described in Section 9.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
34
Table 7.1: Mitigation Site Goals, Treatments and Expected Outcomes
Goal Treatment Expected Outcomes Likely Functional Uplift
Enhance processing of nutrients
from onsite sources.
Construct stream and wetland
systems designed to process
nitrogen and phosphorus.
Stable conveyances with
sediment trapping and
processing of nutrients.
Reduction in sediment and nutrient
inputs and treatment. Improved water
quality and aquatic habitat.
Improve stream channel stability.
Grade streambanks, construct
stream channels with appropriate
bankfull channel dimensions,
planform geometry and profile such
that channel maintenance and
adjustments are representative of
other natural systems.
Stable channels with BHR less
than 1.2.
Decrease sediment inputs from channel
and bank erosion. Efficiently transport
sediment loads and stream flow.
Improve instream habitat.
Install habitat features and
structures, add LWD, increase
bedform diversity, improve in-stream
water quality.
Visual assessment should report
an overall increase in habitat
complexity within the stream
systems.
Increase in available habitat for
macroinvertebrates and fish leading to
an increase in biodiversity.
Restore native riparian vegetation.
Plant native tree, understory and
grass species in riparian zones,
streambank and wetland areas.
Planted stem densities will be at
or above 210 planted stems per
acre at MY7, with volunteer trees
also growing onsite.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank
erosion. Increase nutrient processing,
uptake and storage within the floodplain.
Create riparian habitats. Add a source
of LWD and organic material to stream.
Permanently protect site resources
from local disturbance including
livestock
A conservation easement has been
secured and recorded for the Site. A
livestock exclusion fence and
watering system has been installed
with NC DMS funding.
No detrimental impacts to the
conservation easement area, site
streams, wetlands or riparian
buffer in perpetuity.
Protection of the Site from
encroachment into the conservation
easement and direct impact to streams.
Supports all functions including
Hydrology (reach-scale), Hydraulic,
Geomorphology, Physicochemical, and
Biology.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
35
8. DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
8.1 Design Approach Summary
The design approach for the Site was developed to address stressors described
in Section 3 and Mitigation Site Goals described in Section 7. Design approaches for
enhancement and restoration activities have utilized analog, analytical, empirical and
other published design guidance as a basis for design and the development of design
criteria. This design approach has been used successfully by the NCSU BAE Stream
Restoration Program for other projects throughout North Carolina and the methods and
process are covered in detail in the River Course Workshop Series (RC 101, 201, 302
and 311). For NT R1 and UTA R1, step-pool systems with an underlying sand layer are
proposed to provide processing and treatment of extremely high nutrient concentrations
and loads before being conveyed to downstream tributaries NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB
and Wetland 1. Restoration activities on reaches NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB include bank
grading and increased bedform diversity and channel stability with constructed riffles and
log steps. Bank grading, in-stream structures and bank treatments will be implemented
on MC R1. MC R2 will be realigned with minor floodplain excavation and grading.
Hydrologic enhancement will be implemented on Wetland 1 by plugging the existing ditch
and removing berms and other high spots with minor grading. Native riparian vegetation
will be planted along all project reaches. The restoration activities will be protected in
perpetuity by an existing conservation easement that has be placed on the project area.
Table 8.1: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Restoration Approach Summary
Site Resource Existing Proposed Level Approach
NT R1 303 LF 326 LF Restoration Restoration with step-pool system
NT R2 103 LF 103 LF Restoration Bank grading, in-stream structures, WQ treatment on NT R1
UTA R1 505 LF 523 LF Restoration Restoration with step-pool system
UTA R2 100 LF 100 LF Restoration Bank grading, in-stream structures, WQ treatment on UTA
R1
UTB 529 LF 529 LF Restoration Bank grading, in-stream structures, WQ treatment on NT
R1, UTA R1
MC R1 1,462 LF 1,462 LF Enhancement I Localized bank grading, in-stream structures, bank
treatments, planting
MC R2 553 LF 533 LF Restoration Priority 2 restoration. Appropriate bankfull channel
dimensions, in-stream structures, bank treatments, planting
Wetland 1 1.323 AC 1.320 AC Hydrologic
Enhancement
Plug existing ditch, remove berm and other high spots with
minor grading

8.2 NT R1 and UTA R 1 Basis for Design
Restoration level activities are proposed for NT R1 and UTA R1 using a
Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance (RSC) system, which specifically targets nutrient
processing and treatment. Step-pool systems or RSCs with an underlying sand layer will

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
36
be implemented on NT R1 and UTA R1 (Figure 8.1). This is an innovative approach to
the restoration of headcuts and incised gullies that also enhances nutrient processing.
The proposed systems include a series of pools connected by riffles, boulder steps and
a subsurface sand seepage layer (Brown et al., 2010). The riffles, steps and pools provide
grade control, energy dissipation and bedform diversity to restore high gradient systems.
When stream flow fills a pool, a hydraulic gradient is created forcing water downward into
the sand seepage layer providing added filtration. This interaction between the surface
and subsurface, the hyporheic zone (Boulton, 2007), is a hotspot for microbial growth and
nutrient processing (Groffman et al., 2005). The hyporheic zone is a critical component
of both the hydrology and water quality benefits of an RSC.

Figure 8.1: Step-Pool Systems with Underlying Sand Layer in Anne Arundel
County, MD (left) and Durham, NC (right)
The channel morphology characteristics of high gradient headwater streams in
North Carolina have been characterized by Zink et al. (2012) and are applicable as a
starting point for design of step-pool channels. Morphological design parameters for
energy dissipation, grade control and stability are riffle slope ratio, riffle length ratio, pool
length ratio, pool-to-pool spacing and step height ratio. A hybrid design approach was
adapted for NT R1 and UTA R1 that incorporates analytical, analog and empirical
techniques. The primary purpose of the proposed step-pool systems is to provide grade
control and energy dissipation as stormflows move down valley and to enhance
physicochemical functions through processing of nutrient loads.
8.2.1 Design Channel Size and Discharge
The proposed step-pool systems are designed for storage and treatment of runoff
from 1.0” of rainfall and conveyance of the two-year (Q2) and 100-year (Q100) discharges.
A summary of NT R1 and UTA R1 design parameters is included in Table 8.2. The water
quality design storm ratio (runoff volume / design storage volume) is 1.0 and 1.3 for NT

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
37
R1 and UTA R2, respectively. More storage is available in UTA R1 because it is longer
than NT R1. The additional length of UTA R1 is needed to fill the eroded gully and to
decrease the design reach slope. The riffle cross-sections are sized to convey the Q2
discharge within the channel. Higher flows will spread onto vegetated benches beyond
the Q2 stage. A high width-to-depth ratio and wide bench has been designed to minimize
flow depths, velocities and shear stresses. Max depth for the Q100 discharge is 0.9 ft. in
the bankfull channel and 0.3 ft. on the vegetated benches. Large boulder steps and riffle
substrate material is needed to resist the high shear stresses of the relatively steep
channel slopes. For both reaches, the design D50 and D85 particles are 150 mm and 430
mm, respectively, which will resist shear stresses and mobilization up to the Q100
discharge. Boulder step structures will be used for additional grade control and energy
dissipation. Sills will be installed across the vegetated bench perpendicular to flow on
each side of the boulder structures to prevent scour and failure around the structures.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
38

Table 8.2: NT R1 and UTA R1 Design Summary
Watershed and Hydrologic Summary
Parameter NT R1 UTA R1
DA (ac) 23.1 25.9
1 in ROV (ft3)1 4,164 4,513
2-Year 24-Hour Q (ft3/s) 15.7 17.3
100-Year 24-Hour Q (ft3/s) 61.4 66.5
Runoff Storage and Sand Layer Design
Stream Length (ft.) 325 523
Pond Storage (ft3) 1,050 1,750
Pool Storage (ft3) 1,018 1,872
Sand Storage (ft3) 1,968 2,429
Total Storage (ft3) 4,036 6,051
Design Storm Ratio2 1.0 1.3
Sand Layer Volume (yd3) 180 300
Channel Design Hydraulic Summary
Q2 Q100 QBKF Q100
SWSE (ft./ft.) 0.0478 0.0478 0.0518 0.0518
Area (ft2) 3.5 12.4 3.5 12.4
Width (ft.) 8 22.5 8 22.5
Depth (ft.) 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6
Dmax (ft.) 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9
W/D 18.3 40.7 18.3 40.7
Discharge (cfs) 16.1 61.4 16.8 66.5
Velocity (ft./s) 4.6 5.6 4.8 5.8
tCH (lb/ft2) 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.7
Competency – min. (mm) 95 127 104 138
Competency – max. (mm) 288 385 313 418
Proposed D50 (mm) 150 150
Proposed D84 (mm) 430 430
8.2.2 Reference Streams and Morphological Design Criteria
Select morphological parameters reported by Zink et al. (2012) with similar
longitudinal slopes to NT R1 and UTA R1 are presented in Table 8.3 with proposed design
parameters for NT R1 and UTA R1. All morphological design parameters are within the
range of the reference dataset with the expectation of pool-length ratio (LPOOL/ WBKF) and
pool-to-pool spacing ratio (p-p/WBKF). These parameters are slightly higher than the
reference data because the proposed pools were designed to be over wide (oversized)
for extra storage of runoff and energy dissipation. The increased pool width subsequently

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
39
increased pool length and pool-to-pool spacing. The decision to increase pool width and
storage was made based on observations of several similar systems in the Southeast
and Mid-Atlantic that appeared to have undersized pools not sufficient to dissipate energy
and store runoff.
Table 8.3: Select Reference Streams from Zink et al. (2012) with proposed
Morphological Design Criteria
Stream S
(ft./ft.) D50 D84 W/D HSTEP/
WBKF
SRIF/
SWSE
LRIF/
WBKF
LPOOL/
WBKF
p-p/
WBKF
LS4 0.0370 71 347 21.5 0.02 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.6
LS2 0.0450 175 512 18.1 0.04 0.8 1.3 1.0 2.1
BF 0.0480 39 194 16.9 0.04 1.6 0.7 0.9 1.6
LS1 0.0540 145 450 18.4 0.04 - - 0.8 1.0
SR1 0.0680 163 745 17.6 0.07 0.4 1 0.7 1.3
AC 0.0900 70 191 20.7 0.08 1.1 0.8 0.7 2.0
NC 0.0920 47 154 25.0 0.09 0.7 1.5 0.7 1.9
PC 0.1040 96 268 19.5 0.10 0.8 1.5 0.2 1.3
Min 0.0370 39 154 16.9 0.02 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.6
Median 0.0610 84 308 19.0 0.06 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.5
Max 0.1040 175 745 25.0 0.10 1.6 1.5 1.0 2.1
NT R1 0.0478 150 430 18.3 0.08 0.7 1.3 1.5 2.6
UTA R1 0.0518 150 430 18.3 0.08 0.7 1.3 1.5 2.6

8.2.3 Nutrient Processing and Treatment Capacity
Several studies in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast have evaluated nutrient
processing and treatment capabilities of step-pool systems with an underlying sand layer.
Their findings have been incorporated into the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MD DoE) and Anne Arundel County design guidance documents (Table 8.4). West
Virginia Department of the Environment (WV DEP) has also developed similar
documentation. In North Carolina, four studies have evaluated water quality treatment of
step-pool systems with an underlying sand layer and reported variable findings. In
general, the reported reductions in TN and TP concentrations and loads from NC studies
have been substantially less than those included in the regulatory documentation from
MD and WV. However, influent TN and TP concentrations were also very low in the NC
studies, which is typical of urban stormwater runoff. At the Site, extremely high TN and
TP concentrations on NT R1 and UTA R1 have been documented through pre-restoration
monitoring in both stormflows and base flows, which means there is more potential for
processing and treatment. Processing and treatment of nutrients is expected to occur
during both base flow and stormflow conditions, which it will enhance the function and
efficiency of the sand layer within the step-pool system.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
40
Table 8.4: Summary of RSC Water Quality Treatment
Parameter TN TP
MD DoE 57% 66%
WV DEP 74% 76%
Cizek et al. (2014) 28% 30%
Koryto et al. (2017)1 3% 17%
Koryto et al. (2018)2 46% 68%
Cizek et al. (2018) 26% 20%
1System in Durham, NC was only 25% of design storm volume
2Simulated WQ trials of 1.0” design storm at NCSU’s SECREF facility
8.2.4 Implementation Plan
NT R1 will be constructed during Phase 1 implementation and UTA R1 and UTA
R2 will be construction during Phase 2 approximately 1 – 2 years later. Small wetland
pools will be excavated above the RSC step-pool systems on NT R1 and UTA R1. The
existing banks will be graded to a stable slope and the excess material will be used as fill
below a layer of sand and wood chip filter media to lift the channel up to the old floodplain.
The sand and wood chip filter media will be 80% sand and 20% wood chips by weight
and installed at a minimum of 2.0’ thick. A series of constructed riffles and boulder steps
will then be installed on top of the filter media to convey base flow and storm flows and
control grade in the steep valleys. The channel banks will be covered with erosion control
matting and stabilized with temporary and permanent seeding and native riparian
vegetation.
8.3 NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB Basis for Design
NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB are relatively short perennial reaches located below
the RSC step-pool streams on NT R1 and UTA R1. The primary stressors within these
reaches are high nutrient and sediment inputs, channel incision, bank erosion and lack of
bedform diversity. Restoration in place activities including bank grading, constructed
riffles and log steps are proposed for these reaches to stabilize the streambanks, control
grade, add bedform diversity and reconnect channels to floodplains. Typical step height
ratios (HSTEP/W BKF), riffle length ratios (LRIFF/WBKF) and pool-to-pool spacings (p-p/WBKF)
for moderately sloping valleys were used to determine locations of design morphology
features. HSTEP/W BKF for NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB is 0.04 to 0.08. Steeply sloping
channels tend to have greater step height ratios. Riffle slope ratios (SRIFF/ SAVE) ranged
between 1.0 and 2.5 to allow the riffle sections of the channel to make up grade moving
down valley without excessive slope. In some instances, and based on experience from
successful projects, riffle slope ratios up to 3.0 are acceptable when large substrate is
used to prevent mobilization of the substrate. Riffle length ratios (LRIFF/WBKF) for the
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
41
tributaries ranged from 1.0 to 1.8. P-P/W BKF ranged between 0.6 and 2.5, which is
characteristic of moderately sloping valleys.
8.3.2 Implementation Plan
NT R2 and UTB will be constructed during Phase 1 implementation and UTA R2
during Phase 2. Constructed riffles and log steps will be installed to design elevations to
moderately lift the channels back up to the existing floodplain. Streambanks will be graded
at 3:1 from the existing channel toe of slope and stabilized. The existing channel
alignment is not being changed and the streams are relatively straight with sinuosity
values near 1.0. The channel banks will be covered with erosion control matting and
stabilized with temporary and permanent seeding and native riparian vegetation.
8.4 MC R1 and MC R2 Basis for Design
Millstone Creek is a large sand bed system with a relatively large drainage area
(8.3 mi2). The primary stressors within MC R1 and MC R2 are streambank erosion, high
sediment supply, lack of bedform diversity and LWD, and little to no deep rooting
vegetation on the right bank. Enhancement 1 work is proposed for MC R1 and restoration
activities are proposed for MC R2. For MC R1, log riffles, log j-hooks, brush toe protection
and bank grading will be implemented. The existing MC R1 alignment will not be changed.
MC R2 will be realigned with a Priority 2 approach that includes minor floodplain grading.
Log riffles, log j-hooks and brush toe protection will be installed.
8.4.1 MC R2 Design Channel Size and Discharge
Empirical and analytical methods were used to size the MC R2 channel (Table
8.5). Where bankfull indicators were present, field cross-sections were measured and
Manning’s equation was used to estimate QBKF. Additionally, NCSU BAE installed a gage
station on Millstone Creek in fall 2015 and discharge data collection has been ongoing.
Field measured channel dimensions and discharges were compared the NC Piedmont
Regional Curve, the Alan Walker Curve and Lowther (2008) reference reach curves. The
proposed MC R2 ABKF and QBKF is 85 ft2 and 305 ft2, respectively.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
42
Table 8.5: MC R2 Channel Size and Discharge Analysis
Millstone Creek DA = 8.3 mi2 and Proposed SWSE = 0.0019 (ft./ft.) ABKF QBKF
Empirical Relationships
NC Piedmont Regional Curve 91 412
Alan Walker Curve - 373
Lowther Piedmont Reference Reach Curve 38 89
Manning’s from Field XS
MC XS 1 124 370
MC XS 3 75 245
MC XS 4 105 352
Field Monitoring Downstream Gage Station 109 311
Summary of Parameters
Mean 87 307
Median 89 352
Design 85 305
8.4.2 Reference Streams and Morphological Design Criteria
Two reference streams were used to develop channel dimension, planform
geometry and longitudinal profile morphological design criteria for MC R1 and MC R2.
The project reach of Millstone Creek is a unique stream in that it is a large sand bed
system with high sediment supply in a moderately confined valley located within the
Carolina Slate Belt. Locating a reference reach with the exact valley and morphology
characteristics proved challenging. Select reference streams used in development of
morphological design criteria are described below.
Terrible Creek
Terrible Creek is located near Fuquay Varina in Wake County (Figure 8.2). This
reach classifies as a C5 stream with a drainage area of 2.30 square miles. The stream
has an average bankfull width of 19.3 feet and an average slope 0.0049 ft./ft. A good
riparian buffer with a mix of pine and hardwood trees is present and wetland and aquatic
plants are prevalent on the streambanks and in the streambed. Overhanging vegetation
is prevalent with highly variable streambank cover. Large tree and extensive shade
dominate in some sections, while vines, other herbaceous plants and woody vegetation
dominate in other areas that are more open to sunlight. Some invasive species are
present. The upstream section of the reference appears to have been formerly impacted
by beaver, which likely contributed to timber loss and more open canopy.
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek is located in Randolph County (Figure 8.2). The reach length
surveyed is 1213 feet. This reach classifies as an E5 stream with a drainage area of 2.63
square miles. The stream has an average bankfull width of 20.9 feet and an average
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
43
slope 0.0057 ft./ft. A fairly well developed riparian buffer is present with a thick understory.
Streambank cover consists of some trees, grass and other herbaceous plants, including
Microstigium. Some streambanks are bare in spots. Overhanging vegetation is present
and the forest canopy nearly completely shades the creek bed.
Terrible Creek Terrible Creek
Sandy Creek Sandy Creek
Figure 8.2: Reference Reaches
8.4.3 Morphological Design Criteria
Proposed morphological design parameters are presented in Table 8.6. For MC
R2 channel dimensions, a width-to-depth ratio (W/D) of 14.0 was to develop channel
dimensions that will create stable streambanks after construction and promote sediment
transport, sediment deposition on low benches, and gentle side slopes up to the bankfull
stage. After implementation, W/D may decrease as the channel narrows with sediment
deposited at the bankfull stage and on channel side slopes. For pool depths, a maximum
pool depth ratio of 3.0 to 3.5 for is proposed for MC R1 and MC R2 to create deep pools
for habitat, energy dissipation and potential settling of sediment. The pools are also
designed to be relatively wide, which will allow for construction of a gently sloping (7:1)
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
44
point bar for sediment deposition and storage. Most radius of curvature ratios (RC/W bkf)
ranged from 2.2 to 4.4, however there are several very gradual curves included to work
with the existing MC R1 alignment. Low RC/Wbkf ratios are represented in the reference
reach dataset, however in NCSU BAE’s experience, bank treatments or structures are
needed to deflect flows until streambank vegetation becomes established. RC/W bkf ratios
between 2.0 and 3.5 tend to yield the most stable outside meander bends. Meander width
ratios (W blt/W bkf) range from 2.0 to 4.8, which is limited somewhat by the easement and
valley constraints, but is within the reference reach design criteria. Pools are spaced at
2.6 to 7.1 channel widths with a median of 4.9, and proposed riffle length ratios range
from 0.5 to 4.8. Some of the design pool-to-pool spacing and riffle length ratios are outside
of the reference reach criteria due to constraints imposed by working within the existing
channel and at the easement break.
Table 8.6: Millstone Creek Design Summary
Parameter Terrible Creek Sandy Creek MC R1* MC R2
DA (mi2) 2.3 mi2 2.6 mi2 8.2 mi2 8.3 mi2
Stream Type C5 E5 C5 / E5 C5 / E5
D50 (mm) 1.8 1.4 0.4 0.4
SVAL (ft./ft.) 0.0071 0.0114 0.0021 0.0022
SWSE (ft./ft.) 0.0050 0.0060 0.0020 0.0020
K (ft./ft.) 1.41 1.90 1.06 1.09
Parameter Design Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Wbkf (ft.) 19.1 19.2 19.3 16.9 20.9 24.9 28.9 - 46.6 - 36.0 -
Dbkf (ft.) 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.6 - 3.3 - 2.6 -
W/D 11.5 14.0 16.4 10.6 11.0 11.9 11.1 - 17.6 - 14.0 -
Abkf (ft2) 22.3 27.4 32.5 36.2 38.6 40.9 75.3 - 123.6 - 85.0 -
Dmbkf (ft.) 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.4 - 4.8 - 3.6 -
ER 3.2 4.0 5.7 4.7 6.1 8.9 7.1 - 7.5 - 4.8
BHR 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.0 -
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
45
Table 8.7 Millstone Creek Design Stream Summary (Continued)
Parameter Hydraulic Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Qbkf (cfs) 76 106 139 163 195 221 243 - 295 - 305 -
Vbkf (ft./s) 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.5 5.1 5.4 3.2 - 3.8 - 3.6 -
tbkf (lb/ft2) 0.37 0.45 0.53 0.60 0.71 0.79 0.27 - 0.35 - 0.29 -
wbkf (lb/ft./s) 1.3 1.7 2.3 2.7 3.6 4.3 0.9 - 1.3 - 1.0 -
Compt. (min) 30 37 43 49 58 64 22 - 28 - 24 -
Compt. (max) 92 111 130 147 175 193 67 - 85 - 72 -
*MC R1 Dimension and Hydraulic data is from the existing conditions cross-
sections.
8.4.4 Sediment Transport
Millstone Creek receives a relatively high watershed and reach sediment supply.
Sediment sources include upland, channel and bank sediments. The project reach has
also experienced mild incision and subsequent widening, decreasing in-channel
velocities, shear stress and stream power, which resulted in moderate aggradation of
sand and fine gravels in pools and on lateral bars. The reach also lacks sufficient
depositional storage for supplied sediment on low benches and point bars. Quantitative
sediment supply estimates can be highly variable and erroneous due to watershed,
channel, landscape, soils and fluvial process variability. To characterize sediment supply
to the project reach of Millstone Creek for the existing condition assessment and
Parameter Dimension Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Dmbkf/Dbkf 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 - - - - 1.3 -
Dbkfp/Dbkf 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.1 1.4 1.8 - - - - 1.7 -
Wbkfp/Wbkf 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 - - - - 1.4 -
Abkfp/Abkf 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 - - - - 2.5 -
Dmbkfp/Dbkf 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 3.0 - 3.5 - 3.5 -
Parameter Pattern Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Lm/Wbkf 4.2 5.2 9.4 5.7 12.6 23.1 8.6 11.6 12.8 - 12.9 -
Rc/Wbkf 1.1 1.2 2.2 1.4 1.8 8.1 2.2 4.4 11.7 3.6 - 11.1
Wblt/Wbkf 1.6 2.5 3.6 2.8 4.3 4.7 1.8 2.8 3.5 2.0 - 4.4
Parameter Profile Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Lp/Wbkf 0.4 1.7 3.8 0.6 1.6 4.4 2.0 2.9 3.8 3.8 - 4.4
p-p/Wbkf 0.6 2.3 4.6 1.2 3.0 5.6 2.6 4.9 7.1 5.3 - 6.8
Sp/S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lrif/Wbkf 0.2 0.8 1.3 0.4 0.7 3.0 0.6 2.4 3.3 1.5 2.3 4.8
Srif/S 1.6 5.7 14.6 2.1 3.2 7.5 2.0 2.0 8.0 1.5 1.8 2.5
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
46
restoration design approach, three (3) distinct methods were employed:
1.Estimating the annual sediment load measured at the Millstone Creek field monitoring
station and converting TSS concentrations to Suspended Sediment Concentrations
(SSC) concentrations with USGS regression equations described by Glysson et al.
(2000).
2.Modeling of the Millstone Creek watershed and streams using ArcSWAT and ArcGIS
3.Modeling annual sediment load that is transported by the existing project reach of
Millstone Creek in HEC-RAS.
Each method for estimating sediment supply to the Millstone Creek project reach has
strengths and weaknesses related to data collection and measurement methods, model
assumptions and nuances and inherent variability. The methods and technical approach
for estimating sediment supply are described in detail below. Details of each method and
quantification approach are included in Appendix C.
Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Summary
Estimates of sediment supply ranged from 4,300 tons per year to 11,340 tons per
year. The approaches included estimates based on field collected TSS data and
correlated SSC data using the general USGS regression, watershed modeling of uplands
and streams using ArcSWAT, and finally hydraulic and sediment transport modeling using
HEC-RAS.
Table 8.8: Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Summary
Method and Approach Predicted Annual Sediment Load
Field measured TSS data and the general
USGS equation for SSC concentration 4,300 to 8,600 tons per year
Watershed modeling in ArcSWAT using
historical weather data 11,340 tons per year
Mobile bed and annual sediment transport
capacity modeling in HEC-RAS 9,305 tons per year
While field collected data is often preferred for technical analysis, TSS data
collected at the project reach presents several challenges for use in estimating sediment
supply, which includes the configuration of the sampling apparatus, error in the correlation
of TSS data to SSC data and lack of bedload data. The sampling methods used can
dramatically under predict the sand fraction of the stream flow sample and fail to capture
bed load. Thus, a substantial amount of error is introduced to the estimate. ArcSWAT has
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
47
the ability to estimate upland, channel bed and bank sediment loads from historical
weather and discharge records, which can determine long-term averages or trends.
However, the model must be calibrated and validated to field collected weather, flow and
water quality data to accurately simulate discharges and pollutant loads. Calibration and
validation of a SWAT model was beyond the scope of this mitigation planning effort, but
the model outputs were loosely calibrated to field collected TSS data. Additionally,
SWAT’s routines for simulating channel bed and bank erosion are somewhat coarse with
multiple adjustable calibration coefficients. SWAT also lacks reach-scale sediment
transport routines.
Of the three (3) technical approaches used, hydraulic and mobile bed sediment
transport modeling with HEC-RAS 5.0 likely provides the most reliable estimate of
sediment supply for the Millstone Creek project reach. However, it should be noted that
the annual sediment load produced by the model is only an approximation. This approach
focused hydraulic and sediment transport properties of the study channel rather than
modeling and characterizing the watershed, which means it is more feasible to physically
measure all necessary model input parameters. Model inputs such as channel substrate
gradation, channel substrate depth, unsteady stream flow and cross-sectional geometry
were all physically measured in the field. Sediment transport equations described by Yang
(1979) (which solve for suspended and bedload concentration) were then used to
simulate the movement of sediment from one (1) cross-section to the next. This approach
minimizes error compared to the other technical approaches described.
Millstone Creek Sediment Transport Capacity
Sediment transport capacity of the existing Millstone Creek project reach was
modeled using the hydraulic design tools in HEC-RAS 5.0. Sediment transport capacity
analysis is most valuable when used to compare the study reach to a reference condition
U/S or D/S of the project or to a proposed design configuration. A suitable reference
condition was not available U/S or D/S of the project reach, thus the existing sediment
transport capacity analysis was compared to proposed design and functional objectives
for the design. The existing project reach has shown signs of aggradation through the
formation of mid-channel and lateral bars.
One of the functional objectives of the restoration design approach will be to
moderately increase the sediment transport and storage capacity of the proposed channel
such that more sediment will be moved through the system to D/S reaches or be
deposited on depositional features like low benches and point bars within the project
reach. For the design QBKF of 305 cfs, the existing channel can move up to 3,000 tons of
sediment per day. Compare this to the proposed channel at QBKF (305 cfs) where the
channel can now move up to 4,100 tons of sediment per day. This modeling analysis
shows a moderate increase in sediment transport capacity from the existing to the
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
48
proposed condition. The moderate increase in capacity should alleviate aggradation
within the existing channel in conjunction with the proposed depositional features like low
benches and wide point bars.
8.4.5 Implementation Plan
MC R1 and MC R2 will be constructed during Phase 1 implementation at the Site.
MC R1 begins at the north boundary of the easement and flows to the easement break.
The existing alignment will not be changed; meander bends will be enhanced with log j-
hooks, brush toe protection, LWD and excavation of a deep pool to the design profile
elevations and grades. Riffles will be enhanced with logs. Streambanks will be graded
from the design profile elevation up to the existing top of bank and stabilized.
MC R2 is designed as an E4/C4 stream using a Priority 2 approach, which will
include moderate realignment of the channel from the easement break to south limits and
approximately 1.0 – 1.5’ of floodplain grading. Sinuosity and slope are relatively low due
to short reach length and valley constraints. Riffle and pool cross-sections will be
constructed throughout the reach that are designed to moderately increase sediment
transport capacity and depositional surface area for storage of sediment within the reach.
Large woody debris (LWD) will be incorporated into the channel for habitat features, flow
diversity, bank protection and grade control. Log riffles will be used for grade control and
brush toe protection will be used on most outside meander bends. Log j-hooks with
boulder sills, brush toe protection and soil geolifts will be used on outside meander bends.
Riffles with smaller woody debris and boulders will also be used to diversify the bed
features.
8.5 Wetland 1 Enhancement
Wetland enhancement is proposed for Wetland 1 using hydrologic modification
only. The existing ditch along the eastern boundary will be filled by pushing adjacent
bermed material into the ditch. Previously excavated and mounded material at the
northern boundary of the wetland will be removed from the wetland area or used to fill the
ditch. This hydrologic modification will likely lead to expansion of the wetland area and
increased hydraulic retention times of nitrogen-rich base flow conveyed by UTB for
enhanced nutrient processing and uptake. The existing area of Wetland 1 is 1.323 ac.
During implementation, 0.003 ac of Wetland 1 will be permanently impacted by UTB
stream enhancement and 0.104 ac will be temporarily impacted by plugging the ditch and
removing existing berms and mounds. The final proposed enhancement area of Wetland
1 is 1.320 ac. The temporarily disturbed wetland area will be revegetated with a temporary
and permanent seed mix, however no new woody vegetation or herbaceous plugs will be
installed per IRT recommendation.
8.6 Re-vegetation Plan
The primary objective of the riparian vegetation and planting plan is to establish
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
49
native woody and herbaceous species to support geomorphic, physicochemical and
biological functions. Planting of vegetation will occur between November 15 and March
15.All areas disturbed by the construction activities or that are currently dominated by
pasture grasses, invasive plants and lacking in native tree and shrub communities within
the conservation easement will be planted and revegetated by zones described in Figure
8.3. Three vegetation communities are proposed for the Site: Streambank, Riparian
Floodplain and Upland Hardwood. Live stakes will be planted on 3‐foot centers on stream
banks and concentrated along outer bends in meandering sections of the channel; no live
stakes will be planted on point bars. Riparian Floodplain is the target community for the
areas that will experience regular flooding along the tributaries and Millstone Creek and
Upland Hardwood Forest is the target community for upland side-slopes within the
easement. Bare-root seedlings within the Riparian Floodplain and Upland Hardwood
Forests will be planted at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers.
Target stem densities are 320 stems per acre at MY3; 260 stems per acre at MY5; and a
minimum of 210 stems per acre at MY7. Due to the presence of extensive fescue in the
floodplain beyond the right top of bank for Millstone Creek, herbicide treatment to
eradicate fescue and weeds prior to seeding and planting of this area will be required.
Disturbed streambank, floodplain and wetland areas will also be seeded with permeant
herbaceous vegetation. Temporary ground cover and soil preparation will be applied
following the schedule and rates in Table 8.11.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
50
Table 8.9: Woody Vegetation by Planting Zone
Vegetation Area Streambank Floodplain
Upland
Hardwood
Forest
Total
Area (acres) 2.3 4.9 6.3 13.5
Density 2,800 680 680 -
Species Stems % total Stems % total Stems % total Stems
*Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)1,625 25 1,625
*Silky willow (Salix sericea)1,625 25 1,625
*Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)1,625 25 1,625
Yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima) 650 10 650
**Buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis) 975 15 170 5 1,145
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) 170 5 170
River Birch (Betula nigra) 476 14 476
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) 340 10 340
Water oak (Quercus nigra) 170 5 170
Inkberry (Ilex glabra) 340 10 340
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 340 10 340
Sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis) 340 10 340
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 170 5 170
Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus
michauxii) 204 6 204
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) 204 6 204
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 238 7 215 5 453
Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) 238 7 430 10 668
White oak (Quercus alba) 645 15 645
Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) 430 10 430
Red Bud (Cercis canadensis) 215 5 215
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 215 5 215
Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata) 430 10 430
Sassafras (Sassafras albidum) 215 5 215
Red Oak (Quercus rubra) 645 15 645
Chestnut Oak (Quercus prinus) 430 10 430
American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) 430 10 430
Total 6,500 100 3,400 100 4,300 100 14,200
*Provide as live stakes
**Provide as live stakes on streambanks and bare root in floodplain zone
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
51
Table 8.10: Permanent Seed Mixes
Wetland Seed Mix – 20 lbs per acre
Species Common Name Percent
Bidens aristosa Showy tickseed 7
Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge 12
Dichanthelium clandestinum Deertongue 8
Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye 20
Juncus effusus Soft rush 4
Panicum dichotomiflorum Smooth panicgrass 14
Panicum rigidulum Redtop panicgrass 8
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 23
Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed 2
Sparganium americanum Eastern bur reed 2
100
Streambank and Floodplain Seed Mix – 20 lbs per acre
Species Common Name Percent
Agrostis perennans Autumn bentgrass 15
Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem 10
Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf coreopsis 10
Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye 20
Juncus effusus Soft rush 5
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 15
Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed susan 10
Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem 5
Sorghastrum nutans Indian grass 5
Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern gamagrass 5
100
Upland Hardwood Forest – 20 lbs per acre
Species Common Name Percent
Achillea millefolium Common yarrow 10
Agrostis perennans Autumn bentgrass 6
Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly weed 1
Bidens aristosa Showy tickseed sunflower 11
Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge pea 10
Coreopsis lanceolata Lance-leaf coreopsis 10
Echinacea purpurea Purple coneflower 4
Elymus virginicus Virginia wildrye 6
Gaillardia pulchella Indian blanket 8
Helianthus angustifolius Swamp sunflower 2
Helianthus maximiliani Maximilian’s sunflower 2
Monarda punctata Spotted beebalm 2
Upland Hardwood Forest (Cont’d)
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
52
Species Common Name Percent
Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed susan 6
Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem 4
Sorghastrum nutans Indian grass 6
Symphyotrichum pilosum Heath aster 1
Tridens flavus Purpletop 4
Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern gamagrass 6
Verbena hastata Blue vervain 1
100
Table 8.11: Temporary Seeding Schedule
Temporary Seeding Schedule and Rates
Date Type Application Rate
(lbs/acre)
Jan 1 – May 1
Rye Grain 120
Ground Agricultural Limestone 2,000
10-10-10 Fertilizer 750
Straw Mulch 4,000
May 1 – Aug 15
German Millet 40
Ground Agricultural Limestone 2,000
10-10-10 Fertilizer 750
Straw Mulch 4,000
Aug 15 – Dec 30
Rye Grain 120
Ground Agricultural Limestone 2,000
10-10-10 Fertilizer 750
Straw Mulch 4,000

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
53
Figure 8.3: Riparian Vegetation and Planting Plan
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
54
8.7 Post-Construction Stabilization Plan
Immediately following grading, excavation and channel work, topsoil may be
reapplied and seasonally appropriate temporary seed, permeant seed, fertilizer, lime (or
other necessary soil amendments) and mulch will be spread over all bare earth. Coir
matting will placed on all graded streambanks. Live stakes will be installed in the outside
of meander bends to help anchor sod mats in place. Sod will be harvested from excavated
areas within the valley. The sod will be stripped and immediately transported and installed
to newly constructed streambanks. Irrigation (from the stream) will be established to water
the sod for the first 4 weeks following construction as needed, depending on rainfall
amounts. Erosion control matting will be installed on all streambanks and anchored with
wooden stakes. Additional post-construction stabilization and S&EC descriptions and
details are available in the construction documents.
8.8 Stream Crossings
A single easement break and stream crossing will be established at approximately STA
15 + 10 FT on Millstone Creek. The crossing will be an armored ford crossing for livestock
access to pastures on the adjacent landowner’s property. The crossing will be gated and
fenced off. The fencing may be charged with high tensile wire when the crossing is in
active use. Cattle will not have access to Millstone Creek when moving through the
crossing. There is a break in the conservation easement where the crossing will be
installed and mitigation credits have not been included for this reach of the channel.
8.9 Project Risks and Uncertainties
1.Cattle Access to Easement: Land adjacent to and surrounding the project and
established conservation easement is managed for cattle grazing and hay production.
There is potential for cattle to inadvertently access the project area.
Methods to address: Cattle exclusion fencing was installed around the entire
easement boundary in July of 2015. There is a break in the easement with a ford
crossing through Millstone Creek for cattle access and grazing in fields east of the
project. The fence will be inspected twice a year during post-implementation
monitoring and signs of cattle intrusion will be reported.
2.Animal Waste: A swine waste pond exists just upslope of Millstone Creek and swine
wastes are applied on the fields adjacent to the project streams. Swine waste
applications adjacent to the tributaries have been targeted with treatment BMPs and
the expansion and re-establishment of the existing wetland area. However, it is
possible that the waste application areas or zones could change over time.
Methods to address: The landowner has been educated about appropriate use of
the easement area and restrictions on spraying of animal waste within the easement.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
55
3.Land use development: Contributing drainage areas to all site streams are very rural
with no documented plans for urban development or NC DOT roadway construction
and expansion. Substantial amounts of land cover have already been converted from
forest to pasture and hay production or shrub / scrub cover. It is unlikely that additional
changes in landuse would alter the hydrology, hydraulics and sediment supply to the
project reaches. However, the potential for increased land development around the
site in the distant future does remain a possibility that could lead to additional runoff
and changes to watershed hydrology.
Methods to Address: The project area has seen little development in recent years
and it is unlikely that development will threaten the site in the near future. Improved
floodplain connection will reduce the likelihood of future degradation from watershed
changes, as increased flows will spread over a wider floodplain. Grade control (in the
form of constructed in-stream boulder and log structures) on the tributaries will
decrease the chances of future channel incision.
4.Easement Encroachment: Any encroachment to the conservation easement.
(Including road widening, culvert maintenance, utility easements, etc.)
Methods to Address: The sponsor has had considerable discussions with the
landowner regarding the project requirements and limitations of easement access and
is confident that the landowner fully understands and will maintain the easement
protections. A cattle exclusion fence has been installed around the entire easement
boundary. Any encroachments that do occur will be remedied by the sponsor to
address any damage and provide any other corrections required by the IRT.
5.Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the
monitoring period of the project. Restored stream features (bedforms, banks,
structures and floodplain) are particularly vulnerable to damage from flooding and
overbank flows in the 1 – 2 years following implementation. Overbank and flood flows
can degrade immature streambank and floodplain vegetation leading to bank erosion,
floodplain rills and channelization, and structure failure.
Methods to Address: The risk of damage during high flows decreases substantially
after vegetation becomes established on the streambanks and floodplain. The
sponsor will apply adaptive management techniques (see Section 12) as necessary
to meet the site performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include
replanting, channel damage repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive
management activities are significant, additional monitoring may be required by the
IRT.
6.Beavers: While there was no evidence of beaver activity during recent assessments,
there is potential for beavers to colonize the site during the monitoring period of the
project.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
56
Methods to Address: Due to a large watershed size, beaver colonization of Millstone
Creek is unlikely. Due to very small watershed size and steep slope, beaver are not
likely to colonize the tributaries (NT and UTA). Beaver could possibly colonize the
wetland area, which is not likely to have a negative impact on the ecological value or
performance of the wetland. However, if beaver colonize and have negative impacts
to the wetland or cause backwater that effects the UTB, then the sponsor will take
steps to trap and remove beaver during the monitoring period.
7.Invasive/Nuisance Species: Numerous invasive species, such as multiflora rose and
Chinese privet currently exist in the easement area. There is potential for these
species to jeopardize buffer and floodplain vegetation establishment.
Methods to Address: The sponsor will locate invasive vegetation. It will be visually
assessed, photographed, and mapped. These areas will be treated by mechanical or
chemical method. Any vegetation requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.
8.Changes in sediment supply: The existing sediment supply to Millstone Creek is
high, particularly from reaches immediately upstream of the project where channel
bed and bank erosion persist. The existing channel shows signs of aggradation in the
form of mid-channel bars, alternating lateral bars and filling of pools. In addition, there
is potential for upstream disturbance of channels in the drainage network to occur that
would further exacerbate sediment loading to Millstone Creek. Aggradation within the
channel can negatively affect hydraulic, geomorphic and biologic functions. However,
an increase in sediment transport capacity may also create the risk of channel
degradation.
Methods to address: Substantial effort has been made to evaluate and quantify
existing sediment supply to the project reach on Millstone Creek through field
evaluations and analytical studies. The proposed channel has been designed to
provide storage on point bars and low benches (inner berm) and moderately increase
sediment transport capacity to decrease the risk of aggradation within the channel.
Analysis of the proposed design indicates the risk of channel degradation is low. In
general, with high sediment supply systems like Millstone Creek there is substantial
risk of dramatic post-implementation adjustment of channel dimensions to occur as
sediment is transported and stored within the system. In addition, the log and boulder
structures are designed and intended to maintain scour areas that will provide pool
habitat despite a significant sediment supply. These structures have been designed
to mimic scour pools found in upstream more stability reaches of Millstone Creek.
9.Media Based Treatment Effectiveness: Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance
Systems (RSCs) have been proposed upstream of the tributaries. The primary
purpose of the RSCs is to enhance nutrient processing, detain storm flow runoff
and adequately convey high flows without degradation from the drainage area
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
57
over a relatively steep gradient (NT R1 = 0.042 ft./ft., UTA R1 = 0.048 ft./ft.) to the
tributaries. RSCs have been used in urban areas with mixed success of processing
and treatment of nutrients. However, this is largely due the low nutrient concentrations
and loads that are typically found in influent urban runoff (i.e. it is difficult to clean
relatively clean water). There are no published research studies available on the
application and performance of the RSC in an agricultural environment with high
nutrient supply.
Methods to Address: Even though untested in an agricultural setting, the
principles and design approach of the urban and agricultural systems are similar and
the treatment and processing capability at the project site is expected to be higher
than an urban scenario. This is because nutrient concentrations and loads are
extremely high in both storm flow and base flow. In addition, the RSC grade controls
and pools have been designed to resist the shear stresses and dissipate energy up
the Q100 discharge to address any potential concerns for future channel incision and
instability.
9.PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The performance standards for the Site follow guidance from the NC IRT’s October
2016 Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Performance standards will
be evaluated throughout the seven-year post‐construction monitoring and described in
the annual monitoring reports.
9.1 Streams
The stream performance standards for the project site will follow approved performance
standards presented in the NC IRT Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update (10/24/2016). Annual monitoring and semi-annual site
visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. Specific
performance standard components are proposed for stream morphology, hydrology, and
vegetation. Performance standards will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post-
construction monitoring.
9.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little
change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width-to-depth ratio. Per NC IRT
guidance, bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at
least 1.4 for restored B channels and 2.2 for restored E/C channels to be considered
stable. All riffle cross sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of
the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to
assess whether the system is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
58
a vertically incising thalweg or eroding banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a
movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width-to-depth
ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be
taken if channel changes indicate a trend toward stability.
9.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Visual assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining
stable and do not exhibit a trend toward systematic instability. Signs of instability may
include bank scour, bank migration, and bed incision.
9.1.3 Substrate
Restoration reaches should show maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features
and smaller particles in the pool features. A reach‐wide pebble count will be performed in
each restoration reach each required monitoring year for classification purposes. A
pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement
during the baseline monitoring only.
9.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site’s vegetation and morphological stability on an
annual basis. Cross-section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or
degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent
mid-channel bars or vertical incision. Grade control structures should remain stable.
Deposition of sediment on the bank-side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour
pools on the channel-side of vane arms is expected.
9.1.5 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented throughout the monitoring period.
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period.
The four bankfull events must occur in separate years. Bankfull events will be
documented by either a crest gage or a pressure transducer, as appropriate for Site
conditions. The selected measurement device will be installed in the stream within a
surveyed riffle cross section. The device will be checked at each site visit to determine if
a bankfull event has occurred.
9.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in
the riparian corridors at the end of the required monitoring period (MY7). The interim
measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 native
species stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year (MY3) and at least 260
stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring (MY5). Planted vegetation must
average 7 feet in height in each plot at the end of MY5 and 10 feet in height at Year 7.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
59
The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as
necessary throughout the required monitoring period. Vegetation monitoring quadrants
will be installed across the Site to measure the survival of the planted trees. In addition,
a vegetation monitoring plot will be established in Wetland 1 to ensure that the vegetation
is not negatively impacted by the modified hydrology per IRT request.
9.3 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards described above
9.4 Water Quality
Detailed supplemental water quality monitoring will be conducted downstream of the step-
pool systems on NT R2 and UTA R2. Water quality treatment success criteria will be a
statistically significant decrease in Total Nitrogen (TN) concentrations in stormflow and
base flow samples when compared to the pre-mitigation monitoring data. Success will
yield an additional 2% (at risk) of SMUs for NT R1, NT R2, UTA R1, and UTA R2. There
will be no loss of credits for failure to meet this performance standard.
9.5 Wetlands
Hydrologic enhancement is proposed for Wetland 1. The wetland will meet the
hydrologic performance criteria of a minimum 8 percent hydroperiod. Two groundwater
gauges will be installed in the wetland to verify the performance criteria is met. A
vegetation monitoring plot will be established in the wetland area to ensure that with
increased hydrology does not negatively impact the vegetation in the wetland. In
addition, visual assessment and photo points at the monitoring stations will be used to
document the condition of the wetland.
10. 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. Annual
monitoring data will be reported using the DMS Annual Monitoring Reporting Template
(June 2017). The monitoring report shall provide project data chronology that will facilitate
an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of DMS databases for
analysis and research purposes, and assist in close-out decision making. Using the DMS
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (June 2017), a baseline monitoring
document and as-built record drawings of the project will be developed following the
planting and monitoring materials installation at the Site. The record drawings will be
completed post construction for each phase of the project; the baseline monitoring report
will be submitted after completion of Phase 2 construction. Full monitoring reports will be
completed in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Abbreviated monitoring reports will be
submitted in monitoring years 4 and 6. The monitoring period may extend seven years
beyond completion of construction or until performance standards have been met.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
60
10.1 Mitigation Monitoring Components
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 10.1. Approximate
locations of the proposed monitoring components are shown in Figure 10.1.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
61
Table 10.1: Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Goal Treatment Performance Standard Monitoring Metric Expected Outcomes Likely Functional Uplift
Enhance
processing of
nutrients from
onsite sources.
Construct stream and
wetland systems
designed to process
nitrogen and
phosphorus.
*20% decrease in TN
concentrations on NT and
UT A.
Instream monitoring of
discharge, TN
concentrations on NT
R2, UTA R2. See
“Supplemental
Monitoring”.
Stable conveyances with
sediment trapping and
processing of nutrients.
Reduction in sediment
and nutrient inputs.
Improved water quality
and aquatic habitat.
Improve stream
channel stability.
Construct stream
channels with
appropriate bankfull
channel dimensions,
planform geometry and
profile such that channel
maintenance and
adjustments are
representative of other
natural systems.
Stream profile and pattern
must remain stable. See
“Streams 9.1”.
Cross-section
monitoring and visual
assessment.
Stable channels with
BHR less than 1.2.
Decrease sediment
inputs from channel and
bank erosion. Efficiently
transport sediment leads
and stream flow.
Improve instream
habitat.
Install habitat features
and structures, add
LWD, increase bedform
diversity, improve in-
stream water quality.
There is no required
performance standard for
this metric.
Visual assessment
and
macroinvertebrate
surveys. See
“Supplemental
Monitoring”.
Visual assessment
should report an overall
increase in habitat
complexity within the
stream systems.
Increase in available
habitat for
macroinvertebrates and
fish leading to an
increase in biodiversity.
Restore native
riparian vegetation.
Plant native tree,
understory and grass
species in riparian
zones, streambank and
wetland areas.
In planted open areas the
survival of 210 planted
stems per acre at MY7.
Interim survival of at least
320 planted stems at MY3
and at least 260 planted
stems per acre at MY5.
Additionally, trees in each
plot must average 7 feet in
height by MY5 and 10 feet
by MY7. No success
criteria is associated with
shaded area planting.
Permanent and
mobile 100 m2
vegetation plots will
be placed on 2% of
the planted area.
Shaded areas will be
visually assessed.
Planted stem densities
will be at or above 210
planted stems per acre
at MY7, with volunteer
trees also growing
onsite.
Reduce sediment inputs
from bank erosion.
Increase nutrient
processing, uptake and
storage within the
floodplain. Create
riparian habitats. Add a
source of LWD and
organic material to
stream.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
62
Exclude livestock
from stream
channels.
A conservation
easement has been
established and
livestock fencing has
been installed along the
easement boundary.
The fencing will be
maintained.
Record and close
conservation
easement prior to
implementation.
Visual assessment
Site remains protected by
conservation easement in
perpetuity.
Protection of the Site
from encroachment into
the conservation
easement and direct
impact to stream.
Supports all functions.
Permanently
protect the site
resources from
local disturbance
and other uses.
A conservation
easement has been
established and
recorded for the site.
Prevent easement
encroachment.
Site and easement
boundary visually
inspected annually for
encroachment.
No detrimental impacts to the
conservation easement, site
streams, wetlands or riparian
buffer.
Hydrology (reach-scale),
Hydraulic,
Geomorphology,
Physicochemical,
Biology
*This metric is assigned to 2% supplemental water quality credits only. Not meeting this metric will result in these credits
not being realized; no credit loss will be assessed.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
63

Table 10.2: Millstone Creek Mitigation Monitoring Components
Monitoring Parameter Monitoring
Method
Quantity per Feature
Frequency Notes NT R1 NT R2 UTA R1 UTA R2 UTB MC R1 MC R2 Wetland
Dimension
Riffle XS 1 NA 1 NA 1 2 1 N/A
MY 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 1
Pool XS 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 1 N/A
Pattern Field Survey N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2
Longitudinal Profile Field Survey N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Baseline 2
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW),
Wetted Perimeter
(WP) pebble count
1 RW, 1
WP N/A 1 RW, 1
WP N/A 1 RW, 1
WP
1 RW,
WP
1 RW, 1
WP N/A MY 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 3
Hydrology Gage Station,
Transducer 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 2 Continuous 4
Vegetation 10 m x 10 m Plots 14, (10 Permanent, 4 Mobile) 1 MY 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 5
Visual Assessment Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Semi-Annual
Invasive Vegetation Semi-Annual 6
Easement Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference Station Photos Photographs 2 1 2 1 2 6 2 2 Annual 8
1. Cross-sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of
water, and thalweg
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as-built baseline monitoring survey only, unless
observations indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or
survey repair work.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling will be collected during the baseline monitoring only. Substrate assessments in subsequent monitoring years will consist of reachwide
substrate monitoring.
4. Gage stations and transducers will be inspected monthly, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers will be set to record stage
once every two hours. Devices will be inspected and downloaded semi‐annually.
5. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for the open areas planted. 2% of the open planted acreage will be monitored
with permanent plots and mobile plots. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100 m2
square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed.
6. Locations of invasive vegetation will be mapped and submitted with the annual monitoring report.
7. Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped and submitted with the annual monitoring report.
8. Photo point stations include monitoring cross-sections.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
64
Figure 10.1: Millstone Creek Site Mitigation Monitoring Plan

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
65
10.2 Supplemental Monitoring Components
10.2.1 Supplemental Monitoring Objectives
Supplemental water quality and biology monitoring will be conducted at the Site to
achieve four key objectives:

1. Determine if media-based restoration (i.e. Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance
or RSC) applied to the tributary channels (NT R1 and UTA R1) is an effective
approach to decrease nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and loads from
agricultural sources.

2. Determine if stabilizing UTB and enhancing the existing downstream jurisdictional
wetland feature will decrease nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and loads
delivered to Millstone Creek.

3. Determine if RSC treatments on NT R1 and stabilization and habitat enhancement
of NT R2 and UTB result in improved health of the macroinvertebrate community
in UTB.

4. Determine if improved sediment transport, bank stabilization, re-establishment of
riparian vegetation and introduction of large wood and habitat features result in
improved health of the macroinvertebrate community of Millstone Creek.

10.2.2 Supplemental Monitoring Rationale and Approach
The rationale and technical approach for the supplemental monitoring objectives is
described below. Additional detail on the methods is tabulated in Table 10.3 and shown
in Figure 10.2.
Objective 1
NT R1 and UTA R1 will be treated using an RSC approach. The upper two feet of the
channels will be filled with a sand: mulch filter media (80:20 mix). A rock step channel will
be constructed atop the filter media to convey storm flows. The media is intended to
reduce dissolved nitrogen concentrations and loads to downstream surface waters by
enhancing denitrification. A paired watershed study of the two tributaries is being
conducted to gage the success of this approach in a high-nutrient load agriculture setting.
Both tributaries were monitored for three years prior to restoration. NT R1 will be restored
and UTA R1 will remain in its existing condition. Post-construction monitoring for 3 years
(1.5 years after NT and 1.5 years after UTA) on both tributaries will provide a clear
comparison for determining the effectiveness of RSC for agricultural nutrient stressors.
Post-restoration monitoring will be initiated once recovery from construction disturbance

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
66
is achieved following each phase of earthwork. ISCO samplers (2) and flumes located
within NT R2 and UTA R2 (just downstream of NT R1 and UTA R1, respectively) will
monitor flow, and collect composite water quality samplers to be tested for sediment and
nutrients. Groundwater wells installed in the RSC Channel (2 in NT R1) and the riparian
area (4) will be used to monitor groundwater levels and to sample nutrients. In addition,
macroinvertebrate sampling in UTA R2 and NT R2 will be conducted in both spring and
fall during Years 3, 5 & 7 to evaluate the potential improvement in the macroinvertebrate
community following a reduction in nutrients and sediment load reduction from upstream
sources. All sampling will follow NC Division of Water Resource protocols.

Objective 2
Upstream and downstream flow and water quality sampling will be conducted to assess
the water quality benefits of stabilizing UTB and enhancing the existing jurisdictional
wetland on site (i.e. plug ditch and remove berms and spoil piles). Water quality from the
two automated ISCO samplers downstream of NT R2 and UTA R2 (see Objective 1) will
represent the upstream water quality for UTB.

Objective 3
Before and after macroinvertebrate sampling during both spring and fall in UTB will be
conducted to assess the habitat enhancement and macroinvertebrate community health
of UTB that results from both upstream and in-reach stabilization and restoration efforts.
All monitoring will follow NC Division of Water Resource protocols.

Objective 4
Before and after macroinvertebrate sampling in Millstone Creek will be conducted to
assess the habitat and macroinvertebrate community improvements of the in-reach
restoration and enhancement efforts. All monitoring will follow NC Division of Water
Resource protocols.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
67
Table 10.3: Millstone Creek Supplemental Monitoring Components
Monitoring
Parameter
Monitoring
Method
Quantity per Feature Monitoring
Years (MY) Notes NT R1 NT R2 UTA R1 UTA R2 UTB MC R1 MC R2 Wetland
Surface water
Hydrology
Continuous
Discharge and
Volume
- 1 - 1 - - - - MY 1, 2, 3 1, 2
Groundwater
Hydrology
Riparian 2 - 2 - - - - - MY 1, 2, 3 1, 2
In-Channel 2 - - - - -
-
- MY 1, 2, 3 1, 2
Water Quality TN, NOx-N, NH3-N,
TP, TSS - 1 - 1 - - - 1 MY 1, 2, 3 1, 2
Macroinvertebrates NC DWR Qual 4 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 - MY 3, 5, 7 -
1. Surface water hydrology and water quality monitoring stations will be installed within reaches NT R2 and UTA R2. Data collected at these two monitoring stations will be used to
make inferences about effects within NT R1, UTA R1 and UTB.
2. The phased implementation approach will require monitoring at NT R2 and UTA R2 during MY 1, 2, and 3

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
68
Figure 10.2: Millstone Creek Site Supplemental Monitoring Plan

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
69
10.3 Site Maintenance Plan
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of all site
features and easement boundaries 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 years
following site construction and is described in Table 10.4.
Table 10.4: General Site Maintenance Plan
Site Feature Maintenance through Project Close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of
instream 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 failures and head‐cutting.
Beaver activity will be monitored and beaver dams on project streams will
typically be removed during the monitoring period by a contracted entity to
allow for bank stabilization and stream development outside of this type of
influence.
Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
plantings of live stakes or containerized plants and spreading of wetland
seed mixes. Areas where floodplain flows intersect the wetland may also
require maintenance to prevent scour.
Riparian Vegetation
Riparian 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.
Invasive plant species or excessive native volunteer tree growth that
threatens the viability of planted 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.
Easement Boundaries
Easement boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure a 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.

10.4 Adaptive Management Plan
The Adaptive Management Plan will be implemented if monitoring results indicate
that all or some portions of the site fail to meet one or more of the required performance
standards. Annual monitoring reports will provide a remedial action plan to address the
deficiency and the USACE mitigation contact will be notified as soon as possible if a
situation is discovered that requires remedial action. The remedial action plan will
describe the failure, the source or reason for the failure, a concise description of the

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
70
corrective measures that are proposed, and a time frame for the implementation of the
corrective measures. Remedial action plans should follow specific guidelines for
vegetation, stream stability, invasive species, and beaver described by the NC IRT’s
October 2016 Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Additional
monitoring may be required as described by the October 2016 Compensatory Mitigation
Update.
An integral part of a successful compensatory mitigation project is early detection
of problems during implementation, determining the cause(s) of those problems, and
attempting to correct those problems so that the compensatory mitigation project
achieves its objectives and ecological performance standards. Interim performance
standards are crucial to ensuring compensatory mitigation performance follows a
trajectory to attain final compensatory mitigation success.
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails
to achieve the necessary performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the
sponsor shall notify the members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency
plans and remedial actions. Large-scale corrective measures may require an Adaptive
Management Plan. Large scale corrective measures may include, but are not limited to,
re-grading part of the mitigation site, replanting more than 20% of the site to improve
composition or species diversity, or the addition of stabilization structures. The Adaptive
Management Plan review will follow Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, part
of the streamlined review process, which requires an IRT review period of 15 calendar
days.
Once the Adaptive Management plan is prepared, the sponsor will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide Permit 27 general conditions.
2. Notify NCDWR if necessary for 401 conditions.
3. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring
requirements as necessary.
4. Obtain other permits as necessary.
5. Submit the Adaptive Management Plan for IRT review and approval.
6. Implement the Adaptive Management Plan.
7. Provide the IRT a Record Drawing/As-Built of corrective actions.

The Final Mitigation Plan should include:
1. Identify responsible parties who will identify problems.
2. Potential problems that may arise during the monitoring period, particularly if
performance standards are not met.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
71
3. Potential causes of those problems.
4. Identify a process for determining measures to correct deficiencies in
compensatory mitigation projects, such as site modifications, design changes,
revisions to maintenance requirements, and revisions to monitoring
requirements (see 33 CFR § 332.7(c)(3))

10.5 Long-Term Management Plan
Upon approval for close‐out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be
transferred to the NCDEQ Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation’s
Stewardship Program. This party shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the deed restriction
document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party. The NCDEQ
Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation’s Stewardship Program
currently houses DMS stewardship endowments within the non‐reverting, interest‐
bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from
the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A‐
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of
stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non‐
wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to
steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will
be re‐invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.

11. DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
The estimated SMUs and WMUs for the Site are listed in Table 11.1. Projections
are based on current site design documents. Upon completion of the implementation
phases, the project components and credits data will only be revised to be consistent with
the as-built condition. An increase in project credits, (63.24 SMUs) as measured by
designed linear feet of subject reaches, has been proposed for pre and post construction
supplemental water quality monitoring (See Section 10.2). An additional 2% (26.22
SMUs) of the NT R1, NT R2, UTA R1, UTA R2 SMUs has been proposed for meeting
approved water quality success criteria (See Section 9.4). The increased credits based
on supplemental monitoring, if approved, will be treated similar to baseline credits while
the increased credits based on prescribed water quality metrics will only be realized if
those metrics are met.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
72
Table 11.1: Determination of Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Type SMUs Riparian WMUs Non-riparian
WMUs
Riparian
Buffer
Nitrogen
Offset
Phosphorus
Offset
Project total 3,088.67 + 63.24
= 3,151.91 - 0.660 - - -
2% Subject
to
monitoring
results*
26.22 - - - -
Project Total 3,178.13 - 0.660 - - -
• 2% of SMUs are subject to meeting specified water quality metrics, these credits will not be realized if this standard is
not met

Project Components
Resource
Existing
Length
(LF)
Approach
Proposed
Length
(LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
WQ Credits
4%
2%
NT R1 303 R: Step-pool system 326 1:1 326.00 13.04
6.52
NT R2 103 R: Bank grading, in-
stream structures 103 1:1 103.00 4.12
2.06
UTA R1 505 R: Step-pool system 523 1:1 523.00 20.92
5.06
UTA R2 100
R: Bank grading, in-
stream structures,
invasive removal
100 1:1 100.00 4.00
2.00
UTB 529 R1: Bank grading, in-
stream structures 529 1:1 529.00 21.16
10.58
MC R1 1462
E1: Bank grading, in-
stream structures, bank
treatments, planting
1,462 1.5:1 974.67 0
MC R2 553
R: Priority 2 approach.
Appropriate bankfull
channel dimensions,
minor floodplain
grading, in-stream
structures, bank
treatments, planting
533 1:1 533.00 0
Total 3555 3,576 3,088.67 4% = 63.24
2%= 26.22
Wetland 1 1.323 AC Enhancement 1.320 AC 2:1 0.662 .662

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
73
12. REFERENCES
Brown, T., Berg, J., Underwood K. (2010). Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance: An
Innovative Approach to Meet a Range of Stormwater Management and
Ecological Goals. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress. ASCE.
Boulton, A. (2007). Hyporheic rehabilitation in rivers: restoring vertical connectivity.
Freshwater Biology. 52(4):632-650.
Daniels, R., Buol, S., Kleiss, H., & Ditzler, C. (1999). Soil Systems in North Carolina.
Technical Bulletin. Soil Science Department. North Carolina State University.
Raleigh, NC.
Glysson, G. D., Gray, J. R., & Conge, L. M. (2000). Adjustment of total suspended
solids data for use in sediment studies Building Partnerships (pp. 1-10).
Line, D. E., Osmond, D. L., & Childres, W. (2016). Effectiveness of Livestock Exclusion
in a Pasture of Central North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Quality, 45(6),
1926-1932.
Narasimhan, B., Allen, P. M., Srinivasan, R., Bednarz, S. T., Arnold, J. G., & Dunbar, J.
A. (2007). Streambank erosion and best management practice simulation using
SWAT. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 4th conference on ‘Watershed
management to meet water quality standards and TMDLs’, San Antonio. ASABE
publication.
NC-DEQ. (2005). 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Retrieved from
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005.
NC-DEQ. (2014). 2014 Integrated Report Summary Ambient Data. Retrieved from
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5965f22e762
143a3bdea66ea8bcf1f38.
NC-DEQ. (2015). 319 Watershed Plan Maps. Retrieved January 4, 2017, from NC
Department of Envrionmental Quality https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-grants/319-grant-program/319-watershed-restoration-
plan-map
NC DEQ. (2016). Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of
Benthic Macroinvertebrates Version 5.0. NC Department of Envrionmental
Quality, Division of Water Resources, Water Sciences Section, Biological
Assessment Branch, Retrieved from https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroinverte

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
74
brate-SOP-February%202016_final.pdf.
Rosgen, D. L. (1994). A classification of natural rivers. CATENA, 22(3), 169-199.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0341-8162(94)90001-9
USDA NRCS. (1995). Soil Survey of Randolph County, NC. Retrieved from
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/north_carolina/NC151/
0/Randolph.pdf.
Yang, C. T. (1979). Unit stream power equations for total load. Journal of Hydrology,
40(1-2), 123-138.
Zink, J. M., and G. D. Jennings. 2014. Channel Roughness in North Carolina Mountain
Streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. DOI:
10.1111/jawr.12180

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
75
13. APPENDIX A: PRE-RESTORATION WATER QUALITY AND BIOLOGY
MONITORING
Rigorous surface water and groundwater quality monitoring has been conducted
on the tributaries and mainstem of Millstone Creek since summer 2014. High nutrient and
pathogen inputs from land applied swine wastes are the most prevalent physicochemical
stressors on the Site’s tributaries. The tributary monitoring stations were located on NT
R2 and UTA R2 just above the confluence with UTB. All water quality degradation
observed on NT and UTA is also similarly impacting UTB. For functional parameters in
the SQT, the mean or aggregate of the parameter (which ever was appropriate and most
representative) was used. On a Physicochemical basis, the tributaries are extremely
degraded and “Not Functioning”. However, conductivity of the stream flow was measured
and is suitable for macroinvertebrate habitat and recruitment. The mainstem of Millstone
Creek is also “Not Functioning”, though nutrient concentrations are much lower and fecal
coliform counts are much higher than those observed on the tributaries.
As part of the Millstone Creek mitigation effort, cattle exclusion fencing and
watering stations were installed in summer of 2015. However, due to issues with cattle
watering devices and electrical supply, cattle were not excluded from the conservation
area until approximately December 2015. Data from the pre-exclusion (8/5/14 to 12/2/15)
and post-exclusion (1/1/16 to 9/7/16) periods are separated to evaluate the results of the
cattle exclusion effort, which is a component of the restoration effort. It should be noted
that NCSU BAE staff have observed a few cattle inside the conservation easement during
nearly all visits to the site since December 2015. Generally, only 8-10 cows or fewer have
been observed inside the fence. In some instances, NCSU BAE staff have herded the
stray cows outside the fence during these visits in an effort to preserve the validity of the
pre- and post- fencing comparisons.
13.1 Water Quality
Table 13.1 and Table 13.2 below contain summary statistics of nutrient and
sediment concentration data obtained from water quality analysis results of surface water
samples collected during storm event discharge and non-storm (base flow) discharge
through 9/7/16. For storm samples on NT, the pollutant concentration means during the
pre- and post-fencing periods are similar with the post-fencing means being slightly
greater. For UTA, the post-fencing means are less than the pre-fencing. The reason for
the seemingly greater effect in on UTA was likely the result of greater channel and bank
erosion and the observation that the cows appeared to spend more time in UTA during
the pre-fencing period given that they were observed there more often and that the area
adjacent to the stream was more inviting (shaded and relatively flat) for cattle lounging as
compared to NT (not shaded) where easily accessible.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
76
Table 13.1: Summary Statistics for Stormflow WQ Samples in NT and UTA
North Tributary (NT): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 6.55 7.47 0.79 2.40 1082
Median 5.72 5.11 0.55 2.25 582
Count 11 11 11 11 11
North Tributary (NT): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 7.45 7.64 0.84 2.62 1274
Median 8.80 5.32 0.80 3.16 1257
Count 7 7 7 7 7
UT Reach A (UTA): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 12.58 5.70 1.21 3.21 2122
Median 12.90 5.35 0.78 2.43 665
Count 16 16 16 16 16
UT Reach A (UTA): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 10.15 4.83 0.69 2.82 1404
Median 11.90 3.49 0.58 2.71 1558
Count 7 7 7 7 10
Table 13.2: Summary Statistics for Baseflow WQ Samples in NT and UTA
North Tributary (NT): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 1.87 16.32 0.33 0.22 40
Median 1.48 17.15 0.26 0.13 25
Count 26 26 26 26 25
North Tributary (NT): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 1.00 18.05 0.23 0.10 16
Median 0.97 18.03 0.21 0.08 6
Count 18 18 18 18 21
UT Reach A (UTA): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 5.28 8.78 0.94 1.02 150
Median 3.74 8.65 0.49 0.55 77
Count 24 24 24 24 22
UT Reach A (UTA): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 3.31 10.09 0.33 0.68 76
Median 2.02 9.64 0.27 0.39 24
Count 16 16 16 16 23

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
77
For base flow samples from both tributaries (see Table 13.1) mean concentrations
of TKN, NH3-N, TP, and TSS decreased from the pre- to post-fencing periods, in contrast
the mean concentration of NOx-N increased. This was expected as TKN, NH3-N, TP, and
TSS tend to increase when cattle have unlimited access to a stream and decrease when
excluded, whereas, NOx-N is unaffected. Comparing concentrations between tributaries,
the greatest differences occur for NOx-N. Boxplots comparing stormflow and base flow
concentrations of NOx-N for UTA and NT (Figure 13.1) show that during the pre- and
post-fencing periods the NOx-N concentrations in NT base flow were much greater than
in UTA. This suggests the groundwater flowing to the North Tributary has a much greater
NOx-N concentration than that contributing to the UTA. The reason for the higher
concentration for NT is unknown, but may be due to the closer proximity of this tributary
to the swine production operation and waste application equipment. Evaluation of the
nutrient management plan and waste application permit for the farm could perhaps
provide some insight relative to the variation between the tributaries.
Figure 13.1: NOx-N Concentrations Pre-Fencing (left) and Post-Fencing (right) for
UT Reach A (UT) and North Tributary (N).
Discharge and pollutant mass export for UTA and NT are included in Table 13.3
and Figure 13.2. The duration of the pre-exclusion fencing period was 1.33 years, which
is marginally sufficient to characterize the hydrology, whereas the post-fencing duration
of 0.67 years was not yet adequate. Discharge in both tributaries decreased considerably
from the pre- to post-fencing periods thereby complicating direct pre- to post-fencing
load/export comparisons (8.6 to 6.3 in/yr for the UTA and 9.3 in/yr to 7.4 in/yr for NT). For
the UTA, export of all nitrogen forms, phosphorus, and TSS decreased from the pre- to
post-fencing period. The greatest decreases by percentage were for NH3-N and TSS. For
NT, export of all nitrogen forms, except NOx-N, along with phosphorus and sediment
decreased following exclusion fencing. This was expected given that past studies have
shown that exclusion fencing has a little effect on NOx-N export, at least in the short-term
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
UT-storm UT-base N-storm N-baseNOx-N (mg/L)0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
UT-storm UT-base N-storm N-baseNOx-N (mg/L)

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
78
(Line, Osmond, & Childres, 2016).
Table 13.3: Total Load of Nutrients for NT and UTA
North Tributary (NT)
Treatment
Period
Dur.
(yr)
Rain
(in/yr)
Q
(in/yr)
----------------------- Export lbs / ac / yr -----------------------
TKN NOx-N NH3-N TN TP TSS
Pre-fence 1.33 47.9 9.3 8.34 31.15 1.36 39.5 2.12 707
Post-fence 0.67 45.1 7.4 4.03 32.07 0.64 36.1 0.96 401
UT Reach A (UTA)
Treatment
Period
Dur.
(yr)
Rain
(in/yr)
Q
(in/yr)
----------------------- Export lbs / ac / yr -----------------------
TKN NOx-N NH3-N TN TP TSS
Pre-fence 1.33 47.9 8.6 11.76 17.38 1.54 29.1 2.73 1303
Post-fence 0.67 45.1 6.3 5.23 15.37 0.54 20.6 1.28 420

The base flow discharge on both streams was much greater than the storm
discharge, which was unexpected considering the slope of the pasture and the soils. The
low storm discharge may be attributed to the relatively dense pasture grass, roughness
and contouring of the ground surface. The pasture has many 8-10 ft. diameter and 1-2 ft.
deep depressions and several terraces. These depressions create a macro-roughness
that likely enhances infiltration and reduces surface runoff. Figure 13.2 shows that base
flow export for NOx, NH3-N and TN are much greater in base flow than in stormflow. In
contrast, stormflow export of TP exceed those from base flow as phosphorus attaches to
sediment. TKN is near equal in stormflow and base flow. This figure also indicates that
total export is greater for NT compared to UTA. Large reductions in sediment export
occurred as a result of the fencing, especially in the UTA.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
79

Figure 13.2: Total Nutrient Loads From Baseflow and Stormflow for UT to
Millstone Reach A and North Tributary
Stream conductivity is an important indicator of suitable water chemistry conditions
for fish and macroinvertebrates. In-situ conductivity measurements for UTA are shown in
Figure 13.3. As shown, while there are many anomalous measurements, which are typical
of in-situ probes, the vast majority of the conductivity measurements were about 190
µS/cm. During periods of surface discharge (4 large events), the conductivity decreased
considerably. For NT, the majority of the conductivity measurements were about 325
µS/cm, which was considerably greater than those at UTA. One possible reason for the
higher conductivity at the NT was that it had higher NOx-N concentrations, which means
it had more anions in the water to increase the conductivity. This may also help explain
why during periods of surface discharge the conductivity decreased given that NOx-N
concentrations were much less in storm flow samples. The conductivity of most rivers in
the US is generally between 50 to 1500 µS/cm. Studies of inland fresh waters indicates
that streams supporting good mixed fisheries have a range between 150 and 500 µS/cm.
This suggests that tributary conductivity measurements are already within the suitable
range for macroinvertebrate communities. Furthermore, clay soils tend to have higher
conductivity due to the presence of materials that ionize when mixed with runoff or stream
flow. There is additional opportunity to decrease conductivity by preventing bank erosion
and creating shallow groundwater flows within U/S BMPs to enhance water chemistry for
macroinvertebrates.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
80

Figure 13.3: In-Situ Probe Conductivity Measurements at NT and UTA.
Boxplots of fecal coliform (FC) levels in grab samples collected after exclusion
fencing installation on the tributaries and on Millstone Creek (Mill-dn) are shown in Figure
13.4. Median levels are similar (about 300 cfu/100ml) for both tributaries with the UTA
having higher 1st and 3rd quartiles. The median fecal coliform level at Millstone Creek was
more than 3 times greater than the tributaries. This was likely due to cattle having
unlimited access to Millstone Creek just upstream of the exclusion corridor and
throughout the watershed, while there was no direct access to the tributaries. Boxplots of
FC levels before (JL-pre) and after (JL-post) livestock (beef cattle) exclusion from a small
stream located near Silk Hope, NC are also shown in Figure 13.4 to compare and
represent a similar restoration site. Note there was a considerable decrease in FC levels
following exclusion of the cattle and that the post-exclusion levels are similar to those of
the tributaries.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
81

Figure 13.4: Fecal Coliform in Grab Samples at Millstone (UT-base, N-base, and
Mill-dn) and Jordan Lake (JL-pre and JL-post).
For Millstone Creek, boxplots of water quality samples collected are presented in
Figure 13.5. The median TKN and NH3-N concentrations were similar to base flow
medians of the tributaries (post-fencing), whereas the NOx-N was much less than that of
the tributaries. The median TP concentration was almost exactly at the midpoint between
the medians of the tributaries. The median TSS concentration was greater than those for
base flow from the tributaries, but much less than those for stormflow from the tributaries.
This was expected as the samples collected from Mill-dn were a combination of base flow
and stormflow.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
UT-base N-base Mill-dn JL-pre JL-postFecal Coliform (cfu/100 ml)

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
82
Figure 13.5: TKN, NOx-N, NH3-N, and TP (left) and TSS (right) Concentrations at
Mill-dn.
To provide physicochemical uplift at the site, the proposed restoration design
includes planting and reestablishment of woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation,
reconnection of streams to floodplains, construction of RSCs as BMPs above NT R2 and
UTA R2, and an expanded wetland downstream of UTB. Riparian buffer establishment
will provide shade to decrease in-stream temperatures and supply organic material.
Exclusion fencing and an undisturbed riparian zone may also filter some pathogens from
surface runoff. Uptake and processing of nitrogen, which is a major stressor at the site,
may also be increased through more frequent floodplain inundation and a higher water
table in the riparian zone. The BMPs and expanded wetland area are designed to
increase processing and filtration of nutrients and fecal coliform before being transported
downstream.
13.2 Biology
Macroinvertebrate Assessment
Benthic macroinvertebrate assessments were conducted at the Site on four
occasions including Nov. 2014, Apr. and Nov. 2015 and May 2016. All sampling has been
conducted using protocols developed by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NC DEQ, 2016). For the first two visits, sampling was conducted only in the tributaries
at three locations (NT, UTA and UTB), which have been sampled during all four visits to
the site. In Nov. 2015, sampling of Millstone Creek was added. This sampling has varied
in location including sites U/S, within and D/S of the project reach to characterize the
project reach and the likelihood of recruitment. A summary of the sampling results
including richness, biotic indices and bioclassification metrics are provided in Table 13.4.
For the first two visits (Nov. 2014 and Apr. 2015), the NT exhibited significant
accumulated Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM) suggesting limited flow. The
benthic fauna was dominated by tolerant taxa including midges (Zavrelimyia in the fall
and Tanytarsus in the spring) and amphipods; no EPT organisms were collected. The NT
scored poor and fair bioclassification during these visits, respectively. (Note: DWQ Biotic
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Mill UT NorthTSS Concentration (mg/L)0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
TKN NOx-N NH3-N TPMillstone Concentration (mg/L)

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
83
Index values for small Piedmont streams with seasonal correction factors applied as
appropriate). UTA had less CPOM suggesting more flow and more cobble and small
boulders were present, however the fauna at this location was also dominated by very
tolerant taxa (mostly midges including Conchapelopia group and Zavrelimyia spp). Two
EPT organisms were collected (one mayfly and one caddisfly) on the first visit and only
one during the second visit. The very high biotic index at this location resulted in a Poor
bioclassification for both sampling visits. During the third site visit in Fall 2015, both
tributaries exhibited positive differences in taxa richness, the presence of intolerant taxa
(having a BI of 2.5 or less) and lower biotic index values. EPT taxa richness and the
presence of intolerant taxa increased in 2015, which resulted in a lower biotic index and
an improved bioclassification (Good/Fair). This sampling suggested that conditions had
improved in both locations and could be the result of cattle exclusion fencing. The
caddisfly, Diplectrona modesta was present in both of the tributaries and the caddisfly
Lepidostoma spp was found in the UTA. During the fourth visit in spring 2016, taxa
richness values were similar to the values noted from this location in the fall 2015.
However, there was an increase in abundance of tolerant taxa (especially Simulium spp,
Chironomus spp., and Physella spp.), which increased the Biotic Index values and
resulted in a Poor bioclassification for the NT and Fair for UTA. Mosquito larvae and
Crustacea were also abundant during this survey.
The sample location of UTB is approximately 160 ft. below the confluence of NT
and UTA. The instream habitat at this location becomes slightly more heterogeneous and
the presence of bank habitat was noted. For the first sampling in Fall 2014, the total
number of taxa was 18 at this location and 3 EPT taxa were collected (two mayflies;
Paraleptophlebia spp, which was common, and Centroptilum spp: and one caddisfly
Ptilostomis spp). The benthic fauna at this location is also dominated by tolerant taxa
including midges and Physidae snails. Three taxa that have a NC Biotic Index of < 2.5
were collected, which lowered the total biotic index for the site to 6.12 and a Fair
bioclassification using these criteria. The improvement in biological conditions noted at
the NT and UTA during the third sampling, however, was not seen at the UTB station
below the confluence. Comparison of Nov. 2014 and 2015 samples at this location noted
a slight decline in the fauna; slightly lower taxa richness values and a lower number of
intolerant taxa. During the spring 2016 visit, the bioclassification increased only slightly in
UTB. Extremely high numbers of blackfly larvae were collected during this survey, but
interestingly the relatively intolerant baetid mayfly Baetis pluto became abundant during
this survey. This mayfly has only been collected from these stations only during the last
two surveys and only abundantly from this site. These data resulted in a Fair
bioclassification for all four surveys at this reach. Comparisons of total taxa richness and
EPT taxa richness and abundance for the three tributary sampling stations are provided
in figures 13.6, 13.7 and 13.8 below.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
84
Figure 13.6: Total taxa richness for Millstone Creek tributaries
Figure 13.7: EPT taxa richness for Millstone Creek tributaries

Figure 13.8: EPT abundance for Millstone Creek tributaries

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site - Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
85
Table 13.4: Macroinvertebrate Assessment Summary

Collection
Location
Mill
U/S
Mill
PR1
Mill
PR1
Mill
D/S North Tributary (NT) UT Reach A (UTA) UT Reach B (UTB)
Collection Date
(yr/mo)
2016
May
2015
Nov
2016
May
2015
Nov
2014
Nov
2015
Apr
2015
Nov
2016
May
2014
Nov
2015
Apr
2015
Nov
2016
May
2014
Nov
2015
Apr
2015
Nov
2016
May
Total Taxa
Richness 25 24 33 31 10 11 19 18 11 15 18 14 18 17 17 16
EPT Taxa
Richness 7 11 8 13 0 0 3 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 1 2
EPT Seasonal
Correction** 7 8 8 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
EPT Abundance 24 57 41 36 0 0 7 2 2 1 8 2 5 1 3 13
Biotic Index 6.51 5.54 5.67 5.54 7.16 6.37 5.49 6.94 7.43 7.05 5.33 6.62 6.02 5.88 5.78 5.24
BI Seasonal
Correction* 6.71 5.64 5.87 5.64 7.26 6.57 5.59 7.14 7.53 7.25 5.43 6.82 6.12 6.08 5.88 5.44
Number of taxa =
2.5 or less 1 5 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 1 1
Classification
Criterion EPT Richness NC Biotic Index NC Biotic Index NC Biotic Index
Bioclassification Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair/
Good Poor Poor Poor Fair/
Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair/
Good
1PR = Millstone Creek Project Reach
* Seasonal correction for BI; +0.1 fall, +0.2 spring
** Seasonal correction for EPT richness, subtract seasonal Plecoptera taxa from list.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
86
Millstone Creek was sampled within the project reach and just D/S of the project
at a location below the confluence with UTB in November 2015. During the May 2016
sampling Millstone Creek was sampled just U/S and within the project reach. The habitat
in all sampling locations is dominated by shifting sand. At all locations, the taxa richness
and abundance in Millstone Creek is much higher than those recorded from all tributary
locations. Total and EPT taxa richness values are 24/11 and 31/13 respectively for 2015
and 25/7 and 33/8 for 2016. Taxa richness and EPT abundance was slightly higher at the
D/S locations. Several EPT taxa were found only at the D/S site during the first visit
including Eurylophella verisimils, Maccaffertium modestum and Triaenodes ignitus. The
only stonefly collected during the spring 2016 survey was collected in Millstone (Perlesta
spp.) whereas four stonefly taxa were collected from Millstone Creek during the 2015
surveys. Because Millstone Creek is much larger and has greater habitat heterogeneity,
NC DWR recommends using the total number of EPT taxa (corrected for season) as the
metric to define the bioclassification (DWR 2013). As a result, all locations on Millstone
Creek were given Fair bioclassifications for both sampling visits.
Fish Assessment
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) was contacted to determine if they
had interest in sampling fish in Millstone Creek to document existing fish habitat and
restoration potential. NC WRC declined the opportunity indicating that improved fish
assemblage was not expected from the proposed restoration project, and thereby a
sampling effort would not benefit the research results. However, WRC provided the
following observations regarding the mainstem of Millstone Creek:
• The project is somewhat high in the watershed; it is fairly sizeable but for the slate belt
it’s still in a range that can see periods of little to no surface flow. That alone will affect
the expected fish assemblage in this region.
• As with any stream restoration project if the site has degraded habitat above and
below the site it will be difficult to reestablish those communities.
• Staff looked at multiple crossings of this system and each one exhibited degraded
habitat.
• Species observed during site visit, sunfish, creek chubs, and corbicula, are all very
tolerant. The upstream and downstream reaches did not have any additional species
diversity. Due to these survey results, we don’t expect recolonization of the restored
reach with anything other than what is currently present.
• Improved aquatic assemblage would not be expected by the proposed restoration
effort. Macroinvertebrate monitoring should be a better biological measure for uplift at
this location.
In general, there is little habitat in the Site streams to support rich and diverse

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
87
macroinvertebrate communities. The tributaries are plane bed systems comprised of
mostly riffle / run bedforms with little to no flow or bedform diversity. No deep pools are
present. The riffles do contain some well-graded gravel substrate, however the particle
size analysis of the bed materials indicated large fractions of sand and silt/clay had also
accumulated in the channel bed. The fine material likely originates from upstream channel
and bank sources and buries suitable habitat for macroinvertebrates as it is transported
downstream. There is a limited amount and supply of LWD to the tributaries to provide
flow diversity and pocket habitats. Woody riparian vegetation is non-existent on UTB and
there is little riparian vegetation on NT and UTA to provide shading and a source of
organic material through leaf fall and die off. Few terrestrial species exist in the riparian
zone other than pasture grasses. The hydraulic condition of the incised systems are not
suitable for macroinvertebrates as in-stream velocities and shear stresses are increased
at lower flows due to floodplain disconnection. Physicochemical inputs to the tributaries
are extremely high and may be the greatest stressor to aquatic organisms and habitat.
The jurisdictional wetland just below the UTB may be a barrier to aquatic organism
passage and potential recruitment. Pre-restoration macroinvertebrate assessments of
biotic indices and EPT taxa present in the tributaries have scored poorly. This may be
due to several factors including lack of bedform diversity, fine material accumulating in
the riffles, few habitat features and extremely high physicochemical stressors. It is unclear
if uplift in biology functions will be detected on the tributaries, however post-restoration
macroinvertebrate assessments will be conducted for evaluation.
Millstone Creek is a sand bed system with some small gravels deposited on bars
and in riffles, but lacks larger angular gravels typical of other Slate Belt streams suitable
for supporting macroinvertebrate habitat. Some LWD is present within the project reach
and has created pocket pool habitat and cover for aquatic organisms. Similar to the
tributaries, Millstone Creek also lacks riparian vegetation and floodplain connection.
Physicochemical stressors also exist (as described in Section 6.1.4), but at substantially
lower concentrations compared to the tributaries. Interestingly, Millstone Creek has had
a relatively high abudance of EPT Taxa present during sampling events (mean = 40).
However, biotic indices have remained high because most of the taxa are tolerant species
and EPT Taxa richness has remained low. There is some potential for biology parameters
to improve in Millstone Creek with the enhancement of bedform diversity, shade from
riparian vegetation and the addition of large wood and habitat features.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
88
14. APPENDIX B: FIELD MORPHOLOGY DATA
Table 14.1: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for Millstone Creek.
Stream Name: Millstone Creek Sample Length (ft.): 2040
LWD Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total Score
Length/Bankfull Width 20 9 3 3 3 38 74
Diameter 10 9 7 6 6 38 103
Location 4 17 17 38 165
Type 1 16 13 8 38 141
Structure 24 4 6 4 38 70
Stability 1 3 7 3 24 38 160
Orientation 13 6 8 4 7 38 100
Total 69 31 51 46 69 813
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.4
Ave. Total for 300 feet 121
Debris Dams
Length 3 1 4 6
Height 2 2 4 8
Structure 3 1 4 14
Location 1 1 2 4 15
Stability 2 2 4 8
Total 7 1 9 0 3 51
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.0
Ave. Total for 300 feet 8

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
89
Table 14.2: LWD Piece and Debris Dam Counts and Scores for the NT
Stream Name: North Tributary Sample Length (ft.): 409
Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total Score
Length/Bankfull Width 3 1 3 7 24
Diameter 4 2 1 7 11
Location 2 1 2 1 1 7 19
Type 1 4 2 7 23
Structure 6 1 7 9
Stability 3 1 3 7 20
Orientation 3 1 3 7 20
Total 19 8 9 1 12 126
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.3
Ave. Total for 300 feet 92
Debris Dams
Length 1 1 5
Height 1 1 5
Structure 1 1 3
Location 1 1 3
Stability 1 1 3
Total 0 0 3 0 2 19
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.05
Ave. Total for 300 feet 14

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
90
Table 14.3: LWD Piece and Debris Dam Counts and Scores for UTA
Stream Name: UT Reach A Sample Length (ft.): 595
Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total Score
Length/Bankfull Width 1 5 6 29
Diameter 2 3 1 6 11
Location 3 2 1 6 11
Type 1 1 3 1 6 17
Structure 5 1 6 7
Stability 3 1 2 6 15
Orientation 2 1 1 2 6 17
Total 16 9 5 2 10 107
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.2
Ave. Total for 300 feet 54
Debris Dams
Length 1 1 2 8
Height 1 1 2 8
Structure 1 1 2 8
Location 1 1 2 6
Stability 1 1 2 6
Total 1 1 3 1 4 36
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.06
Ave. Total for 300 feet 18

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
91
Table 14.4: LWD Piece and Debris Dam Counts and Scores for UTB
Stream Name: UT Millstone Reach B Sample Length (ft.): 514
Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total Score
Length/Bankfull Width 2 2 4 8 34
Diameter 6 1 1 8 11
Location 2 2 1 3 8 27
Type 1 3 4 8 26
Structure 7 1 8 11
Stability 1 4 1 2 8 27
Orientation 4 2 2 8 20
Total 21 1 14 9 11 156
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.3
Ave. Total for 300 feet 91
Debris Dams
Length 1 1 5
Height 1 1 3
Structure 1 1 3
Location 1 1 4
Stability 1 1 2
Total 0 1 2 1 1 17
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.03
Ave. Total for 300 feet 10

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
92
Figure 14.1: Morphology Survey Cross-Section and Soil Boring Locations
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
93
Figure 14.1: North Tributary Existing Longitudinal Profile
Figure 14.2: North Tributary XS1 STA. 0 + 87 FT
430
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
+0 +50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50Elevation (ft)Station (ft)
North Tributary Profile
TW LTOB RTOB BKF WSE
445
450
455
460
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
North Tributary STA. 0 + 87 FT (NT XS1)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = G5
ABKF = 3.7 ft2
WBKF = 5.9 ft
DBKF = 0.6 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 9.4
ER = 1.4
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
94
Figure 14.3: North Tributary Station 0+87 looking upstream
Figure 14.4: North Tributary XS1 STA. 1 + 86 FT
440
445
450
455
460
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
North Tributary STA. 1 + 86 FT (NT XS2)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = F5
ABKF = 2.3 ft2
WBKF = 5.8 ft
DBKF = 0.4 ft
DMAX = 0.6 ft
W/D = 14.5
ER = 1.5
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
95
Figure 14.5: North Tributary Station 1+86 looking downstream
Figure 14.6: North Tributary XS1 STA. 3 + 16 FT
440
445
450
455
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
North Tributary STA. 3 + 16 FT (NT XS3)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = B5
ABKF = 2.3 ft2
WBKF = 4.9 ft
DBKF = 0.5 ft
DMAX = 0.6 ft
W/D = 10.2
ER = 2.0

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
96

Figure 14.7: North Tributary station 3+16 looking upstream
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
97
Figure 14.8: UTA Longitudinal Profile
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
+0 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00Elevation (ft)Station (ft)
UTA Longitudinal Profile
TW LTOB RTOB
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
98
Figure 14.9: UTA XS1 STA. 0 + 64 FT
Figure 14.10: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 0+64 Looking Upstream
455
460
465
470
475
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UTA R1 -STA. 0 + 64 FT (UTA XS1)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = F5
ABKF = 9.9 ft2
WBKF = 11.9 ft
DBKF = 0.8 ft
DMAX = 1.2 ft
W/D = 14.3
ER = 1.5

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
99

Figure 14.11: UTA XS2 STA. 2 + 49 FT

Figure 14.12: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 2+49 Looking Downstream
445
450
455
460
465
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UTA R1 -STA. 2 + 49 FT (UTA XS2)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = F5
ABKF = 8.0 ft2
WBKF = 11.3 ft
DBKF = 0.7 ft
DMAX = 1.2 ft
W/D = 15.8
ER = 1.2

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
100

Figure 14.13: UTA XS3 STA. 3+95 FT

Figure 14.14: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 3+95 Looking Downstream
440
445
450
455
460
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UTA R2 -STA. 3 + 95 FT (UTA XS3)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Class = B5
ABKF = 2.0 ft2
WBKF = 7.2 ft
DBKF = 0.3 ft
DMAX = 1.2 ft
W/D = 26.0
ER = 2.5

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
101

Figure 14.15: UTA XS4 STA. 5+30 FT

Figure 14.16: UT Millstone Reach A STA 5+30 Looking Upstream
435
440
445
450
455
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UTA R2 -STA. 5 + 30 FT (UTA XS4)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Class = F5
ABKF = 14.6 ft2
WBKF = 14.5 ft
DBKF = 1.0 ft
DMAX = 1.3 ft
W/D = 14.3
ER = 1.1
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
102
Figure 14.17: UTB Existing Longitudinal Profile
425
430
435
440
445
6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00Elevation (ft)Station (ft)
UTB Longitudinal Profile
TW LTOB RTOB
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
103
Figure 14.18: UTB STA. 6 + 76 FT
Figure 14.19: UTB STA. 6+76 looking downstream
435
440
445
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UT Reach B STA. 6 + 76 FT (UTB XS1)
Series1 WSE BKF LBH
Type = G5
ABKF = 3.7 ft2
WBKF = 5.6 ft
DBKF = 0.7 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 8.4
ER = 1.8

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
104

Figure 14.20: UTB STA. 8 + 62 FT

435
440
445
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UT Reach B STA. 8 + 62 FT (UTB XS2)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = G5
ABKF = 3.0 ft2
WBKF = 4.4 ft
DBKF = 0.7 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 6.6
ER = 1.4

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
105

Figure 14.21: UTB STA. 10 + 98 FT

Figure 14.22: Millstone Creek Existing Longitudinal Profile Summary
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
UTB STA. 10 + 98 FT (UTB XS3)
XS WSE BKF
420
425
430
435
440
+0 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00Elevation (ft)Station (ft)
Millstone Creek Longitudinal Profile
TW LTOB RTOB BKF WSE
Class = E5
ABKF = 2.1 ft2
WBKF = 4.4 ft
DBKF = 0.5 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 9.3
ER = 20

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
106

Figure 14.23: MC XS1 STA. 1 + 75 FT

Figure 14.24: MS XS1 STA. 1+75 Looking Downstream
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 1 + 75 FT (MC XS1)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = C5
ABKF = 123.6 ft2
WBKF = 46.6 ft
DBKF = 2.7 ft
DMAX = 4.1 ft
W/D = 17.6
ER = 7.1

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
107

Figure 14.25: MC XS2 STA. 3 + 91 FT

Figure 14.26: MC XS2 STA. 3 + 91 FT Looking Upstream
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 3 + 91 FT (MC XS2)
XS WSE BKF
APOOL = 95.9 ft2
WPOOL = 42.1 ft
DPOOL = 2.3 ft
DMPOOL = 4.3 ft
PBS = 7.8:1

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
108

Figure 14.27: MC XS3 STA. 8 + 37 FT

Figure 14.28: MC XS3 STA. 8 + 37 FT Looking Upstream.
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 8 + 37 FT (MC XS3)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = C5
ABKF = 75.3 ft2
WBKF = 28.9 ft
DBKF = 2.6 ft
DMAX = 3.3 ft
W/D = 11.1
ER = 7.5

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
109

Figure 14.29: MC XS4 STA. 13 + 33 FT

Figure 14.30: MC XS4 STA. 13 + 33 FT Looking Upstream
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 13 + 39 FT (MC XS4)
XS WSE BKF
APOOL = 151.0 ft2
WPOOL = 43.4 ft
DPOOL = 3.5 ft
DMPOOL = 5.6 ft
PBS = 4.2:1

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
110

Figure 14.31: MC XS4 STA. 17 + 37 FT

Figure 14.32: MC XS4 STA. 17 + 37 FT
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 17 + 37 FT (MC XS5)
XS WSE BKF
APOOL = 105.2 ft2
WPOOL = 32.2 ft
DPOOL = 3.2 ft
DMPOOL = 5.2 ft
PBS = 3.3:1

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
111

Figure 14.33: MC XS6 STA. 19 + 84 FT

Figure 14.34: MC XS6 STA. 19 + 84 FT Looking Upstream
425
430
435
440
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Millstone Creek STA. 19 + 84 FT (MC XS6)
XS WSE BKF LBH
Type = E5
ABKF = 105.8 ft2
WBKF = 30.9 ft
DBKF = 3.4 ft
DMAX = 4.3 ft
W/D = 9.0
ER = 12.3

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
112
15. APPENDIX C: DETAILED STABILITY AND SEDIMENT SUPPLY ANALYSIS
15.1 Field Collected TSS Data and USGS Equations to Estimate Sediment Loads
A significant amount of suspended sediment data has been produced using the
total suspended solids (TSS) laboratory analysis method. However, TSS concentration
data does not necessarily relate directly to suspended sediment concentrations (SSC)
and suspended sediment loads. Glysson et al. (Glysson, Gray, & Conge, 2000) have
described the differences between TSS and SSC samples in detail:
“The fundamental difference between SSC (ASTM, 1999) and TSS (APHA and
others, 1995) analytical methods arises during the preparation of the sample for
subsequent filtering, drying, and weighing. A TSS analysis generally entails withdrawal of
an aliquot of the original sample for subsequent analysis, although as determined in a
previous study, there may be a lack of consistency in methods used in the sample
preparation phase of the TSS analyses. The SSC analytical method uses the entire water-
sediment mixture to calculate SSC values. Subsampling in itself can introduce error into
the analysis. Also, if a sample contains a significant percentage of sand-size material,
stirring, shaking, or otherwise agitating the sample before obtaining a subsample will
rarely produce an aliquot representative of the sediment concentration and particle-size
distribution of the original sample. This is a by-product of the relatively rapid settling
properties of sand-size material, compared to those for silt- and clay-size material, as
described by Stokes Law. Aliquots obtained by pipette might be withdrawn from the lower
part of the sample where the sand concentration tends to be enriched immediately after
agitation.”
USGS analysis of 14,466 paired SSC and TSS samples from 48 states showed
that the TSS concentrations tended to be substantially smaller than SSC concentrations
throughout the observed range of TSS and SSC concentration. Glysson et al. (2000)
developed a general equation to relate TSS and SSC measurements:
SSC (mg/L) = 126 + 1.0857*[TSS (mg/L)]
This equation resulted in a significant linear relationship and an R2 of 0.54.
However, USGS recommends exercising caution when relating SSC and TSS using the
general equation, particularly when sand fractions within the sample are high. A more
robust approach would be to develop a regression relationship between TSS and SSC
concentration for the specific monitoring station where the TSS data has been collected.
However, a substantial number (30+) of samples is likely necessary to produce a
significant regression relationship, if the relationship exists.
The general equation was used to relate TSS data to SSC data for the project
reach of Millstone Creek and suspended sediment load was calculated using field
measured flow data from 12/16/2016 to 10/6/2016 (9.66 months) (Table 15.1). Based on
these methods, 1,755 tons of suspended sediment passed through the system in the

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
113
9.66-month monitoring period with 37.54 in of rainfall, which can be converted to an
annual sediment load of 2,135 tons using annual rainfall as a basis. However, this
estimate of annual sediment load is likely under predicted by two (2) to four (4) times,
because the majority of the sediment transported by the project reach is sand, which is
consistently under predicted in TSS and SSC measurements as described by Glysson et
al. (2000). This approach also does not account for bedload transported by the stream.
For Millstone Creek, bedload may only include some fine gravels and coarse sand,
nonetheless this fraction of the total sediment load has not been accounted for. By the
field collected TSS and flow data and methods and nuances of TSS and SSC data
collection and analysis described by Glysson et al. (2000), the actual range of annual
sediment load moving through the Millstone Creek project reach may be between 4,300
tons and 8,600 tons.
Table 15.1: Millstone Creek SSC Concentration and Sediment Load from TSS data
and the General USGS Equation:
Sample Date Stream Flow (ft3) TSS (mg/L) SSC (mg/L) Suspended Sediment
Mass (Tons)
12/16/2015 81,349,434 104 239 607
1/7/2016 11,302,862 158 298 105
1/21/2016 22,957,038 9 136 97
2/8/2016 30,130,628 62 193 182
2/25/2016 12,271,916 142 280 107
3/9/2016 9,622,358 20 148 44
3/24/2016 16,014,984 8 135 67
4/5/2016 7,971,933 71 203 51
4/21/2016 4,936,839 14 141 22
5/3/2016 11,077,476 29 157 54
5/18/2016 9,431,462 39 168 50
5/31/2016 3,461,001 139 277 30
6/15/2016 2,499,300 57 188 15
6/28/2016 1,841,857 48 178 10
7/13/2016 605,174 120 256 5
7/26/2016 4,867,325 26 154 23
8/10/2016 1,050,599 308 460 15
8/23/2016 1,594,747 321 474 24
9/7/2016 2,926,892 104 239 22
9/20/2016 11,550,132 348 503 181
10/6/2016 7,300,988 63 194 44
Study Period Load (Tons) = 1,755
Estimated Annual Load (Tons/year) = 2,135

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
114
15.2 ArcSWAT Modeling of Historical Annual Sediment Supply
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) has been integrated with ArcGIS to
conduct large-scale spatial and temporal modeling studies of watersheds. ArcSWAT is
designed to assess the sediment and nutrient loading contributed by different land use
types, sub-basins, reservoirs and streams. SWAT is a physically based basin-scale,
continuous time and distributed parameter hydrologic model that uses spatially distributed
data on soil, land cover data, Digital Elevation Models (DEM) and historical weather data
and operates on a daily time step (Arnold et al. 1998 and Neitsch et al. 2002). An
accelerated and simplified modeling approach was used with ArcSWAT to estimate
historical upland and channel sediment supply to the project reach of Millstone Creek
from 1/1/1990 to 12/31/2006 (17 years). Calibrating and validating the SWAT model with
field collected discharge, water quality, rainfall and weather data was beyond the scope
of this mitigation planning effort. However, sediment data outputs from the SWAT model
were roughly calibrated to field collected TSS data with guidance from Narasimhan et al.
(2007).
In ArcSWAT, the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Randolph
County was used to extract soil attributes. The land cover data was obtained from the
2011 National Land Cover Dataset and 10m Digital Elevation Model from USGS was used
to characterize watershed topography. Based on these input datasets the Millstone Creek
project reach watershed was divided up into 19 distinct Hydrologic Response Units
(HRUs). Daily records of rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature, solar radiation and
wind parameters were brought in from the ArcSWAT database. Standard values for
typical crop production and management practices were used for row crops, hay
production, timber and pasture lands.
The Yang (Yang, 1979) equations for channel degradation and sediment transport
were used. Narasimhan et al. (2007) provides a detailed description of using ArcSWAT
to model upland, channel and bank sediment loads. Streambank erosion and power
function parameters in ArcSWAT (spcon and spexp) were adjusted based on field
inspection and study aerial imagery. Channel physical properties such as channel
vegetation cover factor (Cch) (0.1 to 1.0) and channel erodibility factor (Kch) (0.3 to 0.8)
were adjusted for individual stream segments based on field assessment, geologic data
and study of aerial imagery. Higher values of Cch and Kch result in greater risk of channel
and bank erosion. Model coefficients were calibrated such the predicted average TSS
concentrations from model were within the range of TSS concentrations measured at the
Millstone Creek project reach monitoring station. This was done based on guidance from
Narasimhan (Narasimhan et al., 2007). Predicted annual sediment loads to the project
reach of Millstone Creek ranged from 811 tons to 28,650 tons with an average annual
sediment load of 11,340 tons (Table 15.2). TSS concentrations ranged from 14 mg/L to
185 mg/L with an average of 98 mg/L. The 17-year average TSS concentration predicted

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
115
by the model is similar to the average TSS concentration measured at the Millstone Creek
monitoring station of 104 mg/L.
Table 15.2: ArcSWAT Model Summary for Sediment Load and TSS Concentration
for Millstone Creek for Simulation Period from 1990 to 2006
Modeling Year Sediment Load Delivered (tons) Predicted Reach TSS
(mg/L)
1990 6,678 83
1991 6,467 90
1992 12,420 81
1993 9,467 75
1994 13,370 118
1995 14,500 151
1996 13,190 93
1997 7,539 68
1998 15,650 149
1999 16,870 134
2000 1,970 29
2001 811 14
2002 1,766 28
2003 28,650 185
2004 6,459 81
2005 25,230 161
2006 11,750 127
Study Minimum 811 14
Study Maximum 28,650 185
Study Average 11,340 98

15.3 HEC-RAS Modeling of Annual Sediment Transported through Millstone Creek
Hydraulic design and sediment transport modeling functions in HEC-RAS 5.0 can
be used to model and simulate rivers with highly mobile beds. These functions and tools
are designed to track cross-section geometry changes at each time step of given flow
series. The quasi-unsteady sediment transport functions can also be used estimate the
sediment load that moves through each cross-section over the duration of the flow series.
Multiple sediment transport modeling equations are available in HEC-RAS 5.0 including
Ackers-White, Engelund-Hansen, Copeland, Myer Peter Muller (MPM), Toffaleti and
Yang. Due to the sand bedded nature (with some fine gravels) of the Millstone Creek
project reach, the Yang equations for sediment transport were used for model simulations
(Figure 15.1).

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
116

Figure 15.1: HEC-RAS Model of the Existing Millstone Creek Project Reach
Field measured hourly flow data from 12/16/2015 to 11/17/2016 (336 days) from
the Millstone Creek monitoring station were used to populate a quasi-unsteady flow series
for sediment transport modeling. Substrate bulk samples and depth measurements were
collected from the project reach for inputs to the model. A rating curve developed for the
monitoring station was used as the D/S boundary condition to begin the model simulation.
For quasi-unsteady sediment transport modeling, an U/S boundary condition is needed
to describe the influent sediment load. Various boundary conditions may be used
including a sediment rating curve, sediment data series or an equilibrium load. For this
modeling study, an equilibrium load was used as the U/S boundary condition. The
equilibrium load condition assumes that the influent sediment load is equal to the
sediment transport capacity of the cross-section, which is a relatively reasonable
assumption so long as the river system is not in a state of total disequilibrium. The U/S
extent of the project reach of Millstone Creek has shown some signs of minor incision,
widening, sediment aggradation within the channel and some lateral adjustments at some
meander bends. However, the instability present is not to a degree that warrants the
system being considered in a state of total disequilibrium with dramatic changes occurring
routinely.
Outputs from the quasi-unsteady sediment transport simulation of the existing
conditions of the project reach are included in Table 15.3 and Figure 15.2. Figure 15.2
2000
1800
1700
1600
1500 1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900 800
700
600
500
400
300
200
0
MILLSTONE CREEK SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDY Plan: Plan 17 3/2/2017
Legend
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
117
includes graphical representations of simulated streambed elevations on 12/16/15,
3/15/16, 6/15/16, 9/15/16 and 11/17/16. In general, moderate deposition occurred in the
first 500 feet of the reach and sediment settled behind the thalweg elevation of STA.
15+00 FT. Fewer changes in bed elevation occurred through the middle and D/S extents
of the project reach. Sediment transport capacity of the project reach and its importance
to the restoration design approach will be discussed in detail in below.

Figure 15.2: Streambed Elevations from Quasi-unsteady HEC-RAS Model of the
Existing Millstone Creek Project Reach
Table 15.3 details the total sediment load delivered to each cross-section of the
project reach during the 336 day simulation. At STA 20+00 FT the boundary condition
was set to an equilibrium load, which means the total mass of sediment that can be moved
by cross-section 20+00 FT during the simulation period is 8,838 tons or 9,600 tons per
year. Cross-sections D/S of STA 20+00 FT received slightly less sediment load, indicating
that some deposition was occurring within the project reach and that cross-sections below
STA 20+00 were not able to transport the entire equilibrium load. The average sediment
moved through the reach was 8,566 tons or 9,305 tons per year.

424.5
425.0
425.5
426.0
426.5
427.0
427.5
428.0
428.5
429.0
429.5
0200400600800100012001400160018002000Bed Elevation (ft)River Station (ft)
Millstone Creek Bed Elevation
16-Dec-15 15-Mar-16 15-Jun-16 15-Sep-16 17-Nov-16

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
118

Table 15.3: Millstone Creek Sediment Loads Delivered to Modeled Cross-Sections
Reach Station (ft.) Total Sediment Load Delivered to
Cross-section (tons)
20 + 00 8,838
19 + 00 8,838
18 + 00 8,731
17 + 00 8,617
16 + 00 8,512
15 + 00 8,396
14 + 00 8,408
13 + 00 8,409
12 + 00 8,449
11 + 00 8,466
10 + 00 8,484
9 + 00 8,513
8 + 00 8,500
7 + 00 8,504
6 + 00 8,580
5 + 00 8,594
4 + 00 8,584
3 + 00 8,594
2 + 00 8,589
1 + 00 8,616
0 + 00 8,643
Study Reach Average = 8,566
Annual Reach Average = 9,305

15.4 Millstone Reach-wide Sediment Erosion and Deposition Analysis
An analytical study of streambank adjustments was conducted for the reach of
Millstone Creek that is within the existing site easement (Table 15.4). Methods described
by Purvis and Fox (2016) were followed to quantify adjustments of individual streambanks
and the net change in sediment flux from field measurements and historical aerial photos.
Aerial photos from 2007, 2010, 2014 and a field survey from 2016 were used to identify
the left and right top of bank (LTOB and RTOB) for the reach. The erosional and
depositional areas were traced using GIS software and summed for each study interval.
On site, bulk density samples were collected at four (4) locations within the project
reach and from four (4) distinctly different or stratified layers of the bank material. From
the four sample sites and four (4) stratified layers, a weighted average bulk density of

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
119
91.1 lb/ft3 or 1.46 g/cm3 was calculated for the reach using stratified layer thickness as a
basis. The traced erosional and depositional areas were then multiplied by the reach
average bank height (5.6 ft.) and the reach weighted average bulk density to determine
total sediment erosion and deposition within the project reach for each study interval.
Table 15.4: Millstone Creek Reachwide Streambank Erosion and Deposition Summary

Study
Interval
Erosion Summary Deposition Summary Reach
Balance
(tons) Area
(ft.2)
Mass
(tons)
Rate
(tons/yr) Area
(ft.2)
Mass
(tons)
Rate
(tons/yr)
2007 - 2010 9,337 425 142 7,099 323 108 -102
2010 - 2014 10,532 480 120 4,574 208 52 -271
2014 - 2016 18,892 860 430 3,716 169 85 -691
Average 12,920 588 231 5,130 234 81 -355

The project reach showed a net export of sediment from bank erosion for all three
(3) study intervals totaling 1,064 tons. While deposition of sediment on streambanks did
occur for all study intervals, depositional surface area and the total mass of sediment
was substantially less than eroded sediment mass. The Millstone Creek project reach
is a significant source of sediment, on average the reach exports 231 tons (net 150
tons) of sediment each year from bank erosion. There was a substantial increase in
sediment export from 2014 – 2016. It is possible that the increase in erosional area is
related to the 2016 field survey and slight differences in aerial overlay or TOB traces.
However, the overwhelming majority of the erosional area from 2014 – 2016 occurred
between Bank 2 and Bank 3 (STA. 4+00 FT to STA. 11+00 FT) in Figure 15.6. This
reach of the project in particular has been significantly impacted by cattle access, bank
trampling and lack of riparian vegetation.
Seven (7) individual streambanks were also studied through aerial photos and
the 2016 field survey (Figure 15.5). Total lateral adjustment and average annual
adjustment rates were quantified. In general, the study streambanks have shown
substantial lateral adjustments due to both deposition and erosion. The outside
meander bends of Banks 1, 2, and 3 have been highly unstable, moving laterally more
than 3.0 feet per year. Bank 2 has eroded laterally up to 5.0 ft. / yr. The outside meander
bends of Banks 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been slightly less unstable during the study intervals,
adjusting laterally 0.5 ft. to 2.1 ft. per year on average. Deposition of sediment has also
occurred on the streambanks within the study period. The high level of lateral
streambank adjustment observed within the project reach is likely linked to high
sediment supply and suspended load transported by Millstone Creek, lack of deep
rooting riparian vegetation on the right bank, cattle access, bank trampling and a
moderate degree of incision. The analysis of the lateral adjustments of the existing

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
120
streambanks has been used to inform the proposed restoration design approach on
Millstone Creek and bank treatments. The aerial images, streambank mapping results
and detailed data are provided in Table 15.5.

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
121
Table 15.5: Millstone Creek Streambank Adjustment Summary
Bank 1
Period Left Bank (ft.) Left Bank Rate (ft./yr) Right Bank* (ft.) Right Bank Rate
(ft./yr)
2007 - 2010 -16 -5.3 +13 +4.3
2010 - 2014 +12 +3.0 -11 -2.8
2014 - 2016 -18 -9.0 -4 -2.0
Average2 15.3 5.8 9.3 3.0
Bank 2
Period Left Bank* (ft.) Left Bank Rate (ft./yr) Right Bank (ft.) Right Bank Rate
(ft./yr)
2007 - 2010 -7 -2.3 -10 -3.3
2010 - 2014 -21 -5.3 +22 +5.5
2014 - 2016 -10 -5.0 +4 +2.0
Average2 12.7 4.2 12.0 3.6
Bank 3
Period Left Bank (ft.) Left Bank Rate (ft./yr) Right Bank* (ft.) Right Bank Rate
(ft./yr)
2007 - 2010 -17 -5.7 +14 +4.7
2010 - 2014 +17 +4.3 -12 -3.0
2014 - 2016 -7 -3.5 +6 +3.0
Average2 13.7 4.5 10.7 3.6
Bank 4
Period Left Bank* (ft.) Left Bank Rate (ft./yr) Right Bank (ft.) Right Bank Rate
(ft./yr)
2007 - 2010 -3 -1.0 +1 +0.3
2010 - 2014 0 0.0 0 0.0
2014 - 2016 -1 -0.5 -8 -4.0
Average2 1.3 0.5 3.0 1.4
Bank 5
Period Left Bank (ft.) Left Bank Rate (ft./yr) Right Bank* (ft.) Right Bank Rate
(ft./yr)
2007 - 2010 +3 +1.0 -7 -2.3
2010 - 2014 +10 +2.5 -6 -1.5
2014 - 2016 -6 -3.0 -4 -2.0
Average2 6.3 2.2 5.7 1.9
Bank 6
Period Left Bank* (ft.) Left Bank Rate (ft./yr) Right Bank (ft.) Right Bank Rate
(ft./yr)
2007 - 2010 -2 -0.7 -6 -2.0
2010 - 2014 -4 -1.0 -1 -0.3
2014 - 2016 +2 +1.0 -1 -0.5
Average2 2.7 0.9 2.7 0.9

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
122
Bank 7
Period Left Bank (ft.) Left Bank Rate (ft./yr) Right Bank* (ft.) Right Bank Rate
(ft./yr)
2007 - 2010 -3 -1.0 +9 +3.0
2010 - 2014 0 0.0 -7 -1.8
2014 - 2016 -14 -7.0 +3 +1.5
Average2 5.7 2.7 6.3 2.1
*Denotes outside streambank of meander bend
1 ”-“ indicates erosion “+” deposition
2Average of absolute values of adjustments

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
123
Figure 15.3: Millstone Creek Channel Adjustment Summary

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
124
Figure 15.4: Millstone Creek 2007 – 2010 Deposition and Erosion

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
125

Figure 15.5: Millstone Creek 2010 – 2014 Deposition and Erosion

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
126

Figure 15.6: Millstone Creek 2014 – 2016 Deposition and Erosion

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
127

15.5 Streambank Stability and Erosion Assessment
The condition of all streambanks on NT, UTA, and MC were evaluated using a
visual classification of condition (surface scour - SS, hoof shear - HS, undercut banks –
UB, mass wasting – MW or no erosion) and the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI)
assessment. The erosion category location results are shown in Figure 15.7. and a
summary of the total length of streambank assessed and percentage of each erosion
type are shown in Table 15.5.
Table 15.6: Streambank Erosion Totals by Category
Stream
Reach
Total
Streambank
Assessed
(Left + Right)
(ft.)
Hoof Shear
(%)
Surface
Scour (%)
Mass
Wasting
(%)
Undercut
Banks (%)
Total
Eroding
Bank (%)
NT 818 21.9 15.2 9.5 0.0 46.6
UTA 1190 30.0 6.0 16.1 3.5 55.5
Millstone 4556 7.2 20.8 13.7 1.5 43.2

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
128

Figure 15.7: Millstone Creek Site Streambank Condition Summary

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
129

The Bank Erosion Hazard Index (David L Rosgen, 2001) was applied to evaluate
erosion potential for NT, UTA and MC. The BEHI procedure consists of evaluating four
qualitative and one quantitative metrics of streambank condition including:
1. Ratio of bank height to bankfull height
2. Ratio of root depth to bank height
3. Root density, in percent
4. Bank angle, in degrees
5. Surface protection, in percent
Each category is ranked and the resulting index values for each are summed.
Adjustments are made to the total score based on the bank materials and channel
stratification (if present). The overall sum of all categories and the adjustments
determines the stability/erodibility rating of the streambank evaluated. Fourteen banks
were evaluated on MC. Four banks each were rated as moderate, high, and very high
and two as extreme. High variability was observed among all assessment parameters.
Bank heights ranged from 1 to as high as 2.3, root depth ratio (%) from 22 to 100, bank
angles from 45 to 100 degrees, and surface protection (%) from 5-90. All banks were
adjusted by either 5 or 10 points due to stratification. Four banks were evaluated on NT.
Three banks were rated as having high erosion potential and one scored very high.
Bank height ratios were very high, root density was low to very low (20-50%) and
surface protection was low to fairly low ranging from (2-55%). All four locations were
adjusted due to high sand content in the banks. These factors contributed to elevated
erosion potential at all four sites. In contrast, bank angle, root depth and near bank
stress were variable among the four banks. Three eroding banks were evaluated on
UTA. Two of the banks are located at an active headcut located at STA. 1+89 FT. One
bank rated very high for erosion potential and the other two scored extreme. All three
banks were vertical (90°), bank height ratios were extremely high, root density was very
low (5-25%) and surface protection was also very low ranging from (5-20%). These
factors heavily contributed to the very high to extreme erosion potential at all three sites.
Two of the banks were adjusted due to sand content and stratification of banks. Some
variability root depth and near bank stress was observed among the three sites. All
BEHI data and associated streambank photos are provided in tables 15.6-15.9 and
figures 15.9-15.11.
The Bank Assessment for Non-point source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS)
model was used to estimate the stream bank erosion rates and consequent sediment
loading for Millstone Creek. A visual estimate of Near Bank Stress (NBS) was combined
with the BEHI category for each of the 14 streambanks assessed to determine an
estimate of the average annual lateral soil erosion rate using the NC Streambank Erosion

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
130
Potential Curves (Doll et al., 2003)(Figure 15.8). The erosion rate (ft./yr) for each BEHI
station was multiplied by the length and height of the associated eroding streambank
segment to estimate a total volume of sediment. A total estimated erosion volume of 116
tons/year was calculated for Millstone by summing the volumes for each length of bank
erosion, which was in the same order of magnitude, but only half the 231 tons/year of
erosion estimated from the stream reach using GIS analysis of aerial photos.

Figure 15.8: North Carolina Streambank Erosion Rate (Doll et al., 2003)

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
131
Table 15.6: NT R1 and NT R2 BEHI Assessment
Sta. Bank
Height
BKF
Height
Bank Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth
Root Depth/
Bank Height Root Density Bank Angle Surface
Protection Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stress
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft. ft. # Index ft. (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index Units ft. ft. # Index
0+15 12.9 0.7 18.4 10.0 12.9 8.2 50 4.4 70 5.0 55 3.8 3 Mod 34.4 High Sand
0+30 10 0.7 14.3 9.5 10 100 1.0 40 6.0 50 4.2 10 8.7 5 High 34.4 High Sand
0+52 5 0.7 7.1 10.0 2 40 5.2 20 7.8 42 3.6 2 9.4 5 High 41.0 Very High Sand
1+95 6 0.7 8.6 7.9 6 100 1.0 30 6.9 30 2.8 25 7.4 5 Low 30.9 High Sand

Figure 15.9: NT BEHI Assessment Photos

Sta. 0+15 Sta. 0+30 Sta. 0+52 Sta. 1+95

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
132
Table 15.7: UTA R1 and UTA R2 BEHI Assessment
Sta. Bank
Height
BKF
Height
Bank Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth
Root Depth/
Bank Height Root Density Bank Angle Surface
Protection Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stres
s
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft. ft. # Index ft. (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index Units ft. ft. # Index
0+25 7.5 0.9 8.3 10.0 5.5 73.3 2.5 20 7.8 90 7.1 5 9.1 10 Mod 46.5 Extreme Sand +
Strati.
1+89
Left 13 0.9 14.4 9.5 3 23.1 6.9 5 9.2 90 7.1 0 9.5 0 High 42.3 Very High none
1+89
Right 8 0.9 8.9 10.0 3 37.5 5.4 25 7.4 90 7.1 20 7.8 10 High 47.7 Extreme Sand +
Strati.

Figure 15.10: UTA BEHI Assessment Photos

Sta. 0+25 Sta. 1+89 Right Bank Sta. 1+89 Left Bank

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
133
Table 15.8: UTB BEHI Assessment
Sta. Bank
Height BKF
Height
Bank
Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth Root Depth/
Bank Height Root Density Bank Angle Surface
Protection Adjust. Near
Bank
Stress
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft. ft. # Index ft. (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index Units ft. ft. # Index
7+20 1.95 0.9 2.2 8.5 1 51.3 4.3 30 1.95 115 8.9 20 7.8 0 Low 34.4 High n/a
8+50 2.55 0.9 2.8 10 1 39.2 5.3 25 2.55 110 8.6 15 8.2 0 Low 34.4 High n/a
10+20 1.45 0.9 1.6 7 1 69.0 2.9 70 1.45 85 6.7 50 5.2 0 Low 41.0 Moderate n/a

Table 15.9: Millstone Creek BEHI Assessment
Sta. Bank
Height
BKF
Height
Bank Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth
Root Depth/
Bank Height Root Density Bank Angle Surface
Protection Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stress
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft. ft. # Index ft. (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index - - - - -
0+43 6 3.2 1.9 7.5 4 66.7 3.1 15 8.0 60 4.0 20 7.3 10 Mod 39.9 High Stratify
2+43 6 4.3 1.4 6.0 2.3 38.3 5.3 25 7.4 60 4.9 25 7.4 10 High 40.9 Very High Stratify
3+83 5.7 3.1 1.8 7.4 2.5 43.9 4.9 30 6.9 90 7.1 25 7.4 10 High 43.6 Very High Stratify
4+49 5 3.1 1.6 6.0 5 100 1.0 80 2.4 85 6.7 90 1.7 10 Mod 27.8 Moderate Stratify
4+92 4.4 3.1 1.4 5.5 4.4 100 1.0 50 5.1 45 3.8 35 6.5 10 High 31.9 High Stratify
7+50 4.8 3 1.6 6.0 4.8 100 1.0 80 2.4 85 6.7 65 3.8 5 Mod 25.0 Moderate Stratify
8+57 3.2 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 21.9 7.1 5 9.2 90 7.1 5 9.1 5 Mod 38.5 High Stratify
11+19 4.5 4.5 1.0 5.9 1 22.2 7.0 10 8.7 60 4.9 10 8.7 10 Mod 45.2 Extreme Stratify
12+02 4.3 4.3 1.0 1.0 4.3 100 1.0 45 5.5 100 7.8 25 7.4 10 High 32.7 High Stratify
15+65 4.4 4.4 1.0 5.9 4.4 100 1.0 85 1.9 90 7.1 70 3.4 10 Mod 29.3 Moderate Stratify
16+97 5.4 2.3 2.3 8.4 2.7 50 4.4 25 7.4 90 7.1 20 7.8 10 Mod 45.1 Extreme Stratify
17+03 4 4 1.0 5.9 1.5 37.5 5.4 20 7.8 85 6.7 15 8.2 10 V. High 44.0 Very High Stratify
18+29 6.1 3 2.0 8.0 3 49.2 4.5 30 6.9 75 6.0 20 7.8 10 V. High 43.2 Very High Stratify
18+68 5.8 3.9 1.5 6.0 5.8 100 1.0 90 1.5 55 4.6 85 2.1 5 Mod 20.1 Moderate Stratify

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
134

Sta. 0+49
Sta. 7+50 Sta. 4+92 Sta. 4+49
Sta. 3+83 Sta. 2+43
Figure 15.11: MC BEHI Assessment Photos
Sta. 15+65
Sta. 12+02 Sta. 8+57 Sta. 11+19
Sta. 17+03 Sta. 16+97
Sta. 18+29 Sta. 18+68

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
135

16. APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL MAPS AND FIGURES
Figure 16.1: Millstone Creek Watershed

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
136

Figure 16.2: 1993 Aerial Imagery

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
137

Figure 16.3: 2014 Aerial Imagery

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
138
Figure 16.4: Millstone Creek Site Tributary DA’s and Topography

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
IMS Project: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
139
17. APPENDIX E: NC SAM, NC WAM and ERTR

USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
8.5 (average)
18
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2
Rating Calculator Version 2
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle,and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property,identify and number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
SAW-2019-01363 IMS#204
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
North Tribtuary of Millstone Creek January 3, 2020
35.696791,-79.624136
NT R1 & NT R2 406
NC Division of Mitigation Services 4. Assessor name/organization:B. Doll/ NC State University
Randolph
Cape Fear Millstone Creek
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Spray Animal Waste on Pasture
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Aquatic organism data was based on results of benthic surveys conducted by Dave Penrose 11/2014, 4/2015, 11/2015, 5/2016. There are no pools
present. Stream is dominated by riffle/run bedform.
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
B. Doll/ NC State University
January 3, 2020
YES
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
LOW
Pb1
Stream Site Name North Tribtuary of Millstone Creek Date of Evaluation
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
YES
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
UT to Millstone Creek - Reach A January 3, 2020
35.696791,-79.624136
UTA R1 & R2 605
NC Division of Mitigation Services 4. Assessor name/organization:B. Doll/ NC State University
Randolph
Cape Fear Millstone Creek
property,identify and number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
SAW-2019-01363 IMS#204
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2
Rating Calculator Version 2
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle,and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
9.5 (average)
24 (average)
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Spray Animal Waste on Pasture
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Aquatic organism data was based on results of benthic surveys conducted by Dave Penrose 11/2014, 4/2015, 11/2015, 5/2016 . There are no pools
present. Stream is dominated by riffle/run bedform.
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
YES
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
B. Doll/ NC State University
January 3, 2020
YES
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
LOW
Pb1
Stream Site Name UT to Millstone Creek - Reach A Date of Evaluation
LOW
HIGH
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
UT to Millstone Creek - Reach B January 3, 2020
35.696466, -79.622933
UTB R1 & R2 529
NC Division of Mitigation Services 4. Assessor name/organization:B. Doll/ NC State University
Randolph
Cape Fear Millstone Creek
property,identify and number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
SAW-2019-01363 IMS#204
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2
Rating Calculator Version 2
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle,and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
1.9 (average)
8 (average)
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Aquatic organism data was based on results of benthic surveys conducted by Dave Penrose 11/2014, 4/2015, 11/2015, 5/2016 . There are no pools
present. Stream is dominated by riffle/run bedform.SiteNotes
No Meter
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
YES
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
B. Doll/ NC State University
January 3, 2020
YES
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
LOW
Pa1
Stream Site Name UT to Millstone Creek - Reach B Date of Evaluation
LOW
MEDIUM
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Millstone Creek January 3, 2020
35.695493,-79.621969
Millstone R1 & R2 2015
NC Division of Mitigation Services 4. Assessor name/organization:B. Doll/ NC State University
Randolph
Cape Fear Millstone Creek
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
SAW-2019-01363 IMS#204
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2
Rating Calculator Version 2
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
3.9 (average)
48 (average)
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Aquatic organism data was based on results of benthic surveys conducted by Dave Penrose during two sampling visits on November of 2015 and May
of 2016.
No meter
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
YES
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
B. Doll/ NC State University
January 3, 2020
YES
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
Pa4
Stream Site Name Millstone Creek Date of Evaluation
LOW
HIGH
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 1
Rating Calculator Version 1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lu Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (answer for non-marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
B. Doll, NCSU
Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type
Millstone
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
35.696088, -79.622697
Millstone Creek
03030003
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B < 10% impervious surfaces
C C C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
G G G ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
H H H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
WC
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16.Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c.Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
Loosely
Mid-StoryShrubHerbWell
AA WT
Canopy
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20.Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Some question about whether the tributary should be considered Millstone Creek or the trib flowing through the wetland.
22. moderate would be a more accurate description of the conditions on site.
Notes
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Conditon
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Rating
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Millstone
B. Doll, NCSUNon-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
NA
LOW
HIGH
Rating
LOW
MEDIUM
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
YES
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.
umber:
t Sponsor:
I Melonie Allen
all: I Melonie.Allen ncdenr
�r: Meld o— nia-AIran
i ne NU ut' U uivision of Mitigation Services will complete a stream and wetland
enhancement project on Millstone Creek and two unnamed tributaries to Millstone
Creek consisting of approximately 3, 819 linear feet of stream enhancement and 1.2
acres of wetland enhancement. NC DEQ has secured a conservation easement on the
parent parcel owned by Joe Dean and Billie White Cox.
Z� Y"
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date
'For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/16/g5

Version 1.4, 8/16/05 2
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05 3

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities

Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the specie and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05 4
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
The
Catena
Group
Appendix A:
Letters, Responses, Etc.
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]

The
Catena
,Group
National Historic Preservation Act:
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
Files at the North Carolina State Archeology Office were reviewed on December 12ch,
2003. No listed archeological sites were within the project boundaries (Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Feasibility Study, Cox Property, Randolph County, NC.- TIP Project
No. R-0609WM, NCDOT, 2004).

ANT Q r
United States Department of the Interior F'
fim
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
}� Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
H 3 1RCPost Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-1215
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02751
Project Name: Millstone Creek
May 15, 2020
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

05/15/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02751
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].

05/15/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02751
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

05/15/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02751
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

05/15/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02751
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-1215
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02751
Project Name: Millstone Creek
Project Type: LAND - RESTORATION / ENHANCEMENT
Project Description: NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services Stream and wetland mitigation
project, centroid location: 35.697376,-79.622725, 18 acre easement,
3,5761f stream enhancement and restoration and 1.32 acres of wetland
enhancement, construction anticipated to begin summer 2020; wrap up
2022; NCSU paired watershed research study to document the efficacy of
Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance on a rural stream restoration sites.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/place/35.69664043707999N79.62488320543814W
Counties: Randolph, NC
2

05/15/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02751 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Fishes
►1_1�4m
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis mekistocholas
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6063
Clams
NAME
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Flowering Plants
NAME
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
Proposed
Threatened
STATUS
Endangered

05/15/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02751
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

5/15/2020 IPaC: Species determinations
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Regulatory review / Endangered species / Species determinations
Species determinations
For listed speciesl not covered by determination keys, an impact analysis should be performed to reach a conclusion
about how this project will impact the species. These conclusions will result in determinations for each species, which will
be used in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fishes
NAME DETERMINATION
Cape Fear Shiner None
Notropis mekistocholas
Clams
NAME DETERMINATION
Atlantic Pigtoe None
Fusconaia masoni
Flowering Plants
NAME DETERMINATION
Schweinitz's Sunflower None
Helianthus schweinitzii
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are
candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/FT57WV4GDFCXFIRB32Y27SWBNM/speciesDeterminations 1/1

The
Catena
Group
Dale Suiter
USFWS Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
July 27, 2010
Subject: EEP Stream mitigation project (Ken Cox) on Millstone Creek, Randolph
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Suiter,
The purpose of this letter is to notify you of activities occurring in Randolph County on
the Ken Cox site stream mitigation project. The Ken Cox site has been identified for the
purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. A total
of 3.819 linear feet of stream restoration, 3.76 acres of wetland restoration, and 1.2 acres
of wetland enhancement of Millstone Creek are proposed (Figure 1).
Two endangered species, Schweinitz's sunflower and the Cape Fear shiner, are known to
occur in Randolph County (http://149.168.1.196/nhp/find.php and
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html). Potential project -related impacts to these
two species were evaluated in the Restoration Plan to be submitted to the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) for this project. These findings are summarized below and
provided for your information.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Potential habitat exists for Schweinitz's sunflower on the Ken Cox property along pasture
and road edges but not in the proposed area of impact of steam restoration activities.
Surveys were conducted on September 24, 2007, by Kate Montieth and Jennifer Logan of
The Catena Group and no plants were found. The nearest known population of
Schweinitz's sunflower is over eight miles away, northeast of Asheboro Given the fact
that potential habitat on the site is outside of the area of impact and the fact that no
individuals were found during surveys, it can be concluded that the proposed stream
mitigation project will have "_No Effect" on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The Cape Fear shiner is limited primarily to small stretches of the Deep, Haw, and Rocky
Rivers of the Cape Fear River basin (USFWS 1988). The most recent data on the Cape
Fear shiner population in the Deep River indicate that it is not currently known upstream
of the Coleridge Dam on the Deep River. Millstone Creek, a tributary in the Deep River
watershed above Coleridge Dam, flows through the Ken Cox site. This portion of the
stream is highly degraded through agricultural activities, is fairly narrow and shallow,

May 10, 2020
Shannon Deaton,
Habitat Conservation Program Manager
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1701 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1701
RE: Millstone Creek Mitigation Project- Randolph County, NC
Dear Ms. Deaton:
The purpose of this letter is to request concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Recourse
Commission concerning a stream restoration project located in Randolph County for the N.C. Division of
Mitigation Services. The project will enhance and restore 3,576 lf of streams and enhance 1.32 acres
of riparian wetland. This letter is a request for review and comment to ensure compliance with the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act regarding the potential stream and wetland mitigation
project. Attached is a brief project description, vicinity map, site resources aerial base map with the
project’s 18.0-acre footprint defined and proposed mitigation activities map. The project centroid is
located at 35.697376, -79.622725.
The Millstone Creek mitigation site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation
for unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands within watersheds of the Cape Fear River Basin,
CU 03030003.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
disturbance associated with this project or if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Melonie Allen
919-36809352
NC Department of Environment Quality
Division of Mitigaiton Services

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

28 May 2020

Ms. Melonie Allen
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

Subject: Request for Project Review and Comments
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site
Randolph County, North Carolina.

Dear Ms. Allen,

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your request to
review and comment on any possible concerns regarding the Millstone Creek Mitigation Site. Biologists
with NCWRC have reviewed the provided documents. Comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and
North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The Millstone Creek Mitigation Site is located east of NC Highway 22 South and south of Willie Burgess
Road near Ramseur, Randolph County, North Carolina. The approximately 18-acre site occurs within an
existing cattle pasture. The mitigation project will occur along unnamed tributaries to Millstone Creek
and Millstone Creek in the Cape Fear River basin. The proposed project will enhance and restore 3,576
linear feet of streams and enhance 1.32 acres of riparian wetland.
We have records for the state threatened triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) and notched rainbow
(Villosa constricta), and state significantly rare eastern creekshell mussel (V. delumbis) downstream of
the site in the Deep River and its tributaries. Flat bullhead (Ameiurusplatycephalus) and snail bullhead
(A. brunneus) are N.C. Species of Greatest Conservation Need that are known to occur in Millstone
Creek. The state special concern Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus catagius) has been
documented in portions of Randolph County; however, the full extent of its distribution in this watershed
is unknown due to lack of targeted surveys. The Greensboro burrowing crayfish has been found in all
types of soils from sandy loams to hard clay and burrows are not usually directly associated with any
drainage or stream flow (McGrath 1994). The lack of records from the site does not imply or confirm the
absence of federal or state rare, threatened, or endangered species. The Cape Fear River/Deep River
below Ramseur Aquatic Habitat Natural Heritage Natural Area occurs downstream of the site.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and
Page 2

28 May 2020
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site
Randolph County

provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Based upon the information provided to NCWRC, it is
unlikely that stream and wetland mitigation will adversely affect any federal or state-listed species.
However, we offer the following recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources:
1. We recommend a preliminary site inspection for potential Greensboro burrowing crayfish
burrows. We have included an information sheet on preliminary site inspections for the
Greensboro burrowing crayfish. Please notify Brena Jones, Central Aquatic Wildlife Diversity
Coordinator ([e-mail], 919-707-0369), if any potential mussels or Greensboro
burrowing crayfish or burrows are located.
2. Since known records of SGCN fish species occur in Millstone Creek, we request the
enhancement and restoration activities occur outside for spawning and larval times during spring
and early summer. We request standard protective measures to avoid fish kills, such as working
during dry periods when the smaller tributaries dry up and fish have moved out of the site.
3. Due to the decline in bat populations, we recommend leaving snags and mature trees, or if
necessary, remove tees outside the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 – August 15).
4. We recommend that riparian buffers are as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner
needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to
maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland
runoff, and wildlife habitat.
5. Due to the presence of state-listed species downstream of the site, we request stringent sediment
and erosion control measures.
6. The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose-weave netting
that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal
twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it
impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have
detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of
eggs, and clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. If I can be of additional assistance, please call (919)
707-0364 or email [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

Literature Cited
McGrath, C. 1994. Status survey for the Greensboro burrowing crayfish. Proceedings of the
annual conference, Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, 48: 343–349.

ec: Brena Jones, NCWRC
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
6
1.PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Millstone Creek Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the Deep River sub-basin of the
Cape Fear River Basin in Randolph County, North Carolina (HUC: 03030003, N35°41'48.06"
W79°37'26.24"). The Site is located approximately 3 miles southeast of the Town of Ramseur off
Highway 22 (Figure 1.1). The site and contributing rural watersheds are located within the
Carolina Slate Belt (EPA Ecoregion 45c) with rolling hills typical of the NC Piedmont. Land
adjacent to the Site and within the established conservation easement has been heavily impacted
by cattle grazing and the land application of swine waste for 20+ years. This agricultural
production has led to severe water quality and aquatic habitat impairment, streambank trampling
and degradation of the riparian and wetland vegetation on all of the Site’s mitigation resources.
Streams at the Site are divided into seven (7) reaches (Figure 1.2). The tributaries include:
NT R1 (303 LF), NT R2 (103 LF), UTA R1 (505 LF), UTA R2 (100 LF), UTB (529 LF) and the
Millstone Creek mainstem reaches are: MC R1 (1,462 LF) and MC R2 (553 LF). The total existing
stream length is 3,555 LF. A single jurisdictional wetland feature (1.323 AC) is on the Site (Table
1.1). Stream restoration using a Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance (RSC) step-pool system
and underlying sand layer is proposed for NT R1 and UTA R1 to process nitrogen and improve
downstream water quality. Restoration is proposed for NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB. For Millstone
Creek, Enhancement 1 treatments are proposed for MC R1 and restoration is proposed for MC
R2. Hydrologic enhancement filling a ditch is proposed for Wetland 1. A summary of the mitigation
approach for the site resources is provided in Figure 1.3. In addition to the required mitigation
monitoring, rigorous supplemental water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring is proposed on
UTA R1 & R2, UTB, NT R1 & R2 for a 4% increase in SMUs as calculated by designed linear
footage on each of these reaches. On the same tributaries (NT R1, NT R2, UTA R1, UTA R2 and
UTB), an additional 2% increase is proposed for meeting an estimated 20% total reduction in
nitrogen as compared to baseline pre-construction monitoring results. The proposed work and
mitigation credits will result in 3,178.13 SMUs and 0.662 WMUs. Implementation at the Site will
be phased: Phase 1 will include NT R1, NT R2, UTB, MC R1 and MC R2 and Phase 2 will include
UTA R1 and UTA R2.
Through a research partnership established in August 2014 between North Carolina State
University NC Sea Grant and the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering (NCSU
BAE) and the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NC DMS), substantial effort has been
made to collect detailed hydrologic, hydraulic, water quality, macroinvertebrate, geomorphic and
functional data at the Site. The field-collected data has been used to develop and guide the
mitigation planning effort. The proposed restoration approach for the Site is designed to optimize
functional uplift with respect to existing conditions, site constraints, specific landscape processes,
in-stream fluvial processes and onsite constraints.
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
8
Figure 1.1: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Vicinity Map
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
9
Figure 1.2: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Resources
Millstone Creek Mitigation Site – Randolph County Final Mitigation Plan
NCDMS IMS: 204, USACE AID: SAW-2019-01363 May 7, 2020
10
Figure 1.3: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Summary
and does not contain habitat elements (shallow rocky shoals) typical of water
bodies where the Cape Fear shiner is currently known to occur. Although the Cape Fear
shiner is reported to utilize smaller tributaries during high water periods in winter months
(http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/Fsh/CFS_Fact_Sheetl.pdi), the presence of the Coleridge
Dam could restrict the known population from utilizing the stream in the project area. It
is possible that a currently unknown population of Cape Fear shiner could be present in
the Deep River above the Coleridge Dam, however, the likelihood of it utilizing the
stream on site is slim due to the extreme habitat degradation. Based on the lack of typical
habitat and the presence of barriers between known occupied habitat and the project area,
it can be concluded that the proposed stream mitigation project will "Not Likely to
Effect' the Cape Fear shiner. Additionally, strict erosion control measures and BMPs
should be utilized during construction to protect downstream aquatic habitats.
Additionally, please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or the Fish & Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA) from the construction of the stream restoration project on the subject
property.
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 other information
relevant to this project at the current time.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have concerning the extent of
site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Kate Montieth
The Catena Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
cc:
Melonie Allen
EEP Project Manager
1652-Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Becky Ward
Ward Consulting Engineers, PC
8386 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615

The
Catena
--_ _ Grou 410-B Millstone Drive
- - . p Hillsborough, NC 27278
-``,- - [phone]
July 27, 2010
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject EEP Stream mitigation project (Ken Cox) on Millstone Creek, Randolph County,
North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential wetland and stream
restoration project on the Bowman site.
The Ken Cox site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. A total of 3,819 linear feet of stream restoration, 3.76 acres
of wetland restoration, and 1.2 acres of wetland enhancement of Millstone Creek are proposed
(Figure 1).
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 extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Sincerely,
Kate Montieth
The Catena Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
cc:
Melonie Allen
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Becky Ward
Ward Consulting Engineers, PC
8386 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615

The Ken Cox Stream Date:
Novfrnrber 2007 Figure
Catena Restoration Site sc ak-�:
Group Property Boundary As Shown
Randolph County, North Carolina Job ��" 4124

Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. SAW-2019-01363 County: RANDOLPH U.S.G.S. Quad: COLERIDGE

NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Property Owner: Joe Dean Cox & Billie W. Cox
Address: 5567 Joe Dean Trail
Ramseur, North Carolina 27613

Requestor: NCDEQ DMS
Ms. Melonie Allen
Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699

Size (acres) ~18 Nearest Town Ramseur
Nearest Waterway Millstone Creek River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC 03030003 Coordinates Latitude: 35.696683
Longitude: -79.623956

Location description: The project area is identified as an approximate 18 acre tract of land, located on Randolph
County, North Carolina Parcel 8710492424. This parcel is located at 5567 Joe Dean Trail, Rameur, Randolph County,
North Carolina.

Indicate Which of the Following Apply:

A. Preliminary Determination

X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all
waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an
appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.

There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an
effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area, which is
not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the
waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.

B. Approved Determination

There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC
§ 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

SAW-2019-01363 Millstone Creek DMS Site

There are waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.

The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on ______________. Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.

There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.

The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit
may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Ms. Samantha
Dailey at 919-554-4884, ext. 22 or by email at [e-mail].

C. Basis For Determination: N/A. An Approved JD has not been completed.

D. Remarks: Refer to the enclosed Preliminary JD Form and Millstone Creek ID 204
Jurisdictional Features Map 8_29_19 for a detailed evaluation of the aquatic resources on-site.

E. Attention USDA Program Participants

This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.

F. Appeals Information for Approved Jurisdiction Determinations (as indicated in Section B. above)

If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request
to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:

US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
SAW-2019-01363 Millstone Creek DMS Site

In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by___________.

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

Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________

Date: March 11, 2020 Expiration Date: N/A

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.

DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J
.1387567948
Digitally signed by
DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J.1387567948
Date: 2020.03.11 11:22:37 -04'00'
SAW-2019-01363 Millstone Creek DMS Site
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Joe Dean Cox & Billie W. Cox File Number: SAW-2019-01363 Date: March 11, 2020
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
x ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
x OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
x ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
x APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
x ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
x APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
SAW-2019-01363 Millstone Creek DMS Site

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or
the appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Samantha Dailey
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also
contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.

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

For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:

District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: #PM_FULLNAME#, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403

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

Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

APPENDIX 2

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
March 11, 2020

B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:

Property Owner: Joe Dean Cox & Billie W. Cox
Address: 5567 Joe Dean Trail
Ramseur, North Carolina 27613

Requestor: NCDEQ DMS
Ms. Melonie Allen
Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699

C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington, Millstone Creek DMS Site, Randolph County,
SAW-2019-01377

D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Randolph County City: Ramseur
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.696683°N, Long. -79.623956° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest water body: Millstone Creek (Cape Fear River 03030003)

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLIES):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): August 29, 2019

TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE” SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this
PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed
decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be
appropriate.

2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other
general permit verification requiring “pre-construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made
Site Number Latitude
(°N)
Latitude
(°W)
Estimated Amount
of Aquatic
Resources in
Review Area
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e.
wetland vs.
non-wetland)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e. Section 404
or Section 10/404) Linear
Feet Acres
Wetland 35.69616 -79.62273 1.323 Wetland Section 404
Millstone
Creek 35.69681 -79.62174 2015 Non-Wetland Section 404
UT Millstone 35.69668 -79.62498 605 Non-Wetland Section 404
Northern
Tributary 35.69716 -79.6247 610 Non-Wetland Section 404
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.
aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms
and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual
permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever
mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a
permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by
that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial
compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)whether the applicant elects to
use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and
all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R.
Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be” navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and
identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply): Checked items should be included in
subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated for all checked items:

Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor: NCDEQ DMS submitted a Jurisdictional
Determination Request on June 20, 2019, with revisions received on August 29, 2019.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: .
Corps navigable waters’ study: .
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K, NC-Coleridge
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey: August 2019.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: SAW Regulatory Viewer – August 2019.
State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
FEMA/FIRM maps: .
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): .
or Other (Name & Date): .
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: .
Other information (please specify): .

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should
not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.

_________________________ __________________________
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED) (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
Impracticable)
DAILEY.SAMAN
THA.J.13875679
48
Digitally signed by
DAILEY.SAMANTHA.J.1387
567948
Date: 2020.03.11 11:18:31
-04'00'
")22 MillstoneUt Millstone
Ditch- CoxSeepN
orth
ern Trib
utary
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community
Legend
Millstone_JD_wetlands_revised_8_29_19
NCEEP_Conservation_Easements selection
channels
Reac h
Di tch - Car mac
Di tch- Cox
Millstone
Norther n Tributary
Ut A
280 0 280140 Feet
.
Millstone Creek ID 204 Jurisdictional Features Map 8_29_19
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
##
98
7
6
54
0
3
1
2
11
10
00
12
0000
Ut Millstone
SeepDitch- CoxMillstoneNorthern Tributary
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,
and the GIS User Community
Legend
#revised points 8_29_19
millstone proposed wetlands
Millstone_JD_wetlands_revised_8_29_19Soil_Bore
!(<all other values>
!(F3 INUND
!(f3
NCEEP_Conservation_Easements selection
channels
Reac h
Di tch - Car mac
Di tch- Cox
Millstone
Norther n Tributary
Seep
Ut A
Contour_002
<all other values>
Mapunit Symbol
RvA
cpf_nwi
80 0 8040 Feet
.
Millstone C reek Jurisdictional Wetland & Soil B ore Map 8_2 9_19
total jurisdictional acreage = 1.323 ac.
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
JOE DEAN TRL
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
02/22/07 2/27/07 3/4/07 3/9/07 3/14/07 3/19/07 3/24/07 3/29/07 4/3/07 4/8/07
datelevel (inches)-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
02/22/07 2/27/07 3/4/07 3/9/07 3/14/07 3/19/07 3/24/07 3/29/07 4/3/07 4/8/07
datelevel (inches)-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
2/22/07 2/27/07 3/4/07 3/9/07 3/14/07 3/19/07 3/24/07 3/29/07 4/3/07 4/8/07
datelevel (inches)-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
2/22/07 2/27/07 3/4/07 3/9/07 3/14/07 3/19/07 3/24/07 3/29/07 4/3/07 4/8/07
datelevel (inches)The Growing Season = 3/21 - 11/14; 238 days
Approx. 15 days = 6%

Gauge 4
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
2/25/2007 6/5/2007 9/13/2007 12/22/2007 3/31/2008 7/9/2008 10/17/2008
DateGroundwater level (inches)0
1
2
3
4
5
Rain (inches)12 inches
below soil
surface
II I
I'
RICHARD A. JONES
I ! AND WIFE
WANDA K. JONES
DEED BOOK 1296 PAGE 323
I II
III ! �
VE EASE�N'I'
GEODETICI
PRIV P' K 9g PG i l
MONUMENT. i PI,p,T'B �T ''rRA�-�� • '-- '
"BARRETT 1975"� �j^1,A .►
NA
D 83 j YY y
COORDINATES
N 709,974.49 I r • �' • �' tv
E 1,813,005.47 �.
SCALE FACTOR I • '� '
0.9999030 I
ALL DISTANCES
SHOWN ARE
HORIZONTAL.
I .
I II
,z I !
I
I .
1 I!
1J
� II
I II
I I!
ICI!
. I
I .
�I
I I.
I !
I 1
I
I i
• � I
II
�I
JOE DEAN COX
AND WIFE
BILLIE JO COX
DEED BOOK 1228 PAGE 1304
I
,I
■ GEODETIC MONUMENT
'HM 133"
DARRELL ELLIS WILLIAMS REVOCABLE TRUST
AND
LINDA JO JOHNSON WILLIAMS REVOCABLE TRUST
DEED BOOK 1613 PAGE 1006
EXISTING STONE
APPROXIMATELY 2'
SOUTH OF FENCE_
DANIEL JUNIOR STALEY
AND WIFE
MARY L. STALEY
DEED BOOK 990 PAGE 381
POB-NEW IRON PIPE TRACT ONE AND 15'
PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENTMENT TRACT "B"
N 78004'20" E 2428.61' FROM GEODETIC MONUMENT
"BARRETT 1975"
2ev."I GATE 232.45'
N B9t7>14r" IY L-19 S 89'01' 4"
L-18 L-20 1
ROBERT G. COX AND WIFE LISA G. COX 146.92'
DEED BOOK 1491 PAGE 1287 ,I
N 09'17'25"
98.58'
rn
N 10'l0'26" W 1 \\
L-15
BILLIE W. COX
L-14
L-24
DEED BOOK 1888
PAGE 2342
15 PERMANENT ACCESS
L-25 ���
i I 3
PLAT BOOK 98
PAGE 11
EASEMENT -TRACT "B"
"°° HOUSE
`-, 'L-26
'If
TRACT ONE
�\ 00
0.63 AC±
L-12 1L-27
i M
L-2 _L-5 �
L-11 1L-28
6.13 ACRES±
�I
_- - 6
LL-7_
"°° "°_°SE L-10
CONSERVATION IJL-4
L-34 __---------L-32
I L-33
-----
--- -� L-/
HOG 31
�L-29
EASEMENT � p
(I I�
HOUSE
L-30
Z'
10
10
1c
SEE
INSERT
"0G "°USE
�0
/
tQ tto /
;Izo
JOE DEAN COX
AND WIFE
BILLIE JO COX
DEED BOOK 1228 PAGE 1304
o
51.22' S 7 19185' l l
N 35'5356" E ,„{p `e
o
w •.7
z`1 �`�LQ �'' ) A
zo
xV -N 56'22'28" W-222 05'- 4' ♦ /
EXISTING 1.5"
OPEN IRON PIPE
CONTROL CORNER
Z 50.64 1 rN
t?
N -S 89*18'54" E -131.46'--- t1`S 8 N 25'38'01" E �{ �s pcs• A>• s�S l /
0 oD 370.94 - �=O � �6 S o� ,� srj �• ,p`�p' /
rns z ,g•''''� i 05 01, 24280' �F ^ ��p�// �`i p e N�`;% �L ao
N i 8g ��� -07 S. 9dN o
°' -O� 265'
4
�j S• /� N
2r 8s8`S�
N 83.3E
i�19�1.01�' --0" �._94
�8145.00'
'�p630I I `�69s s of Ja" w
S 88-07'52 W 3 371.68-7i- ��� -77 50• TRACT TWO
6$ �, 3 N 7 0 00 73357' 11.19 ACRES±00
-114 � JOE DEAN COX (M �P N 29'05' 00 9" W CONSERVATION
o �, LO AND WIFE Q EASEMENT o
- BILLIE JO COX 0 132 42' I cn
cn DEED BOOK 1228 PAGE 1304 N
-N 04'56'45" E
N BS---69.96-J I
�fSO" /Y
87.19' n
170.82'
N
_ 7 � c .,, 1;R� CDR
473. 2'
Certificate of Accuracy
I, Douglas R. Yarbrough, certify that this plat was drawn under my
direction from an actual survey made under my supervision (deed ,,�111111 ,
description recorded in Book 1228 , *,� �N CARO �I
Page 1304 ); that the boundaries not ,�� 0� �F ESS/d 1A,�
surveyed are clearly indicated as drawn from information found in �� CAL
Book , Page ; that the . Q
ration of precision as calculated is 1 : 10,000; that this plat was SEAL
prepared in accordance to G.S. 47-30 as amended. Witness my • 2
original si afore, license number and seal this 21 day of i L3 3 9 5
P o:
os . �.G�'9ti
SUR,4 Q`,��
I, DOUGL S R. YARBROUI HfessiOFES ONAL LAND SURVEYOR NO. L-3395, CERTIFY'�11Land Surveyor L-3395 8 1 4__
TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWIN .
❑ A. This survey creates a subdivision of land within the area of a county or
municipality that has an ordinance that regulates parcels of land.
❑ B. This survey is located in such portion of a county or municipality that is
unregulated as to an ordinance that regulates parcels of land.
❑ C. Any one of the following: ,%J11111 jl't
1. That the survey is of an existing parcel or parcels of land and does not create a ,,� � C A 0 /�''
new street or change an existing street; s H R �
2. That the survey is of an existing building or other structure, or natural feature, ,,� O� , F ES $/p , z j, �j
such as a watercourse; or
3, the the survey is a control survey. �Quo 9� . ,j
D. This survey is of another category, such as the recombination of existing parcels, 4 v : SEAL _ a court -ordered survey, or other exception to the definition of subdivision.
❑ E. The information available to the surveyor is such that the surveyor is unable to O : L3 3 9 5
make a determination to the best of his or her professional ability as to provisions �•
contained in 1 - 4 above. �♦�G� .9�0 �o,•OJ,�
Douglas R ��glt, Profe al Land Surveyor L-3395 ,,, �SIR Y
Certificate of Exemption.
I (we) hereby certify that I am (we are) the owner(s) of the property shown and
described hereon, which was conveyed to me (us) deed recorded in
Book 1228 ,Page 1304
and that the subdivision of the property shown on this plat is an exception to
the Subdivision Ordinance of Randolph Co , North Carolina under
Article
�- 09
JOE DE&4 COX Date
11- a/- 09
BILLIE W. COX Date
Randolph County Planning Director Date
,yo9r
Review Officer Certification
ti-
State of North Carolina, County of Randolpll.c, I % 9 4
I ! A- toy
Review of Randolph County, certify that or plat to which
this is affixed s gory is for recording.
KAROLYN C. CARMAC
ESTATE FILE 96-E-700
DEED BOOK 1757 PAGE 597
DEED BOOK 653 PAGE 498
PB 114 PG 56
-i
8.34 • W
N 051g'4B
85'44'50"
II
III
II�
Ilzw
COUNTY 0FRANDOLPH
CERTIFY . , `&,,, ' ~ raMPT11
APPROV! ;:..-
DATE __ ' e2/
LINE TABLE
Line
#
Bearing
Distance
L-1
N
0518'48"
W
15.26'
L-2
S 84'47'23"
E
75.73'
L-3
S
77*12'58"
W
48,56'
L-4
N
84'47'23"
W
26.76'
L-5
S
84*47*23"
E
40,26'
L-6
S
83'45'34"
E
199.05'
L-7
N
88'48'23"
E
587.58'
L-8
S
75'02'09"
E
130.61'
L-9
N
64'47'48"
E
41.06'
L-10
N
40'22'34"
E
43.86'
L-11
N
19'36'20"
E
46.29'
L-12
N
12'24'34"
E
49.43'
L-13
N
15'33'06"
E
53.32'
L-14
N
38'08'24" E
55.35'
L-15
N
55'37'06"
E
51.84'
L-16
N
50'32'34"
E
98.99'
L-17
N
48*15'14"
E
192.33'
L-18
N
26*26'19"
E
71.99'
L-19
S
89'01'24"
E
148.70'
L-20
N
89'01'24"
W
137.04'
L-21
S
26*26'19"
W
65.40'
L-22
S
48*15'14"
W
195.52'
L-23
S
50'32'34"
W
99.95'
L-24
S
55'37'06"
W
50.20'
L-25
S
38'08'24"
W
50.05'
L-26
S
15'33'06"
W
49.92'
L-27
S
12'24'34"
W
49.96'
L-28
S
19'36'20"
W
49.98'
L-29
S
40'22'34"
W
49.85'
L-30
S
64'47'48"
W
49.79'
L-31
N
75'02'09"
W
133.96'
L-32
S
88'48'23"
W
586.43'
L-33
N
83'45'34"
W
199.89'
L-34
N
84'47'23"
W
86.31'
M C�
W - POB-EXISTING REBAR
TRACT TWO
S 61°2134" E 2803.05'
FROM GEODETIC MONUMENT
"BARRETT 1975"
RONALD L. SEWELL
DEED BOOK 1142 PAGE 223
15' PERMANENT ACCESS
EASEMENT -TRACT "A"
0� PROPERTY OF BILLIE W. COX
0.02 AC±
5
C�
g���1E W • /� N COX
L- 2 '12 ✓B" E JOE OENso COX
-5 --- L-6 B\ll1E w.
PROPOSED 15' PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT
L-34----¢------- _
L-33 --
POB-NEW IRON PIPE 15' PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT
TRACT "A", SOUTHEAST TERMINUS OF 40' PRIVATE DRIVE
EASEMENT OF JO DEAN TRAIL AS SHOWN PS 98 PG 11
N 88.27'51" E 767.21' FROM GEODETIC MONUMENT
*BARRETT 1975"
INSERT
SCALE 1 "=50'
LEGEND
Rock
Monument ■
Existing Iron Pipe •
New Iron Pipe O
Mathematical Point x
Fence o 0
W,
Q1
S
GRID NORTH -NAD 83
VICINITY MAP
ko'
EASTERN
U OAD�H COE
y
h'ky? RA UR R�
FOUSHEE RD
+0 ��
l.9
PARKWOOD
RD 0(
CITY ROAD
A JOE DEAN
TRAIL
N
SITE
0
E
NOTES:
1. OWNER/ADDRESS:
JOE DEAN COX AND WIFE BILLIE W. COX
5567 JOE DEAN TRAIL, RAMSEUR, NC 27316.
2. DEED REFERENCE: DEED BOOK 1228 PAGE 1304.
3. PLAT REFERENCE: PLAT BOOK 114 PAGE 56 &
PLAT IN DB 1228 PG 1306.
4. TAX PARCEL ID: 8710492424.
5. TOTAL AREAS: 0.64 AC± TRACTS "A" & "B" ACCESS EASEMENTS
17.32 AC± TRACTS 1 & 2 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
17.96 AC± TOTAL EASEMENT AREAS
AREA COMPUTATION BY THE COORDINATE METHOD.
FILED Krista M Lowe
Register of Deeds, Randolph Co,NC
Recording Fee: $21.00
T NC Real Estate Ex x:$.00
20090421000065370 PLAT
Bk:PL121 Pg:34
04/21/2009 12:42:28 PM 1/1
12111111111111111111II III I 1� 11I 111
FINAL PLAT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR NCEEP
PROJECT NAME: MILLSTONE CREEK, SPO FILE No. 76-Z
PROPERTY OF
JOE DEAN COX AND BILLIE WHITE COX
COLERIDGE TOWNSHIP
DATE 03/30/07 SCALE 1
LANDMARK SURVEYING, INC
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FILE 070104 DISC D070104
REVISIONS
RANDOLPH COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
200' 0' 100' 20G' 400' Im.
109 E. HARDEN STREET GRAHAM, N.C. 27253
FACSIMILE: 336-227-5919
LTRVEY BY RMW DWG BY DMcP APP'D BY DRY
09/25/2008: BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT(PB 114/56) ADDED TO EASEMENT, STAKED 20' CROSSING, STAKED EAST BOUNDARY.
12/23/2008: CHANGES ON TWO TRIBUTARIES.
04/21/2009: REVISED TRIBUTARY, ADDED 15' PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENTS.

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
TITLE 1.1PROJECT DIRECTORYPROJECT OWNERNORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICESMELONIE ALLEN217 WEST JONES STREETRALEIGH, NC [e-mail] / TSPNORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITYBARBARA A. DOLL, PHD, PECAMPUS BOX 7625RALEIGH, NC [e-mail] L. PAGE, PECAMPUS BOX 7625RALEIGH, NC [e-mail] INDEXTITLE SHEET1.1PROJECT OVERVIEW2.1PROPOSED STREAM CROSS-SECTIONS3.1PROPOSED PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS4.1PROPOSED RE-VEGETATION PLAN5.1PROPOSED DETAILS6.1MILLSTONE CREEK MITIGATION SITENC DMS PROJECT: IMS 2045500 JOE DEAN TRAIL, RAMSEUR, NC 27316FINAL MITIGATION PLAN - MAY 1, 2020
SHEET 4.2SHEET 4.1SHEET 4.3SHEET 4.4SHEET 4.5SHEET 4.6FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
PROJECT OVERVIEW 2.1SCALE: 1" = 100'GENERAL PROJECT SPECIFICATION AND NOTES1.DEFINITIONS:1.1.CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS: THE CONTRACT ANDAPPLICABLE PLAN SHEET(S), DETAILS, SPECIFICATIONS,PERMIT(S), AND/OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS (MEETINGMINUTES, PUNCH LISTS, BID TABS, ETC.) FOR COMPLETEINFORMATION ABOUT THE REQUIRED WORK. ANY ONE OFTHESE PARTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS MAY NOTCONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO COMPLETETHE PROJECT WORK.1.2.PROJECT OWNER: NC DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES1.3.PROJECT ADMINISTRATION: NC DIVISION OF MITIGATIONSERVICES1.4.ENGINEER: BIOLOGICAL & AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERINGDEPTARTMENT, NC STATE UNIVERSITY2.THE WORK ON THIS PROJECT SHALL ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWINGSPECIFICATIONS, STANDARDS AND/OR REGULATIONS:2.1.NC DEQ'S "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING ANDDESIGN MANUAL" (2013)2.2.NC DOT'S "2018 STANDARD PROVISIONS"2.3.NC DOT'S "2018 SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS"2.4.UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDEPERMIT NUMBER 272.5.THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS3.NOT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN. SOME LOCATIONS MAYBE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLUTILITY LOCATION AND COORDINATION. ANY UTILITIES SHOWN ONTHE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES ONLY AND IN NO WAY RELIEVES THE CONTRACTORFROM COORDINATING, VERIFYING AND PROTECTING EXISTINGUTILITIES. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE PROTECTED AND REMAIN ACTIVEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.4.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROJECT AREA UNTILCOMPLETION AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY THE PROJECT OWNERAND ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONSNECESSARY AND SHALL BEAR ALL RISK OF LOSS OR DAMAGE. THECONTRACTOR WILL FURNISH ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT, TOOLS,LABOR, TRANSPORTATION, AND SUPERVISION TO CLEAR THERIGHT-OF-WAY ACCORDING TO THESE SPECIFICATIONS ANDAPPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFINE ALL ACTIVITIES, INCLUDINGEQUIPMENT STORAGE, TO THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (GRADINGLIMITS), STAGING AREAS, AND DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTIONACCESS POINTS.5.THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CONTRACTOR DEALS WITH PEOPLEAND THEIR PROPERTIES WHILE PERFORMING THIS WORK ISEXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE PROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER.THEREFORE, THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR'SREPRESENTATIVES SHALL MANIFEST A SPIRIT OF FRIENDLINESSAND COOPERATION WHEN DEALING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS ANDTHE GENERAL PUBLIC WHILE PERFORMING WORK UNDER THISSPECIFICATION.6.EXTREME CARE AND DILIGENCE SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THECONTRACTOR TO ASSURE THE SAFETY OF PERSONS, ANIMALS, ANDPROPERTY. IF AT ANY TIME THE PROJECT OWNER OR ENGINEERDETERMINES THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S METHODS OR EQUIPMENTARE INADEQUATE FOR SECURING THE SAFETY OF THECONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES OR THE PUBLIC, THE DESIGNATEDREPRESENTATIVE MAY DIRECT THE CONTRACTOR TO TAKESPECIFIC ACTIONS TO ENSURE SAFETY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLIMPROVE METHODS AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THEDESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THEPROJECT OWNER, SO AS TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THEPROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER'S SAFETY CONCERNS. FAILUREOF THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO MAKE THIS DEMANDSHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF ANY OBLIGATION TOENSURE THE SAFE CONDUCT OF ITS WORK.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL LIGHTS, GUARDS, SIGNS,TEMPORARY PASSAGES, OR OTHER PRECAUTIONS NECESSARYFOR THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLABIDE BY ALL SAFETY RULES AND CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONSREQUIRED BY GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER ENTITIES,INCLUDING RAILROADS, SO THE PUBLIC IS SAFEGUARDED FROMACCIDENTS AND DELAYS. GUARDS AND FLAGS REQUIRED BYGOVERNMENTAL OR RAILROAD AUTHORITIES SHALL BE PROVIDEDAT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISEBY THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. CONTRACTOR SHALL AT NOTIME COMPROMISE EITHER SAFETY OR ENVIRONMENTALREQUIREMENTS.8.ANY ALTERNATE ACCESS PLANNED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAPPROVED BY THE PROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO USE.9.NO FILL IN WETLANDS MAY OCCUR. ALL EXCESS SOILS FROMSTREAM STABILIZATION AND CHANNEL WORK SHALL BE DISPOSEDOF IN AREAS APPROVED BY THE PROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER.10.SITE SHOULD BE “STORM READY” AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAYAND WORK WEEK.TOPOGRAPHIC SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES11.ELECTRONIC SURVEY DATA, BASE DRAWINGS AND SITE DATA WERECURATED BY LANDMARK SURVEYING INC. DIGITAL TOPOGRAPHICDATA WAS PROVIDED TO NCSU BAE VIA NCDMS.12.HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83(2011) & VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88.ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NAD83(2011) AND ALLELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD88.13.EXISTING GROUND SURFACES ARE BASED ON FIELD SURVEY. SOMETOPOGRAPHIC CHANGES MAY HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THESURVEY WAS COMPLETED, PARTICULARLY IN AREAS EXPERIENCINGCHANNEL DEGRADATION AND BANK EROSION OR WITH DENSE TREECOVER.14.THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND GRADES SHOWN HEREIN AREBASED ON THE ORIGINAL SURVEY THAT ENCOMPASSES THEEXISTING GROUND SURFACE FROM WHICH ALL COMPUTATIONS OFCUT AND FILL ARE BASED. SLIGHT DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THEEXITING GROUND AND DIGITAL SURFACE AND FIELD CONDITIONSCAN RESULT IN VARIATIONS OF TOTAL EXCAVATED QUANTITIES.THUS, QUANTITIES OF MATERIAL EXCAVATED SHOULD BECOMPARED TO THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANSHEETS TO MANAGETHE MOVEMENT OF MATERIAL ACROSS THE SITE.STREAM RESTORATION SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES15.FIELD CONDITIONS AND PROJECT VARIABILITY MAY REQUIREADAPTATION OF THE PLANSHEETS AND/OR DETAILS PROVIDED INTHE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DEPENDING ON SITECONDITIONS OR PROJECT NEEDS. MINOR VARIATION(S) ORADAPTATION(S) OF THE PROPOSED WORK SHOWN ON THEPLANSHEETS AND/OR DETAILS ARE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TOTHE WORK.16.PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALLMARK THE LIMITS OF CLEARING NEAR TREES FOR VERIFICATION OFINTENT BY THE ENGINEER. SOME MINOR ADJUSTMENT OF CHANNELALIGNMENT MAY BE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE TREES OR MINIMIZEIMPACT TO TREES.17.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE OUT THE PROPOSED STREAMCENTERLINE USING TRADITIONAL SURVEY METHODS OR SURVEYGRADE GPS EQUIPMENT FOR REVIEW BY THE ENGINEER BEFOREBEGINNING EXCAVATION AND GRADING. DEPENDING ONCONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED SOME SHIFTING OF THE STREAMALIGNMENT MAY BE NECESSARY. STAKING MAY BE OMITTED FORPORTIONS OF THE STREAM WHEN SURVEY-GRADE GPS IS USED TOCONSTRUCT THE CHANNEL.18.WHERE PRACTICABLE, EXISTING TREES AND VEGETATION SHOULDBE LEFT IN PLACE TO FACILITATE NATURAL REGENERATION ANDSOIL STABILIZATION.19.ANY HARVESTING OF TREES FROM ONSITE MUST BE APPROVED BYTHE PROJECT OWNER AND ENGINEER.20.CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENTPOSSIBLE, IMPACTS TO THE ADJACENT TREES.21.CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TRACKS AND ACCESS PATHS SHALL BEGRADED AND RE-CONTOURED AFTER CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENTRILL AND GULLY EROSION.22.CONTRACTOR SHALL USE AN EXCAVATOR WITH A HYDRAULICTHUMB TO INSTALL IN-STREAM STRUCTURES.23.EXCAVATION AND GRADING QUANTITIES DO NOT INCLUDEUNDERCUT EXCAVATION FOR INSTREAM STRUCTURES LIKERIFFLES, CROSS-VANES, BRUSH TOE, AND LOG VANES WITHBOULDER STEPS.24.ELEVATIONS OF TRIBUTARIES AT CONFLUENCES MAY NEED TO BEADJUSTED TO MEET CONSTRUCTED CONDITIONS. ADJUSTMENTSSHALL BE MADE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ENGINEER.25.PROFILES MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED TO AVOID ABRUPT CHANGESIN ELEVATION. ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE MADE IN CONJUNCTIONWITH THE ENGINEER.26.CHANNEL WORK SHALL BE DONE WITH LOW GROUND PRESSURETRACK EQUIPMENT.27.PLAN SHEETS PROVIDE DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS AND SLOPES TOAID IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL. BANKFULL CHANNELDIMENSIONS WILL BE HELD TO THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THETYPICAL CROSS-SECTION PLAN SHEETS. ELEVATIONS SHALL BECONSTRUCTED WITHIN 0.1' (VERTICAL). WIDTHS AND DEPTHS MUSTFALL WITHIN RANGES SHOWN IN THE PLAN SHEETS.CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.2' (HORIZONTAL).28.ANY TEMPORARY STOCKPILING OR DOUBLE HANDLING OF EXCESSEARTH NECESSARY TO BUILD THE CHANNEL SHALL BE CONSIDEREDINCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.29.IF THE EXISTING GROUND IS LESS THAN 0.2' HIGHER THAN THEPROPOSED BANKFULL ELEVATION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TOEXCAVATE TO THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND GRADES IN THECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED BANKFULLPROPOSED CENTERLINEGRADING LIMITSPROPOSED LOG STEPSTANDARD LINES AND SYMBOLSPROPOSED STREAMBANK GRADINGPROPOSED BRUSH TOE WITH SOIL GEOLIFTPROPOSED BOULDER J-HOOK VANECONSERVATION EASEMENTPROPOSED CONSTRUCTED RIFFLEPROPOSED RSC CHANNELPROPOSED LOG RIFFLEFeet0100200EXISTING FENCEPROPOSED FENCEEXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAM6.0'8.0'0.5'WIDTH VARIES PER PLAN6:16:1SAND AND WOOD CHIP MEDIADEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH BELOW RIFFLE /CASCADE = 2.5'PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTPROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAM4.5'4.5'1.5'PROPOSED GRADEWIDTH VARIES PER PLAN6 : 16 : 1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTSAND AND WOOD CHIP MEDIADEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH BELOW POOL = 1.5'TIE TO EXISTINGPER PLANPROPOSED GRADENT R1, UTA R1 RSC CHANNEL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION (TYP.)2:12:1PROPOSED 8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN FABRICQBKF = 8 CFSWBKF= 8 FTABKF = 3.3 FT2DBKF = 0.4 FTDMAX = 0.5 FTW/D = 19.7PROPOSED RIFFLE / CASCADE1.0' OF 50% NC DOT CLASS A ROCK, 50% NCDOT CLASS B ROCK (CLEAN ONSITE ROCKOF SIMILAR GRADATION MAY BESUBSTITUTED PER THE ENGINEER)8.0'FILTER MEDIA EXTENTSNT R1, UTA R1 RSC CHANNEL POOL CROSS-SECTION (TYP.)PROPOSED BKF ELEV.PROPOSED BKF ELEV.FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
TYPICAL SECTIONS 3.1
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAMBANKFULL BENCHBANKFULL BENCHWIDTH VARIES PER PLANTIE TO EXISTINGPER GRADINGPLAN3 : 13 : 1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTMC R2 RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION STA 14+82 FT TO 20+20 FT (TYP.)MC R2 POOL CROSS-SECTION STA 14+82 TO 20+20 (TYP.)PROPOSED GRADE36.0'3.52.5 : 12.5

:
1PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAMWIDTH VARIES PER PLAN3 : 1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTPROPOSED GRADE48.6'7 : 1TIE TO EXISTINGPER GRADINGPLAN3 : 1POINT BAR7.7'PROPOSED BKF ELEV.WBKF = 36 FTABKF = 85 FT2DBKF = 2.6 FTDMAX = 3.5 FTW/D = 14.0K= 1.09S= 0.0020 FT/FT2 : 118.5'WBKFP = 48.6 FTABKFP = 185 FT2DBKFP = 5.9 FTDMAXP = 7.7 FTPROPOSED BKF ELEV.PROPOSED IB ELEV.BANKFULL BENCHBANKFULL BENCH2.2'FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
TYPICAL SECTIONS 3.2
0+000+501+00
1+502+002+503+003+504+004+29459458457456455454453452451450449448446447448449450468 467 466465464463 461462460459457458 462461460459455 45545
4
454453452451450449STA: 0+00.0
STA: 4+28.6
STA: 3+3
7
.
2
STA: 3+45.8
STA:3+61.2
STA:3+66.9
STA: 3
+
7
9
.
1
STA:
3
+
8
8
.
1 STA: 0+22.5STA: 0+57.8STA: 0+80.7 STA: 0+95.2STA: 1+20.4STA: 1+43.3
STA: 1+66.3
STA: 1
+
8
9
.
0
STA
:

2
+
1
2
.
8
STA:
2
+
3
5
.
4
STA: 2+50.5
ST
A
:

2
+
7
5
.
4
STA:

2
+
9
8
.
2
STA: 3+11.6
STA: 0+40.5STA: 0+70.3 STA: 1+07.7STA: 1+31.0
STA: 1+54.0
STA: 1
+
7
6
.
0
STA
:

1
+
9
9
.
0
STA:
2
+
2
3
.
3
ST
A
:

2
+
6
3
.
0
STA:
2
+
8
5
.
8
STA: 3+25
.
9
STA: 0+00.0STA: 0+29.9
STA: 0
+
4
6
.
0 4584604594614624634644354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694704354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694700+001+002+003+004+004+35EXISTING GRADENT R2 ENHANCEMENT 2 APPROACH WITHLOG STEPS FOR GRADE CONTROL TO CONFLUENCE WITH UTA/BEND NT R2 ATUTA R2 / UTB CONCLUENCESTA. 4+29.97 FTELV. = 440.18 FTPROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTSAND / WOOD CHIP FILTER MEDIAUSE ONSITE EARTH TO FILL CHANNELUP TO FILTER MEDIAEND NT R1 RSC SYSTEMSTA = 0+00.00ELEV = 460.01STA = 0+22.48ELEV = 457.76STA = 0+57.76ELEV = 455.88STA = 0+80.67ELEV = 454.55STA = 0+95.24ELEV = 454.05STA = 1+20.43
ELEV = 452.85
STA = 1+43.32
ELEV = 451.78
STA = 1+66.34
ELEV = 450.70
STA = 1+89.02
ELEV = 449.58
STA = 2+12.84
ELEV = 448.35
STA = 2+35.44
ELEV = 447.33
STA = 2+50.53
ELEV = 447.03
STA = 2+75.39
ELEV = 445.98
STA = 2+98.22
ELEV = 444.94
STA = 3+11.57
ELEV = 444.64
STA = 0+70.32ELEV = 455.38STA = 0+70.32ELEV = 455.38STA = 1+07.71ELEV = 453.55STA = 1+07.71ELEV = 453.55
STA = 1+31.05
ELEV = 452.45
STA = 1+31.05
ELEV = 452.45
STA = 1+53.96
ELEV = 451.38
STA = 1+53.96
ELEV = 451.38
STA = 0+40.46ELEV = 457.26STA = 0+40.46ELEV = 457.26
STA = 1+76.02
ELEV = 450.30
STA = 1+76.02
ELEV = 450.30
STA = 1+99.05
ELEV = 449.18
STA = 1+99.05
ELEV = 449.18
STA = 2+23.31
ELEV = 448.05
STA = 2+23.31
ELEV = 448.05
STA = 2+63.04
ELEV = 446.73
STA = 2+63.04
ELEV = 446.73
STA = 2+85.81
ELEV = 445.68
STA = 2+85.81
ELEV = 445.68
STA = 3+25.14
ELEV = 444.33
STA = 0+64.04ELEV = 454.38STA = 0+86.58ELEV = 453.05STA = 1+01.48ELEV = 452.55
STA = 1+25.74
ELEV = 451.45
STA = 1+25.74
ELEV = 451.45
STA = 1+48.64
ELEV = 450.37
STA = 1+48.64
ELEV = 450.37
STA = 0+31.47ELEV = 456.26STA = 0+31.47ELEV = 456.26
STA = 1+71.18
ELEV = 449.29
STA = 1+71.18
ELEV = 449.29
STA = 1+94.04
ELEV = 448.18
STA = 1+94.04
ELEV = 448.18
STA = 2+18.08
ELEV = 447.05
STA = 2+18.08
ELEV = 447.05
STA = 2+41.51
ELEV = 446.02
STA = 2+41.51
ELEV = 446.02
STA = 2+56.79
ELEV = 445.72
STA = 2+56.79
ELEV = 445.72
STA = 2+80.60
ELEV = 444.68
STA = 2+80.60
ELEV = 444.68
STA = 3+04.08
ELEV = 443.64
STA = 3+04.08
ELEV = 443.64
STA = 3+18.74
ELEV = 443.34
STA = 3+25.14
ELEV = 444.33
STA = 3+67.14
ELEV = 442.43
STA = 3+88.14
ELEV = 441.60
STA = 3+37.14
ELEV = 443.83
STA = 3+46.14
ELEV = 443.20
STA = 3+61.14
ELEV = 442.80
STA = 3+79.14
ELEV = 442.15
STA = 4+00.14
ELEV = 440.94
STA = 4+28.60
ELEV = 439.98
STA = 3+31.18
ELEV = 442.33
STA = 3+53.64
ELEV = 441.30
STA = 3+73.14
ELEV = 440.65
STA = 3+94.14
ELEV = 439.44
STA = 4+00.14
ELEV = 440.94
STA = 4+28.60
ELEV = 439.98 PROPOSED BANKFULL10.0%8.0%8.0%5.5%5.5%5.5%5.5%6.0%5.9%6.1%6.0%2.8%2.4%2.1%5.3%4.7%4.8%3.8%4.0%FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
NT: PLAN - PROFILE 4.1SCALE: 1" = 20'PROPOSED WETLAND FEATURESEE DETAILEND NT R1 RSC AT STA 3+26TRANSITION FROM RSC SYSTEM TOENHANCEMENT 2 APPROACH FOR NT R2BEGIN NT R1 RSC SYSTEMSTA 0+00RSC RIFFLE - STEP - POOL SEQUENCERSC STEPCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE WITHLOG STEPEND NT R2 AT CONFLUENCE WITHUTA R2 / UTB STA 4+28.6Feet02040GRADING LIMITSGRADING LIMITSUTA R2UTBINSTALL CONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCING(243 FT)REMOVE EXISTINGCONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCING(212 FT)GRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUNGBEGIN NT R1 RSC SYSTEMSTA 0+00INSTALL EASEMENTACCESS GATEPROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTPROPOSED BANKFULLEXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCINGEXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENTNOTE:1.FENCING TO BE INSTALLED 6 FT OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT BOUNDARY INLOCATIONS INDICATED ON THE PLANSHEETS.2.FENCE SHALL BE 6 STRANDS OF HIGH TENSILE BARBED WIRE.3.BRACES AND CORNER POSTS SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED WOOD POSTS.4.LINE POSTS SHALL BE STANDARD STEEL T POSTS SPACED 10 FT MAXIMUM.5.ALL FENCE POSTS ARE TO BE DRIVEN.INSTALL CONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCING(243 FT)
0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00449470469468467 466465464 4624604594584574564
5
5
45445345245
1
4
5
0
44
9
448
44
7
445446447448449450451470469468467467468469470471 466465464463462461461460459458457456454453
452451450449448447STA: 0+00.0
STA: 6+23.2
STA: 5+
3
5
.
2
STA: 5+43.
6
STA: 5+59.2
STA: 5+65.2
STA: 5+77.2 STA: 5+86.7STA: 5
+
9
8
.
2
STA: 6+
0
8
.
9
STA: 0+47.8STA: 0+72.1 STA: 0+93.2STA: 1+18.0STA: 1+41.0
STA: 1+81
.
0
S
T
A
:

2
+
3
5
.
5
STA
:

2
+
5
9
.
9
STA: 2
+
9
9
.
6
STA: 3+22.2STA: 3+46.0
S
T
A
:

4
+
0
8
.
3
STA:

4
+
3
1
.
3
STA: 4+71.8STA: 4+95.6STA: 0+17.5
S
T
A
:

3
+
8
3
.
1
STA: 0+60.0 STA: 0+83.4STA: 1+05.0STA: 1+28.0STA: 1+53.2STA: 1+68.0
STA: 1+92.4
STA: 2+07.5
S
T
A
:

2
+
2
3
.
1
STA
:

2
+
4
6
.
3
STA: 2+72.3
STA: 2
+
8
6
.
9
STA: 3+10.8STA: 3+32.8
STA:

3
+
5
7
.
8
S
T
A
:

3
+
7
2
.
5
STA:

4
+
1
9
.
1
STA: 4+44.5
STA: 4+60.4STA: 4+82.4STA: 5+07.6
STA: 5
+
2
2
.
9
STA: 0+35.4
S
T
A
:

3
+
9
7
.
6
STA: 0+
0
0
.
0
470468469471435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475
4354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694704714724734744750+001+002+003+004+005+006+006+256.0%5.0%5.5%6.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%5.5%6.5%5.0%6.0%6.0%5.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%4.8%4.1%4.0%2.2%STA = 0+17.52ELEV = 468.45STA = 0+35.36ELEV = 467.70STA = 0+47.79ELEV = 467.07STA = 0+60.04ELEV = 466.58STA = 0+72.14ELEV = 465.92STA = 0+83.43ELEV = 465.47STA = 0+93.13ELEV = 464.89STA = 1+04.95ELEV = 464.42STA = 1+17.96ELEV = 463.65STA = 1+28.04ELEV = 463.28STA = 1+40.95ELEV = 462.51STA = 1+55.95ELEV = 461.76STA = 1+68.02ELEV = 461.01STA = 1+81.00ELEV = 460.23STA = 1+96.02ELEV = 459.48STA = 2+10.44ELEV = 458.73
STA = 2+23.06
ELEV = 457.98
STA = 2+35.48
ELEV = 457.30
STA = 2+46.33
ELEV = 456.86
STA = 2+59.86
ELEV = 455.99
STA = 2+74.40
ELEV = 455.29
STA = 2+86.91
ELEV = 454.54
STA = 2+99.63
ELEV = 453.90
STA = 3+10.78
ELEV = 453.41
STA = 3+22.21
ELEV = 452.73
STA = 3+32.75
ELEV = 452.32
STA = 3+46.04
ELEV = 451.52
STA = 3+60.28
ELEV = 450.77
STA = 3+72.51
ELEV = 450.02
STA = 3+83.09
ELEV = 449.49
STA = 3+97.64
ELEV = 448.95
STA = 4+08.32
ELEV = 448.31
STA = 4+19.09
ELEV = 447.88
STA = 4+31.29
ELEV = 447.15
STA = 4+47.20
ELEV = 446.40
STA = 4+60.36
ELEV = 445.65
STA = 4+71.79
ELEV = 444.96
STA = 4+82.37
ELEV = 444.56
STA = 4+95.58
ELEV = 443.77
STA = 5+10.27
ELEV = 443.02
STA = 5+23.17
ELEV = 442.52
STA = 5+35.19
ELEV = 442.19
STA = 5+44.19
ELEV = 441.76
STA = 5+59.19
ELEV = 441.53
STA = 5+65.19
ELEV = 441.28
STA = 5+77.19
ELEV = 441.28
STA = 5+86.19
ELEV = 440.92
STA = 5+98.19
ELEV = 440.52
STA = 6+08.87
ELEV = 440.29
STA = 0+26.44ELEV = 466.70STA = 0+53.92ELEV = 465.58STA = 0+77.79ELEV = 464.46STA = 0+99.09ELEV = 463.42STA = 1+23.00ELEV = 462.28STA = 1+47.10ELEV = 460.75STA = 1+61.98ELEV = 460.00STA = 1+86.71ELEV = 458.48STA = 2+01.78ELEV = 457.73
STA = 2+16.75
ELEV = 456.98
STA = 2+40.90
ELEV = 455.85
STA = 2+66.08
ELEV = 454.29
STA = 2+80.66
ELEV = 453.54
STA = 3+05.20
ELEV = 452.41
STA = 3+27.48
ELEV = 451.32
STA = 3+51.91
ELEV = 449.77
STA = 3+66.40
ELEV = 449.02
STA = 3+90.37
ELEV = 447.95
STA = 4+13.71
ELEV = 446.88
STA = 4+37.91
ELEV = 445.40
STA = 4+53.78
ELEV = 444.65
STA = 4+77.08
ELEV = 443.56
STA = 5+01.60
ELEV = 442.02
STA = 5+16.72
ELEV = 441.52
STA = 5+29.23
ELEV = 440.69
STA = 5+71.19
ELEV = 439.79
STA = 5+51.85
ELEV = 440.03
STA = 5+92.19
ELEV = 439.02 4.4%5.5%5.5%5.5%4.5%4.8%6.0%4.5%5.2%5.1%5.4%5.4%EXISTING GRADEUTA R2 ENHANCEMENT 2 APPROACH WITHLOG SILLS FOR GRADE CONTROL TO CONFLUENCE WITH NT R2 / UTBEND UTA R2 ATNT R2 / UTB CONCLUENCESTA. 6 + 23 FTELV. = 440.18 FTPROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTSAND / WOOD CHIP FILTER MEDIAUSE ONSITE EARTH TO FILL CHANNELUP TO FILTER MEDIAEND UTA R2 RSC SYSTEMBEGIN UTA R1 RSCSYSTEM STA 0+00PROPOSED BANKFULLFINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
UTA: PLAN - PROFILE 4.2SCALE: 1" = 20'PROPOSED WETLANDFEATURESEE DETAILSEND UTA R1 RSC STA 5+23TRANSITION FROM RSC SYSTEM TOENHANCEMENT 2 APPROACH FOR UTA R2BEGIN UTA R1 RSCSYSTEM STA 0+00RSC STEP-POOL SEQUENCERSC RIFFLE - STEP - POOLRSC STEPRSC STEP-POOL SEQUENCEPER DETAILFeet02040END UTA R2 STA 6+23AT CONFLUENCEWITH NT R2 AND UTBGRADING LIMITSGRADING LIMITSNT R2UTBGRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED BANKFULLPROPOSED CENTERLINEALIGNMENTEXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCINGEXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENT
0+000+501+001+502
+
0
0
2+503+003+504
+
0
0
4
+
5
0
5+005+290+001+002
+
0
0
3+004
+
0
0
5+005+29STA: 0+00.0
S
T
A
:

5
+
2
9
.
1
ST
A
:

2
+
8
0
.
2
STA: 3+72.5
STA: 0+29.9
S
T
A
:

5
+
1
3
.
3
STA: 4+8
4
.
2
STA: 4+69.1STA: 4+40.5STA: 4+19.6STA: 3+36.2
STA:3+54.7STA: 3+16.7STA: 2+9
9
.
7 STA: 2+63.3STA: 2+45.
1
S
T
A
:

2
+
3
0
.
1 STA: 2+06.3STA: 1
+
7
8
.
3
STA: 1+63.7
STA: 1+35.3STA: 1+19.3 STA: 0+90.0STA: 0+46.0STA: 0+74.6425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445
4254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444450+001+002+003+004+005+00 5+29
STA = 0+00.00ELEV = 440.00STA = 0+29.95ELEV = 439.83STA = 0+44.96ELEV = 439.74STA = 0+74.89ELEV = 439.58STA = 0+89.89ELEV = 439.50STA = 1+19.32ELEV = 439.03STA = 1+34.32ELEV = 438.79STA = 1+63.74ELEV = 438.32
STA = 1+78.74
ELEV = 438.09
STA = 2+05.56
ELEV = 437.61
STA = 2+30.10
ELEV = 437.23
STA = 2+45.10
ELEV = 437.00
STA = 2+62.27
ELEV = 436.50
STA = 2+80.34
ELEV = 436.00
STA = 2+98.31
ELEV = 435.50
STA = 3+15.90
ELEV = 435.00
STA = 3+34.29
ELEV = 434.50
STA = 3+72.54
ELEV = 434.01
STA = 4+19.72
ELEV = 433.51
STA = 4+39.72
ELEV = 433.16
STA = 4+69.16
ELEV = 432.69
STA = 4+84.09
ELEV = 432.44
STA = 5+13.51
ELEV = 431.97
STA = 5+29.08
ELEV = 431.71
STA = 0+17.34ELEV = 437.83STA = 0+61.16ELEV = 437.58STA = 1+06.29ELEV = 437.03STA = 1+50.57ELEV = 436.82
STA = 1+93.51
ELEV = 436.11
STA = 2+19.26
ELEV = 435.73
STA = 2+54.97
ELEV = 435.50
STA = 2+72.71
ELEV = 435.00
STA = 2+90.66
ELEV = 434.50
STA = 3+08.44
ELEV = 434.00
STA = 3+26.09
ELEV = 433.51
STA = 3+54.96
ELEV = 432.01
STA = 3+97.59
ELEV = 432.01
STA = 4+56.00
ELEV = 431.19
STA = 5+00.34
ELEV = 430.47 0.6%0.5%1.6%1.6%1.5%1.8%1.7%1.7%UTB ENHANCEMENT 1 APPROACH WITHLOG SILLS FOR GRADE CONTROL TO WETLAND ENHANCEMENTEND UTBSTA. 5 + 29 FTELV. = 431.71 FTBEGIN UTB SYSTEMSTA 0+00PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTEXISTING GRADEEXISTING TOP OF BANKFINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
UTB: PLAN - PROFILE 4.3SCALE: 1" = 20'BEGIN UTB ENHANCEMENT 1 APPROACH AT NT R2 / UTA R2 CONFLUENCE STA 0+00LOG SILLFeet02040GRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUNDWETLAND ENHANCEMENT = 1.323 ACSEE SHEET 4.6NT R2UTA R2CONSTRUCTED RIFFLEPERMANENTWETLAND IMPACT0.003 AC (150 FT2)EXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCINGEXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENTWETLAND LIMITS
BP: 0+00.00PC: 0+19.47PT: 0+93.69PC: 1+60.11 PT: 2+60.10PC: 3+43.95PT: 4+80.28
PC: 5+98.55
PT: 7+
3
0
.
5
2
PC: 10
+
1
3
.
7
60+001+002+003+00
4+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+004104114124134144154164174184194204214224234244254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444454104114124134144154164174184194204214224234244254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444450+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+00STA = 0+00.00ELEV = 429.82STA = 0+19.47ELEV = 429.75STA = 0+56.58ELEV = 424.70 STA = 0+93.69ELEV = 429.75STA = 1+60.11ELEV = 429.48STA = 2+10.10ELEV = 424.43 STA = 2+60.10ELEV = 429.48
STA = 3+43.95
ELEV = 429.15
STA = 4+12.12
ELEV = 424.10
STA = 4+80.28
ELEV = 429.15
STA = 5+98.55
ELEV = 428.67
STA = 6+64.53
ELEV = 423.62
STA = 7+30.52
ELEV = 428.67
STA = 8+25.00
ELEV = 428.29
STA = 8+75.00
ELEV = 423.27
STA = 9+25.00
ELEV = 428.29 0.4%0.4%0.4%0.4%10.1%10.1%0.8%0.4%FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
MC: PLAN - PROFILE 4.4SCALE: 1" = 40'BEGIN MC R1 ENHANCEMENT 1 APPROACHAT PARCEL BOUNDARYLOG RIFFLELOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKFeet04080EXISTING TOP OF BANKPROPOSED CHANNEL CENTERLINEEXISTING GROUNDGRADE POINT BAR AT 7:1 SLOPEGRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUNDLOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKBRUSH TOE WITH SOIL GEOLIFTGRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUNDGRADING AREALOG RIFFLELOG VANE WITHBOULDER J-HOOKTOE OF SLOPETOE OF SLOPELOG RIFFLETOP OF BANKMATC
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A
.

9
+
9
5

F
T
MATC
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A
.

9
+
9
5

F
TEXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCINGEXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PC: 10+13.76 PT: 11+42.29PC: 12+46.10PT
:

1
3
+
9
3
.
1
4
P
C
:

1
5
+
6
9
.
4
1
PT: 17+28.57PC: 18+12.74PT: 19
+
5
0
.
1
6
EP: 20
+
0
5
.
1
710+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+001
8
+
0
0
19+0020+0020+05430431
432431433432431431432433434435430410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445
41041141241341441541641741841942042142242342442542642742842943043143243343443543643743843944044144244344444510+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0020+250.2%STA = 10+13.76ELEV = 427.54STA = 10+78.03ELEV = 422.49 STA = 11+42.29ELEV = 427.54STA = 12+46.10ELEV = 427.12STA = 13+19.62ELEV = 422.08
STA = 13+93.14
ELEV = 427.12
STA = 15+69.41
ELEV = 426.24
STA = 16+48.99
ELEV = 421.19
STA = 17+28.57
ELEV = 426.24
STA = 18+12.74
ELEV = 425.82
STA = 18+81.45
ELEV = 420.77
STA = 19+50.16
ELEV = 425.82
STA = 20+04.79
ELEV = 425.67 0.4%0.5%0.5%0.3%STA = 13+93.14
ELEV = 430.70
STA = 15+69.41
ELEV = 430.24
STA = 17+28.57
ELEV = 429.82
STA = 18+12.74
ELEV = 429.66
STA = 19+50.00
ELEV = 429.40
STA = 20+04.79
ELEV = 429.30
FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
MC: PLAN - PROFILE 4.5SCALE: 1" = 40'END MC R2 RESTORATION ATPARCEL BOUNDARY STA 20+05Feet04080LOG RIFFLELOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKBRUSH TOE WITH SOIL GEOLIFTSBEGIN MC R2 RESTORATIONAPPROACH AT STA 13+93 FTFILL EXISTING CHANNELFILL EXISTING DITCHSEE DETAIL0.144 AC (6,300 FT2)PERMANENT FORD CROSSINGAT EASEMENT BREAKSTA 14+52 TO 14+72SEE DETAILSEXISTING TOP OF BANKWETLAND ENHANCEMENT = 1.323 ACSEE SHEET 4.6PROPOSED BANKFULL STAGEEXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED CHANNEL CENTERLINEEXCAVATE AND GRADE REMNANTFILL MATERIAL AND BLEND AREA TOSURROUND EXISTING GROUND0.052 AC (2,270 FT2)GRADE STREAMBANKS FROMTOE OF SLOPE AT 3:1 SLOPE TOEXISTING GROUNDGRADE POINT BARAT 7:1 SLOPEMC R2 GRADING LIMITSMC R2 GRADING LIMITSLOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKEND MC R1 STA 14+52BEGIN MC R2 STA 14+72TOE OF SLOPETOP OF BANKTOP OF BANKTOE OF SLOPEMATCHLINE STA. 9+95 FT MATCHLINE STA. 9+95 FTEXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCINGEXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENTWETLAND LIMITS
3+50 4+004+505+00
5
+
2
9
4+005+00
5
+
2
9
PC: 15+69.41
PT: 17+28.5715+0016+0017+001
8
+
0
0431
432431430
STA: 5+29.1STA: 3+72.5STA: 5+13.3STA: 4+84.2STA: 4+69.1STA: 4+40
.5
ST
A
:

4
+
1
9
.
6STA: 3+36.2STA: 3+54.7FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
MC: PLAN - PROFILE 4.6SCALE: 1" = 40'UTBWETLAND ENHANCEMENT = 1.320 ACFeet02040FILL EXISTING DITCHTEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS0.079 AC (3,460 FT2)EXCAVATE AND GRADE REMNANTFILL MATERIAL AND BLEND AREA TOSURROUNDING EXISTING GROUNDTEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACTS0.024 AC (1,050 FT2)MC R2MC R2 GRADING LIMITSPERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT0.003 AC (150 FT2)INSTALL CONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCING(160 FT)REMOVE EXISTINGCONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCING(113 FT)EXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCINGEXISTING CONSERVATIONEASEMENTNOTE:1.FENCING TO BE INSTALLED 6 FT OUTSIDE OF THE EASEMENT BOUNDARY IN THELOCATIONS INDICATED ON THE PLAN SHEETS.2.FENCE SHALL BE 6 STRANDS OF HIGH TENSILE BARBED WIRE.3.BRACES AND CORNER POSTS SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED WOOD POSTS.4.LINE POSTS SHALL BE STANDARD STEEL T POSTS SPACED 10 FT MAXIMUM.5.ALL FENCE POSTS ARE TO BE DRIVEN.INSTALL CONSERVATIONEASEMENT FENCING(160 FT)WETLAND LIMITS
FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
VEGETATION PLAN 5.1SCALE: 1" = 100'Feet0100200GENERAL RE-VEGETATION PLAN NOTES1.SOIL PREPARATION ELEMENTS, TEMPORARY AND PERMANENTSEED AND GROUND COVER SHALL BE SPREAD OVER ALLAREAS WITHIN THE GRADING LIMITS THAT ARE DISTURBEDDURING CONSTRUCTION.2.PRIOR TO INSTALLING THE EROSION CONTROL MATTING,PREPARE THE SOIL SURFACE BY LOOSENING 2 - 4 IN. OF SOILOR APPLYING 2 - 4 IN. OF TOPSOIL TO THE PROPOSEDELEVATIONS AND APPLY SEED AND THEN STRAW MULCH.SEED SHALL BE BROADCAST EVENLY OF OVER THE AREAUSING A BROADCAST SPREADER PRIOR TO COVERING WITHTHE EROSION CONTROL MATTING.3.LIVE STAKES, AND BARE ROOT STOCK SHALL BE LOCATEDWHERE SHOWN ON PLAN.4.ADJUSTMENTS TO THE VEGETATION PLAN SHALL BE MADEONLY IF APPROVED BY THE PROJECT OWNER.5.THE MATTING SHALL BE ROLLED OUT IN THE DIRECTION OFANTICIPATED RUNOFF FLOW. INSTALL MATTING INACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAIL INCLUDED IN THECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. REWORKING OF AREAS THATDO NOT ESTABLISH VEGETATION OR BECOME UNSTABLESHALL BE NECESSARY IN IF THE MATTING SEPARATES FROMTHE SOIL.TEMPORARY SEEDING AND MULCHING6.ALL SEED AND SEED VARIETIES MUST BE FREE OF STATE ANDFEDERALLY LISTED NOXIOUS WEED SEED.7.ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE SEEDED WITH TEMPORARYSEED AND MULCHED WITH WHEAT STRAW. SEEDING WILL BEPERFORMED USING A BROADCAST SPREADER. OTHERMETHODS MAY BE USED BUT MUST BE APPROVED BYENGINEER IN ADVANCE OF INSTALLATION.8.MAINTENANCE OF SEEDED AREAS SHALL CONSIST OFWATERING, WEED AND PEST CONTROL, FERTILIZATION,EROSION REPAIR, RESEEDING, AND INCIDENTAL OPERATIONSAS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, WEEDFREE AND DISEASE FREE UNIFORM STAND OF GRASS. ALLAREAS WHICH FAIL TO SHOW A UNIFORM STAND OF GRASSFOR ANY REASON SHALL BE TREATED REPEATEDLY UNTIL AUNIFORM STAND OF AT LEAST 90% COVERAGE IS ATTAINEDWITH NO BARE AREA GREATER THAN FIVE SQUARE FEET.PERMANENT SEEDING9.PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL OCCUR IN CONJUNCTION WITHTEMPORARY SEEDING WHERE APPLICABLE. IDEALLY,PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL OCCUR DURING THE PLANTINGSEASON FOR EACH SEED TYPE. AREAS FERTILIZED FORTEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY FERTILIZEDFOR PERMANENT SEEDING; ADDITIONAL FERTILIZER IS NOTREQUIRED FOR PERMANENT SEEDING.10.ALL SEED AND SEED VARIETIES MUST BE OF FROM STATE ANDFEDERALLY LISTED NOXIOUS WEED SEED. IN ADDITION, NONEOF THE FOLLOWING SEED WILL OCCUR IN THE MIX.11.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOOSEN THE SUB-GRADE TO AMINIMUM DEPTH OF 6-INCHES AND GRADE TO A ROUGHNON-UNIFORM SURFACE THAT WILL ALLOW FOR POCKETS OFWATER STORAGE. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO LIMIT SUB GRADEAND FINISH GRADE PREPARATION TO AREAS THAT WILL BEPLANTED IMMEDIATELY. PREPARED AREAS ARE TO BERESTORED IF ERODED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED BEFOREPLANTING.12.SEED SHALL BE SOWN WITH A SPREADER OR A SEEDINGMACHINE. SEED IS NOT TO BE BROADCAST OR DROPPEDWHEN WIND VELOCITY EXCEEDS 5 MPH. SEED SHALL BEEVENLY DISTRIBUTED BY SOWING IN TWO DIRECTIONS ATRIGHT ANGLES TO EACH OTHER. WET SEED OR SEED THAT ISMOLDY OR OTHERWISE DAMAGED IN TRANSIT OR STORAGE ISNOT TO BE USED. AFTER BEGIN SOWN, THE SEED SHALL BERAKED INTO THE TOP 1/9 INCH OF THE TOPSOIL, LIGHTLYROLLED, AND WATERED WITH FINE SPRAY. SEEDED AREAS ONSTREAM BANKS SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH COIR FIBERMATTING.BARE ROOTS AND LIVE STAKES13.FOLLOW THE HANDLING, STORAGE AND INSTALLATIONGUIDELINES SPECIFIED IN BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKEDETAILS OR SPECIFICATIONS.FLOODPLAINUPLAND HARDWOOD FORESTSTREAMBANKWETLAND
LOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKNOTESEROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR 700 GRAMDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEA'ADETAILED CROSS-SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALENOTESCONSTRUCTED RIFFLEDETAILED CROSS-SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALERIFFLE SLOPE VARIES PER PROFILERIFFLE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL DEPTHAND GRADATION PER NOTESP.T. STATIONPER PLANBANKFULL STAGESTREAMBANK TOE OF SLOPESTREAMBEDRIFFLE LENGTH VARIESPER PLANBANKFULLCONSTRUCTED RIFFLEP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILESELECT RIFFLE SUBSTRATEMATERIAL GRADATION PER NOTESP.T. ELEVATIONPER PROFILEEXTEND RIFFLESUBSTRATE INTORUN MIN. 10.0 FTEXTEND RIFFLESUBSTRATE INTORUN MIN. 10.0 FTFLOWBASEFLOW WSEGLIDERUNBANKFULL WSEBASEFLOW WSEBANKFULL WSE1.RIFFLES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF NATIVE GRAVEL AND COBBLE MATERIAL AVAILABLEONSITE. THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE THE USE OF ALL ONSITE NATIVE MATERIAL.WHEN NATIVE SUBSTRATE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR COMPLETION OF THE STRUCTURE,QUARRIED STONE SHALL BE USED TO SUPPLEMENT THE RIFFLE MATERIAL ACCORDINGTO THE RIFFLE SUBSTRATE SPECIFICATIONS.2.FOR INSTALLATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OVER EXCAVATE THE LENGTH OF THERIFFLE BACKFILL WITH NATIVE GRAVEL AND COBBLE MATERIAL TO THE ELEVATIONSSHOWN ON THE PROPOSED PROFILE.3.THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AT A UNIFORM THICKNESS SUCH THAT, INCROSS-SECTION, ITS LOWEST ELEVATION OCCURS IN THE CENTER OF THE CHANNEL.4.FINE WOODY MATERIAL MAY BE INTEGRATED INTO THE RIFFLE MATERIAL TO ENHANCEFLOW DIVERSITY AND HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE.5.THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACTSURFACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS ORELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR INVERTELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES AND ELEVATIONS INDICATED.6.RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BEREQUIRED FOLLOWING INSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BECONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.7.SEE TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS AND QUARRIED RIFFLESUBSTRATE SPECIFICATIONS.CONSTRUCTED RIFFLECONSTRUCTED RIFFLE1.COARSE WOODY DEBRIS SHALL CONSIST OF LOGS, ROOTWADS, AND LARGE BRANCHES NOT SUITABLEFOR CONSTRUCTION OF LOG STRUCTURES. ALL MATERIALS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.COARSE WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE LARGEST MATERIAL PLACED FIRST. NO LOGSSHALL BE PLACED PARALLEL TO THE FLOW OF WATER, UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. LOGS SHALLBE PLACED IN A CROSSING PATTERN OR WEAVE SUCH THAT EACH LOG IS ANCHORED BY ANOTHER LOG.2.SMALL/FINE WOODY DEBRIS SHALL CONSIST OF MEDIUM TO SMALL LIMBS, BRANCHES, BUSHES, AND/ORLOGS. INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL NOT BE USED. LARGEER COARSE WOODY DEBRIS MATERIAL SHALL BEPLACED FIRST AND SMALL/FINE WOODY DEBRIS PLACED ON TOP.3.ALL WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE COMPACTED WITH THE EXCAVATOR BUCKET TO REDUCE THE PRESENCE OFVOIDS IN THE SMALL/FINE WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.4.GRAVEL LEVELING BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED ABOVE THE HIGHEST ELEVATION OF THE WOODY DEBRISBEFORE THE SOIL LIFTS ARE INSTALLED.5.THE SOIL BACKFILL USED FOR LIFTS AND TOPSOIL USED FOR LAYERING WITH THE LIVE BRANCHES SHALLBE FREE OF ANY LARGE ROOTS OR WOODY DEBRIS AND SHALL GENERALLY BE FREE FROM ANY GRAVELOR COBBLE MATERIAL.6.SOIL BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLING WILL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM; YET,NOT SUCH THAT THE UNDERLYING BRUSH IS DISPLACED OR DAMAGED. THE TOP OF THE BACKFILL FORTHE FIRST LIFT SHALL BE SLOPED AT APPROXIMATELY 5% AWAY FROM THE STREAM.7.PLACE A LAYER OF TOPSOIL AND LIVE BRANCHES ON THE GRAVEL LEVELING BASE SUCH THATAPPROXIMATELY 6 INCHES TO 1 FOOT OF EACH LIVE BRANCH WILL BE EXPOSED AND THE REMAINDER (2'TO 4') OF EACH LIVE BRANCH WILL BE COVERED BY THE SOIL LIFT. LIVE BRANCHES SHALL BE OF THESPECIES SPECIFIED FOR LIVE STAKES OR APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.8.PLACE A LAYER OF 6.5 FEET WIDE BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AND 700 GRAM EROSIONCONTROL MATTING, ON TOP OF THE TOPSOIL AND LIVE BRANCHES SUCH THAT 2.5 FEET OF THE BLANKETWILL BE BURIED BELOW THE NEXT SOIL LIFT. ALLOW THE REMAINING 4.5 FEET OF BLANKET AND MATTINGTO HANG OVER THE GRAVEL LEVELING BASE.9.PLACE SOIL BACKFILL UP TO THE LIFT HEIGHT SPECIFIED OF NO GREATER THAN 1.0 FT BEING CAREFULNOT TO PUSH/PULL OR TEAR THE FABRIC PREVIOUSLY PLACED.10.TOP DRESS THE SOIL LIFT WITH TOPSOIL FROM THE FACE OF THE SOIL LIFT BACK INTO THE FLOODPLAINAT LEAST 4FT.11.THE EROSION CONTROL FABRICS SHALL BE PULLED AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT TEARING OREXCESSIVELY DISTORTING THE FABRIC. SECURE THE EROSION CONTROL AND NON-WOVEN MATTING INPLACE BY STAKING THE END OF THE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC WITH WOODEN STAKES ON 1.5-FOOTCENTERS.12.REPEAT STEPS 7 THROUGH 11 AS NEEDED TO BUILD SOIL LIFTS UP TO DESIGN BANKFULL ELEVATION.13.THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS. THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES ANDELEVATIONS INDICATED OR APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.14.RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.DETAILED PROFILE - SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALENOTESBRUSH TOE WITH GEOLIFTSAPPROX. BASE FLOW WSESTREAMBED3:1 TO BANKFULLSELECT GRAVEL BACKFILL AND TOPSOILFOR BASE OF FIRST SOIL LIFTF
L
OW
TOE WOODREVETMENTAFILL VOIDS WITH FINE WOODY MATERIALLIVE CUTTINGSSELECT SOIL BACKFILLUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED EARTHEXCAVATION LIMITSBANKFULLA'LIVE CUTTINGSBANKFULLSOIL GEOLIFT WITH EROSION CONTROLBLANKET (ECB) AND AND 700 GRAMEROSION CONTROL MATTING (ECM)(EACH LIFT REQUIRES 1 LAYER OF ECBAND ECM)LIVE STAKES AND BARE ROOTSOR SOD MATWOOD STAKECOARSE WOODYDEBRIS (4"- 12")MIN. WIDTH OFMATTING = 4'BRUSH TOE WITH GEOLIFTSBRUSH TOE WITH GEOLIFTSRIFFLE SUBSTRATEDEPTH, SEE SHEET 3.11.ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AND LIMBS AND BRANCHES SHALLBE TRIMMED FLUSH. LOGS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 1.5'.2.HEADER LOGS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS TO PROVIDE A SILLUNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. HEADER LOGS SHALL BEOFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTER LOG.3.THE HEADER LOG OF THE VANE ARE SHALL TIE INTO THE STREAMBANK AT 12 TO 23BANKFULL STAGE.4.THE LOG VANE ARM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE OUTSIDE STREAMBANK ANDSTREAMBED A MINIMUM OF 10.0 FT ON EACH END.5.ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCHES BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTERLOGS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH LIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ON THE UPSTREAM SIDEPRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.6.ALL BOULDERS USED FOR THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE STRUCTURAL STONE,CUBICAL OR RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE. THE ENGINEER MUST APPROVE THE USEOF BOULDERS THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE ONSITE. BOULDERS DIMENSIONS SHALLBE 3.0 FT X 5.0 FT X 2.0 FT +/- 0.5 FT.7.CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO FIT BOULDERS TOGETHER TIGHTLY.8.GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS SHALL BE MINIMIZED BY FITTING BOULDERSTOGETHER AND PLUGGING WITH NC DOT CLASS A ROCK OR CHINKING STONEAPPROVED BY ENGINEER.9.HEADER BOULDERS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER BOULDERS TO PROVIDEA FOUNDATION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. HEADERBOULDERS SHALL BE OFFSET 1.0 FT UPSTREAM OF THE FOOTER.10.SET BOULDER INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILESHEETS. NO ELEVATIONS OF THE BOULDERS MAY VARY FROM THE PLANSHEETS WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM THE ENGINEER.11.ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE A LAYER OF NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL ALONG THEENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG VANE AND BOULDER J-HOOK. SECURE ALLGEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON TOP OF FOOTER LOG USING 3 INCH 10D GALVANIZEDCOMMON NAIL ON 12 IN SPACING ALONG LOG. NAIL NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TOEDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL.12.PLACE BOULDERS UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE LOG VANE ARM INTHE STREAMBANK. THE FINISHED ELEVATION OF THE BOULDERS SHALL BEBELOW THE FINISHED GRADE OF THE ADJACENT FLOODPLAIN AND SHALL NOTPROTRUDE OUT OF THE STREAMBANK.13.DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES OF STRUCTURES DESCRIBED IN THE DETAIL MAY BEADJUSTED BY DESIGN ENGINEER TO FIT CONDITIONS ONSITE.14.THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH ANDCOMPACT SURFACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, ANDCROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. THE DEGREEOF FINISH FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADESAND ELEVATIONS INDICATED.15.RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BEREQUIRED FOLLOWING INSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALLBE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.DETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEDETAILED CROSS-SECTION B - B'VANE ARM INTO STREAMBANK @ 12 TO 23 BKF STAGEB'
B
A'ALOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKLOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKDETAILED CROSS-SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALESELECTBACKFILL MATERIALSCOUR POOLBELOW STRUCTURELOG VANE WITH BOULDER J-HOOKPROPOSED BANKFULL WSEBASEFLOW WSEA'ASCOURPOOLSELECT BACKFILLBEHIND STRUCTUREBANKFULLEXTEND BOULDER SILL INTOSTREAMBANK MIN 10.0 ' OR THREEFULL BOULDER LENGTHSHIGH DENSITYPLANTINGHIGH DENSITYPLANTINGEXTEND VANE ARMINTO STREAMBANKMIN. 15.0'BURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBED MIN. 10.0'.FIT BOULDERS TIGHTLY TOGETHERHEADER BOULDER (SILL)FOOTER BOULDER (SILL)HEADER LOGFOOTER LOG20 - 30oFINE WOODYDEBRIS (2" - 4")1.0' OFFSET1.0' MAXKEY MATTING INTO RIFFLE TRENCHTOP OF WOODY DEBRIS1.5' ABOVE U/S TW PC ELVANCHOR LOGS IN-PLACEWITH BOULDERS U/S AND D/S1.0' MIN.DETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALELOG RIFFLEA'ADETAILED CROSS-SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALELOG RIFFLENOTESLOG RIFFLEDETAILED CROSS-SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALELOG RIFFLEB'BP.C. STATIONPER PLANP.T. STATIONPER PLANSILL LOGSSILL LOGSSELECTBACKFILL MATERIALBANKFULLCHANNEL TOEOF SLOPEBURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 6.0'BURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 6.0'.RIFFLE LENGTH VARIESPER PLANLOG ROLLERNON-WOVENFILTER FABRICMAX. SPACING =13 * WBKFFOOTER LOGGLIDERUNBASEFLOW WSEP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILEP.T. ELEVATIONPER PROFILEMAX. DROP =0.2' - 0.3'CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE LOGS SLOPE VARIES PER PROFILEMICROPOOLBELOW STEPRIFFLE SUBSTRATE PERNOTES AND TABLESTREAMBEDRIFFLE MATERIAL1.ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AND LIMBS AND BRANCHES SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH. LOGSSHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 1.5'.2.HEADER LOGS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS TO PROVIDE A SILL UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTEDBY THE ENGINEER. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTER LOG.3.SET SILL INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS. NO ELEVATIONS OF THE LOGSILLS MAY VARY FROM THE PLAN SHEETS WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM THE ENGINEER.4.THE VERTICAL SLOPE OF EACH LOG SHALL NOT EXCEED 1% UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THEENGINEER.5.ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE SILL LOGS, NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THEENTIRE LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE. FILTER FABRIC SHALL EXTEND FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTERLOG TO THE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION AND SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE.RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE USED AS BACKFILL MATERIAL AROUND THE LOGS AND MICROPOOLS SHALL BEESTABLISHED BELOW EACH LOG.6.FINE WOODY MATERIAL LESS THAN 3" IN DIAMETER MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS STRUCTURE TOINCREASE IN-STREAM ORGANIC MATERIAL AND ENHANCE FLOW DIVERSITY.7.THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS. THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES ANDELEVATIONS INDICATED.8.RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.9.SEE TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS.EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR 700 GRAMLOG SLOPE 0 - 1%BANKFULLBURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 6.0'LOG ROLLERRIFFLE SUBSTRATEMATERIAL PER NOTESBASEFLOW WSEBANKFULL WSEFINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
DETAILS 6.1
3'BANKFULL2.5' (TYP)6" MIN. HORIZONTALOVERLAP2.5'(TYP)2.5'(TYP)2'(TYP)2'(TYP)6" MIN. VERTICALOVERLAPAA'700 GRAM COIR FIBER MATTINGFROM TOE OF CHANNEL TO4 FT BEYOND BANKFULLBANKFULLCHANNEL TOE OF SLOPE700 GRAM COIRMATTING2' LONG 2" x 2" WOOD STAKESw/ 3" GALVANIZED ROOFING NAILAT THE TOP TO SECURE MATTING6" MIN. HORIZONTALOVERLAPEROSION CONTROL MATTINGDETAILED STAKING PLANNOT TO SCALEEROSION CONTROL MATTINGDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALE1.EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS USED TO PROTECT RECENTLYCONSTRUCTED STREAMBANKS FROM EROSION. THE MATTING WILLREMAIN INTACT WHILE THE BANK AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION MATURES,PROVIDING CRITICAL BANK PROTECTION.2.BEFORE INSTALLING COIR FIBER MATTING, RAKE SOIL LEVEL, ADDTEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEED, FERTILIZER, LIME AND MULCH.3.700 GRAM COIR FIBER EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHALL BE PLACEDALONG THE LENGTH OF THE NEW CHANNEL FROM THE TOE OF SLOPEOUT TO A MINIMUM OF 4.0' BEYOND THE BANKFULL ELEVATION.4.SECURE COIR MATTING IN PLACE BY STAKING AND OVERLAPPING ATTHE SEAMS WITH A SHINGLE-TYPE METHOD SUCH THAT THEOVERLAPPING PIECE IS IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE STREAM FLOW.ADDITIONAL STAKING SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NOADDITIONAL COST IF THE MATTING SEPARATES FROM THE SOIL MORETHAN ONE INCH UNDER A REASONABLE PULL.700 GRAM COIR FIBER MATTINGSUPPLEMENT WOODEN STAKESWITH 12" ECO-STAKES2' LONG 2" x 2" WOOD STAKESw/ 3" GALVANIZED ROOFING NAILAT THE TOP TO SECURE MATTINGEROSION CONTROL MATTINGDETAILED CROSS SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEEROSION CONTROL MATTINGNOTESSCOURPOOLDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEDETAILED CROSS SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALENON-WOVENGEOTEXTILESELECT BACKFILL MATERIALBEHIND STRUCTUREHIGH DENSITYLIVE STAKINGNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEBANKFULLSELECTBACKFILL MATERIALSCOUR POOLBELOW STRUCTUREB'BA'ATOE OF SLOPELOG SILLLOG SILLP.C. STATIONPER PLANP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILESTREAMBEDFIT LOGS TIGHTLY TOGETHERDEPARTURE ANGLE VARIES PER PLAN ORAS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER ONSITE1.ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AND LIMBS AND BRANCHES SHALLBE TRIMMED FLUSH. LOGS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 1.5'.2.HEADER LOGS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS TO PROVIDE A SILLUNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. HEADER LOGS SHALL BEOFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTER LOG.3.SET SILL INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS.NO ELEVATIONS OF THE LOG SILL MAY VARY FROM THE PLAN SHEETS WITHOUTDIRECTION FROM THE ENGINEER.4.THE VERTICAL SLOPE OF EACH LOG SHALL NOT EXCEED 1% UNLESSOTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.5.ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCHES BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTERLOGS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH LIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ON THE UPSTREAM SIDEPRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.6.ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE LOGS A LAYER OF NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL THE ENTIRE LENGTH OFTHE LOG. SECURE ALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON TOP OF FOOTER LOG USING 3INCH 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL ON 12 IN SPACING ALONG LOG. NAILNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL.7.SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FILL MATERIAL GENERATED ON-SITEWITH A MINIMUM D50 OF 60 MM OR A GRADATION SUBMITTED IN WRITING ANDAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. A WELL-GRADED BLEND OF NCDOT CLASS ARIP-RAP AND ASTM #57 ROCK MIXED WITH EARTH WILL BE AN ACCEPTABLESUBSTITUTE. SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BECOMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT OF THE MATERIAL IS KEPT TO AMINIMUM.8.THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH ANDCOMPACT SURFACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, ANDCROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. THE DEGREEOF FINISH FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADESAND ELEVATIONS INDICATED.9.RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BEREQUIRED FOLLOWING INSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALLBE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR 700 GRAMLOG SLOPE 0 - 1%BANKFULLHEADERLOGFOOTER LOGBASEFLOW WSEBANKFULL WSEPROPOSED BANKFULL WSEBASEFLOW WSEP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILENOTESLOG SILLDETAILED CROSS SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALELOG SILLEXTEND LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 6.0'.EXTEND LOGS BEYONDBANKFULL STAGE MIN. 4.0 FTPLANT LIVE STAKES IN ROWSFROM TOE OF SLOPE TO 3 FTBEYOND BANKFULLBANKFULLTOE OF SLOPELIVE STAKINGDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALE1.LIVE STAKES MUST BE DORMANT WHEN CUT. KEEP LIVE STAKES MOISTUNTIL PLANTING. THE STAKE SHOULD BE PREPARED WITH THE BUDSPOINTED UP, AND THE BOTTOM SHOULD BE CUT AT AN ANGLE FOR EASYINSERTION INTO THE GROUND.2.LIVE STAKES SHOULD BE PLACED WITH 23 TO 34 OF THE LENGTH OF THESTAKE BELOW GROUND AND ANGLED DOWNSTREAM. ENSURE THE BASEOF THE LIVE STAKE WILL REACH THE WATER TABLE.3.AN IRON BAR CAN BE USED TO MAKE A PILOT HOLE TO PREVENT BARKFROM BEING DAMAGED DURING INSTALLATION.4.INSERT LIVE STAKES POINTED END FIRST INTO THE STREAMBANK.LIVE STAKINGNOTES3'700 GRAM COIRMATTINGLIVE STAKINGDETAILED CROSS SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEDIAMETER VARIES(TYP. 1/2" TO 1")LENGTH VARIES(TYP. 2 TO 4 FT.)LIVE STAKEBASE FLOW WSELIVE STAKES PLANTEDIN OFFEST ROWS PERPLANTING PLANBANKFULLRESTORED CHANNELBARE ROOT PLANTINGDETAILED PLANBUFFER WIDTH VARIESSPACING PERPLANTING PLANEROSION CONTROL MATTING3"INSERT THE DIBBLE, ORSHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWNINTO THE SOIL TO THEFULL DEPTH OF THEBLADE AND PULL BACKON THE HANDLE TO OPENTHE PLANTING HOLE. THEHOLE SHOULD BE (3)TIMES WIDER THAN THETREE'S CURRENT ROOTSYSTEM. DO NOT ROCKTHE SHOVEL BACK ANDFORTH AS THIS CAUSESSOIL IN THE PLANTINGHOLE TO BE COMPACTED,INHIBITING ROOTGROWTH.REMOVE THE DIBBLE, ORSHOVEL, AND PUSH THESEEDLING BACK UP TOTHE CORRECT PLANTINGDEPTH (THE ROOTCOLLAR SHOULD BE 1 TO3 INCHES BELOW THESOIL SURFACE). GENTLYSHAKE THE SEEDLING TOALLOW THE ROOTS TOSPREAD OUT TOENCOURAGE OUTWARDGROWTH. DO NOT TWISTOR SPIN THE SEEDLINGOR LEAVE THE ROOTSJ-ROOTED.INSERT THE DIBBLE, ORSHOVEL, SEVERALINCHES IN FRONT OF THESEEDLING AND PUSH THEBLADE STRAIGHT DOWNINTO THE SOIL TO THEFULL DEPTH OF THEBLADE.PULL BACK ON THEHANDLE TO CLOSE THEBOTTOM OF THEPLANTING HOLE. KEEPTHE TREE VERTICAL INTHE PLANTING HOLE(PERPENDICULAR TO THEGROUND) SO THAT ITGROWS STRAIGHT.PUSH THE HANDLEFORWARD TO GENTLYCLOSE THE TOP OF THEPLANTING HOLE, ANDELIMINATE AIR POCKETSAROUND THE ROOT.REMOVE THE DIBBLE, ORSHOVEL, AND CLOSE ANDFIRM UP THE OPENINGWITH YOUR HEEL. BECAREFUL TO AVOIDDAMAGING THESEEDLING. GENTLY TAMPOUT ANY AIR POCKETSFROM THE SOIL ONCETHE PLANTING HOLE ISFILLED.214365BARE ROOT PLANTINGDETAILED SECTION VIEW1.ALL SOILS WITHIN THE DESIGNATED BUFFER PLANTING AREAS SHALL BEDISKED, AS REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PLANTING.2.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY HANDLED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION TOENSURE SURVIVAL.3.ALLOW BARE ROOTS TO SOAK IN WATER AN HOUR OR TWO BEFOREPLANTING. DO NOT SOAK THE ROOTS FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS.4.ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED TO AN APPROPRIATE LENGTH TOPREVENT J-ROOTING.5.PLANT BARE ROOT IN OFFSET ROWS AND SPACING PER PLANTING PLAN.6.PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE WITH A TRIANGULARCROSS-SECTION, AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4 INCHES WIDE, AND 1INCH THICK AT CENTER.BARE ROOT PLANTINGNOTESNOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALE3' BEYONDBANKFULL6' O.C. LIVE STAKE SPACING / 3' ROW SPACING3' O.C. LIVE STAKE SPACING / 3' ROW SPACINGAA'FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
DETAILS 6.2
RSCDETAILED PROFILE - SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEWSEWSEWSERIFFLE - STEP - POOL SEQUENCESTEP - POOL SEQUENCE6.0'8.0'RSCDETAILED RIFFLE - SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALE4.5'3:13:18.0'RSCDETAILED POOL - SECTION C - C'NOT TO SCALEA'AC'CB'BRSCDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEFLOWCONSTRUCTEDRIFFLEEXTENT OF UNDERLYING FILTERMEDIAPOOLTIE OUT BOULDERKEY INTO SLOPEMIN. 2'EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTOGLIDE MIN. 2 FTBLEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTOSTRUCTURE BACKFILLRIFFLE MATERIALU/S OF STRUCTUREFILTER MEDIAEXISTING EARTH OR FILLMATERIALRIFFLE SLOPE VARIES PER PROFILE8 OZ. HIGH FLOW NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEBOULDER STEP STRUCTUREEXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTO GLIDE MIN. 2'PLACE RIFFLE MATERIAL IN GLIDE U/S OFSTRUCTURE FOR STEP - POOL SEQUENCE MIN. 2'RIFFLESTEPPOOLRIFFLESTEPPOOLSTEPPOOLRIFFLEGLIDEFILTER MEDIA DEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH = 2.5'8 OZ. HIGH FLOW NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE4.5'FILTER MEDIA DEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH = 1.5'FILTER MEDIAEXISTING EARTH OR FILLMATERIAL0.5'CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE50% NC DOT CLASS A, 50% NC DOT CLASS BMIN. 0.75 ' DEPTHEROSION CONTROL MATTING700 GRAM COIRFILTER MEDIAEXISTING EARTH OR FILLMATERIALEROSION CONTROL MATTING700 GRAM COIRSUPERIMPOSED U/SRIFFLE CROSS-SECTION1.5'MINIMUM 1.5'MINIMUM 2.5'FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
DETAILS 6.3
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE50% NC DOT CLASS A50% NC DOT CLASS BMIN 0.75' DEPTHA'A ELEVATION POINT DESCRIPTIONELV. PT. POINT DESCRIPTION1 ELEVATION OF CENTERLINE OF CHANNEL AT HEAD OF BOULDER STEP2 ELEVATION OF CENTERLINE OF CHANNEL AT MAXIMUM POOL DEPTH3 ELEVATION OF STRUCTURE ARM AT TOE OF SLOPE AND TIE OUT POINT1.ALL BOULDERS SHALL BE NATIVE STRUCTURAL STONE OR SHOT ROCK,CUBICAL OR RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE.2.DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES OF STRUCTURES MAY BE ADJUSTED BY DESIGNENGINEER ONSITE TO PER FIELD CONDITIONS.3.BOULDERS SHALL BE 1.5 FT X 2.5 FT X 1.5 FT +/- 0.5 FT.4.CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO FIT STRUCTURE BOULDERS TIGHTLY.5.GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS SHALL BE MINIMIZED BY FITTING BOULDERSTOGETHER AND PLUGGING WITH STRUCTURE STONE CLASS A AND SELECTMATERIAL ONSITE OR OTHER CHINKING STONE APPROVED BY DESIGNENGINEER.6.FOOTER BOULDER SHALL BE PLACED INTO THE FILTER MEDIA A MINIMUM OFTHE BOULDER THICKNESS.7.SLOPE OF BOULDERS FROM CENTERLINE TO THE TOP OF THE STRUCTUREARM SHALL BE 2-4%.8.8OZ. NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAMSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT PIPING OF STREAM FLOW ANDWASHOUT OF FILTER MEDIA THROUGH BOULDER GAPS. FILTER FABRIC SHALLEXTEND FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER BOULDER TO THE FINISHEDGRADE OF THE HEADER BOULDER AND SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRELENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE.9.TIE OUT BOULDERS SHALL BE KEYED INTO THE TERRACE SLOPE A MINIMUMOF 2 FT. WHERE THIS CONFLICTS WITH SIGNIFICANT TREE ROOTS ORBEDROCK, THE TIE OUT BOULDERS MAY BE ADJUSTED OR ELIMINATED BY THEDESIGN ENGINEER ONSITE.10.THERE SHALL BE NO ELEVATION DROP GREATER THAN 0.5 FT OVER A SINGLESTEP (SEE PROPOSED PROFILE) .11.THE STRUCTURE ELEVATION TABLE IS INCLUDED ON SHEET____.12.WSE = WATER SURFACE ELEVATION13.ELV. PT. = ELEVATION POINT (DESCRIBED IN TABLE BELOW)B'BPOOLFLOW
17.0'TOE OF SLOPESEE TYP. SECTIONHIGH DENSITY LIVE STAKING8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILETIE OUT BOULDERKEY INTO SLOPE MIN. 2'EXTENTS OF FILTER MEDIAVEGETATED BENCHSEE TYP. SECTION8.0'3.2'FLOW
ELV. PT. 1ELV. PT. 2ELV. PT. 3BLEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTOSTRUCTURE BACKFILLPOOLWSEFLOW8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER MEDIADEPTH PER PROFILECONSTRUCTED RIFFLE50% NC DOT CLASS A50% NC DOT CLASS BMIN.0.75 ' DEPTHELV. PT. 1ELV. PT. 2ELV. PT. 3BOULDER STEP STRUCTUREPLANNOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTUREDIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONSNOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTURESECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTURESECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTURENOTES22.0'ELV. PT. 1FILTER MEDIAEXISTING STREAM BEDOR ONSITE FILL MATERIALTIE OUT BOULDERKEY INTO SLOPE MIN. 2'ELV. PT. 2MINIMIZE BOULDER GAPS WITHTIGHT FIT AND CHINKINGD/S WSEU/S WSEHEADER BOULDERFOOTER BOULDER3-5% ARM SLOPE8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILERSC BOULDER STEPFINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
DETAILS 6.4
DETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEDETAILED CROSS SECTION A - A'WETLAND FEATUREWETLAND FEATURE1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BUILD THE WETLAND FEATURE TO BALANCEEARTHWORK FOR THE PROJECT. WETLAND DIMENSIONS MAY BE CHANGED PERTHE ENGINEER BUT THE WETLAND MUST MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTSSET IN THIS DETAIL.2.THE RIFFLE THALWEG ELEVATION OF THE RECEIVING STREAM SHALL BE THEPERMANENT POOL ELEVATION FOR THE WETLAND FEATURE. THE RIFFLECHANNEL BED SHALL ACT AS A OUTLET WEIR.3.THE PERMANENT POOL SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 20 FEET AND AMINIMUM LENGTH OF 20 FEET.4.THE WETLAND SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM POOL DEPTH OF 3 FEET BELOWPERMANENT POOL ELEVATION.5.SLOPES SHALL BE GRADED TO A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 4:1 FROM THEPERMANENT POOL ELEVATION TO THE MAXIMUM DEPTH OF THE POOL.6.THE GLIDE OF THE POOL SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 2:1 FROM THE MAXPOOL DEPTH UP TO THE HEAD OF THE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE.7.ABOVE THE PERMANENT POOL ELEVATION, SIDESLOPES SHALL BE TIED INTOTHE EXISTING GRADE AT A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 3:1.8.ALL DISTURBED SLOPES ABOVE PERMANENT POOL ELEVATION SHALL BESEEDED WITH TEMPORARY SEED MIX AND PERMANENT SEED MIX.9.WETLAND SLOPES THAT ARE 3 FEET ABOVE PERMANENT POOL ELEVATION AND1.5 FEET BELOW PERMANENT POOL ELEVATION SHALL BE SEEDED WITH AWETLAND SEED MIX.NOTESWETLAND FEATUREDETAILED CROSS SECTION B - B'WETLAND FEATUREB'BA'ADEEPPOOLPROPOSED RIFFLE(TYP. SEE SHEET 3.1)TOP OF BANKTOE OF SLOPEEXTEND RIFFLEMATERIAL INTO GLIDE2 FT MIN.PERMANENT POOLSURFACE AREAVEGETATEDSHELF2:1
MAX
.3:1 MAX.TIE TO EXISTING4:1 MAX.20' MIN.PERMANENT POOL WSEPROPOSED BANKFULL WSEPROPOSED RIFFLE(TYP. SEE SHEET 3.1)2' MIN.EXTEND RIFFLEMATERIAL INTO GLIDEMAX POOL DEPTH2.8' MIN.RSC FILTER MEDIA20' MIN.PERMANENT POOL WSEPROPOSED BANKFULL WSEPROPOSED RIFFLE(TYP. SEE SHEET 3.1)TOP OF BANKMAX POOL DEPTH2.8' MIN.START RSC SEQUENCE(TYP. SEE RSC DETAIL)PROPOSEDTHALWEG ELV.PROPOSED RIFFLEFLOODPLAIN GRADING(TYP. SEE SHEET 3.1)3:1 MAX.4:1 MAX.3:1 MAX.4:1 MAX.TIE TO EXISTING8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILENOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALE3:1 MAX. GRADINGTIE TO EXISTING8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEEXISTING EARTHOR FILL MATERIALEXISTING EARTHOR FILL MATERIALFILL TO AT LEAST70% OF FILL DEPTHEXISTINGDITCH25' MIN.75' MAX.EXISTING DITCH BOTTOMEXISTING GROUND SURFACE ELEV.BACKFILLDITCH FILLDETAILED PLAN AND PROFILE VIEW1.FILL EXISTING DITCH TO THE ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING GROUNDSURFACE IF POSSIBLE.2.IF THE ENTIRE DITCH CANNOT BE FILLED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT SOILMATERIAL, THEN FILL TO THE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE FOR 25 FEETOUT OF EVERY 100 FEET SEGMENT. REMAINING DITCH SEGMENTSSHALL BE FILLED AT LEAST 70%.DITCH FILLNOTESNOT TO SCALE25' MIN.75' MAX.ADJACENT EXISTINGGROUND SURFACEFILL DEPTH VARIES(2.5' MAX.)1.CONSTRUCT FORD CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.2.HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFOREWORK BEGINS.3.FORD CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO CHANNELBANKS.4.ALIGN ROAD APPROACHES WITH THE CENTER OF THE CROSSING FOR AMINIMUM OF 20 FEET.5.CONSTRUCT THE FORD CROSSING SO THAT A LOW FLOW THALWEG ISMAINTAINED THROUGH THE CROSSING. DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNELBOTTOM.6.GRADE FORD CROSSING FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO THE FLOODPLAIN AT5:1 OR SHALLOWER.7.THE SIDES OF THE ACCESS SLOPE SHALL BE GRADED PERPENDICULARTO THE FORD CROSSING AT A MAX SLOPE OF 3:1.8.TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO SIDE SLOPES IFPOSSIBLE.9.MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROADDOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.10.GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ALONG THE LENGTH OFTHE FORD CROSSING AND ACCESS SLOPES.11.CLASS B RIPRAP SHALL BE OVERLAIN WITH CLASS A RIPRAP WITH AMINIMUM THICKNESS OF 1.5 FEET ON THE CHANNEL BED AND A MINIMUMTHICKNESS OF 1 FOOT ON ACCESS SLOPES AND FLOODPLAIN.12.RIPRAP MIX SHALL EXTEND 20 FEET PAST THE ACCESS SLOPES ONTOTHE FLOODPLAIN13.WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 16 FEET.PERMANENT FORD CROSSINGNOTES20' MIN.20' MIN.TOP OF BANKTO
P

O
F

B
A
N
K 5:1MAX.TOE
TOE
MAINTAIN LOW FLOW THALWEGTHROUGH CROSSING5:1 MAX.5:1 MAX.CLASS B RIPRAP OVERLAINWITH CLASS A RIPRAPFILTER FABRICBASE FLOW WSEPERMANENT FORD CROSSINGDETAILED CROSS SECTION A - A'PERMANENT FORD CROSSINGDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALE20' MIN.20' MIN.A'A5:1MAX.1.5' MIN. THICKNESSALONG CHANNEL BED1' MIN. THICKNESSON ACCESS SLOPES1' MAX.SURFACE FLOWDIVERSIONINSET5.0'0.5'INSET3" MIN. OFCLASS ASTONE16' MIN
SURFACE FLOW
DIVERSION SURFACE FLOWDIVERSION5'5'NOT TO SCALE20'FLOWTOP OF BANKTOE OF BANKTOP OF BANKTOE OF BANKSURFACE FLOWDIVERSIONPERMANENT FORD CROSSINGISOMETRIC VIEW OF GRADINGNOT TO SCALE70% FILL DEPTH(MIN.)FILL TO EXISTINGADJACENT GROUNDSURFACEWIDTH VARIES(12' MIN.)A'APROFILE SECTION VIEW A - A'FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
MAY 1, 2020
DETAILS 6.5