20181274 Ver 1_401 Application_20200805

DWR
Dlrlslon of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
April 11, 2020 Ver 3.1
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
G Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned
20181274
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
Select Project Reviewer*
Erin Davis:eads\ebdavis
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Jeff Keaton
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
8/5/2020
Nearest Body of Water
Hanks Branch
Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
Water Classification
C
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
36.327449
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Wilkes
Is this a NCDMS Project
r Yes r No
Longitude:
-81.008201
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
W Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
Version#*
1
Reviewing Office*
Central Office - [phone]
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
V
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?

W Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
r Standard (IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
r Individual Permit
27 - Restoration
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
F- 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
F- Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
eApproval Letter Lyon Hills_SAW-2018-01784.pdf
1h. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
4 Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
r Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Hoarce Randle Wood
2b. Deed book and page no.:
Deed Book: 1156 PG106
2c. Responsible party:
2d.Address
Street Address
PO Box 9
Address Line 2
aty
Thurmond
Rbstal / Zip Cate
28683
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
jkeaton@\AAldlandseng.com
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
John Irving Lyon
Slate / Province / legion
North Carolina
Country
United States
2f. Fax Number:
212.01 KB
r Yes r No
r Yes r No
U

2b. Deed book and page no.:
Deed Book:557 PG:433
2c. Responsible party:
2d.Address
Street Address
PO Box 122
Address tine 2
City
Traphill
Postal / Zip Code
28685
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Mikey Durham; Linda Durham
2b. Deed book and page no.:
Deed Book: 1249 PG 99
2c. Responsible party
2d.Address
Street Address
10333 Austin Traphill Road
Address Une 2
City
Traphill
Postal / Zip Code
28685
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
3a. Name:
Lin Xu
3b. Business Name:
NC Division of Mitigation Services
3c.Address
Street Address
206 W ,ones St
Address Une 2
Suite 3001
City
Raleigh
Postal / Zip (ode
27604
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Jeff Keaton
4b. Business Name:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
4c.Address
State / Province / Region
North Carolina
Country
United States
2f. Fax Number
State / Province / legion
North Carolina
Country
United States
2f. Fax Number:
State / Province / legion
North Carolina
Ccwntry
United States
3e. Fax Number:

Street Address
312 W Millbrook
Address tine 2
Suite 225
aty
Raleigh
Postal / Zip Code
27609
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Agent Authorization Letter*
LOA.pdf
Slate / Frmince / Paggion
North Carolina
Country
United States
4e. Fax Number:
539.15KB
C. Project Information and Prior Project History C"U
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropnate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Traphill
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
4904-85-2899; 4904-74-6732; 4904-94-1831;
4904-63-7463;4904-73-6035
2c. Project Address
Street Address
334 Lyon Ridge
Address Line 2
city
Traphill
Postal / Zip Code
28685
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Hanks Branch
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
C
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Yadkin-PeeDee
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030401010405
4. Project Description and History
2b. Property size:
20.72 acres (conservation easement)
Slate / Frmince / Paggion
North Carolina
Country
United States
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The Site is located in a rural watershed in Wilkes County. Land immediately surrounding the project area is either maintained as pasture or is forested with a grazed understory. The
continual cattle access has led to bank erosion, trampling of bed features, fining of substrate material, animal waste in the streams, and reduced habitat quality. The general land use
surrounding the project consist mostly of forest and agriculture.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
t^ Yes r No r Unknown
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
TopoMap_Lyons.pdf 356.13KB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
SoilsMap_Lyon.pdf 495.81 KB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.965

4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
10,046.45
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purposed of the proposed project is to provide stream mitigation credits in the Yadkin River 03040101 service area. Mitigation practices will include stream restoration, stream
enhancement I, stream enhancement 11, and riparian buffer planting.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
Stream restoration vdll involve excavation of a new channel that is designed to be functional and stable. Stream dimension, pattern, and profile have been designed to provide a cross
sectional area sized for frequent overbank flows, a stable bed with variable bed forms using in -stream structures, well vegetated bank slopes, a well-connected floodplain, and
improvements to aquatic habitat. The channelized streams and ditches will be backfilled. Enhancement I treatment entails elevating the channel bed using fill material. Reaches
proposed for enhancement II are generally stable and most of the channel will be left in place with a fewshort sections of relocation. The project area will be placed in a conservation
easement to protect the project in perpetuity. Native trees and herbaceous plants Will be planted on the streambank and floodplain. Excavators and bulldozers will be used for channel
excavation/filling and floodplain grading. Off road dump trucks will be used for hauling soil.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
Impacts_LyonHills.pdf 6.15MB
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the propertyor proposed impact areas?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2018-01784
5c. If Sa is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Charlie Neaves
Agency/Consultant Company: Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Other:
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made bythe Corps or DWR
USACE Field Determination February 11, 2020
PJD form issued April 2, 2020
PJD Documentation Attached to Mitigation Plan.
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
SAW-2018-01781_NCDMS-LyonHillsMitSite_PJD.pdf 3.18MB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
W Wetlands W Streams -tributaries r Buffers
W Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
W1
W2
2a1 Reason (?)
Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration
2b. Impact type * (?)
T
P
2c. Type of W.
Headwater Forest
Headwater Forest
2d. W. name *
Wetland C
Wetland E
2e. Forested *
�N.
�No
2C Type of ��2g.
Jurisdicition*(?)
Both ]0.009
Both ]0.002
Impact
area*
(acres)
(acres)
W3
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
Wetland E
��B.th
]0.001
(acres)

W4
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
Wetland F
No
Both
0.047
(acres)
WS
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
Wetland F
No
Both
0.084
(acres)
W6
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
Wetland M
No
Both
0.004
(acres)
Stream Restoration
T
ffmland Hardwood Forest
Wetland O
��Both
009
jF0
(acres)
W8
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
Wetland R
��Both
0.002
(acres)
W9
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
Wetland R
Both
0.011
(acres)
W10
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
Wetland U
Both
0.001
(acres)
W11
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
Wetland U
No
Both
0. 002
(acres)
W12
Stream Restoration
T
Seep
Wetland V
No
Both
0.005
(acres)
W13
Stream Restoration
P
Seep
Wetland V
No
Both
0.002
(acres)
W14
Stream Restoration
T
mland Hardwood Forest
ff
Wetland X
�N.
Both
0.004
(acres)
W15
Stream Restoration
T
Headwater Forest
Wetland Y
�Both
0. 333
j
(acres)
W16
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
Wetland Y
No
Both
0.009
(acres)
W17
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
Wetland Z
Yes
Both
0.004
(acres)
W18
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
Wetland AA
Yes
Both
0.004
(acres)
W19
Stream Restoration
P
Headwater Forest
Wetland BB
Yes
Both
0.017
(acres)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.162
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.250
2h. Comments:
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.088
The wetland labels in the PCN (W1, W2, etc.) refer specifically to individual proposed impact areas within the existing onsite wetlands (Wetland A,
Wetland B, etc.). For example, Wetland C (as labeled in the mitigation plan and JD) has two separate proposed impacts, labeled in the PCN as Impact
W3 (permanent impact) and Impact W4 (temporary impact). The impact table includes a column that relates the impact # to the Wetland name. The
Stream and Wetland Impact Map included as part of the PCN package does not include labels with existing wetland names, but instead includes labels
for each proposed impact area within the existing wetlands.
3. Stream Impacts
3a. Reason for impact (?)
3b.lmpact type *
3c. Type of impact*
3d. S. name *
3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of
3g. S. width*
�3h. Impact
❑
(?)
Jurisdiction*
length*
S1
Stream Enhancement
Permanent
Other
Hanks Branch
Perennial
Both
13
666
Average (feet)
(lir�rfee[)
S2
Stream Enhancement
Tem orar
p y
Other
Hanks Branch
Perennial
Both
13
174
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S3
Stream Restoration
Permanent
Relocation
UT1
Perennial
Both
7
911
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S4
Stream
Permanent
Relocation
UT3
Perennial
Both
6
1,488
Restoration/Enhancement
Average (feet)
(linearfeet)
S5
Stream Enhancement
Permanent
Stabilization
UT3A
Intermittent
Both
5
7
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
S6
Stream Stabilization
Permanent
Other
UT313
Perennial
Both
5
57
Average (feet)
(lir�rfeet)
$7
Stream
Permanent
Relocation
UT4
Perennial
Both
448
Restoration/Enhancement
Average (feet)
(lirearfeet)

SS
Stream Permanent Relocation UT5 Intermittent Both 5 210
Restoration/Enhancement Average (feet) (linearfeet)
31. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
31. Total permanent stream impacts:
3,787
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
2474
3j. Comments:
4.Open Water Impacts
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
174
4a. Site # 4a1. Impact Reason 4b. Impact type 4c. Name of waterbody 4d. Activity type 4e. Waterbody type 4f. Impact area
F01 Pond Removal P Pond A Dewatering Pond 0.03
4g. Total temporary open water Impacts:
0.00
4g. Total open water impacts:
0.03
4h. Comments:
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
4g. Total permanent open water impacts:
0.03
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Stream restoration and enhancement I activities will introduce fill material to existing stream reaches, but are designed to have an overall positive
impact. Stream alignments were designed to avoid impacts to existing wetland as much as possible. Enhancement II reaches will primarily involve cattle
exclusion and riparian buffer improvement. Unavoidable impacts are due to floodplain grading or conversion of wetland to stream resource. The
project will likely result in a net increase in wetland area as a result of raising stream beds and local water tables.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Restoration will involve construction of offline channel sections which will minimize sedimentation to aquatic systems during construction. Newly
constructed channel bed and banks Will be stabilized using biodegradable coir fiber matting and seeded and planted with native riparian species.
Temporary construction crossings will be minimized. Construction practices Will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
and Design Manual.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
Projects authorized under NWP 27 are exempt from compensatory mitigation.
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
This project will not result in concentrated overland flow within or near the buffer.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r' Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15ANCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
G. Supplementary Information

1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North Carolina)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?*
r Yes f No
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized bythe State Clearing House?*
r Yes r No
NEPAor SEPA Final Approval Letter
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15ANCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?*
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Development is explicitly prohibited in conservation easement areas, and the project is not expected to encourage nor facilitate future development.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No
r Unknown
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
USFWS and NC Natural Heritage program databases were utilized. Since the project is located within a White Nose Syndrome zone and will include the
removal/clearing of approAmately 0.49 acres of trees but no records indicate known NLEB populations within 2.0 miles for the study area, the project
was eligible to use the NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form. The USFWS did not respond to the letter requesting comments. Therefore, the
signing of the NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form by the FHWA determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any resulting
incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule. Due to the absence of species, Wildlands determined that the project "may affect,
but is not likely to adversely affect' the bog turtle and has "no effect" on the rusty -patched bumble bee. ESA correspondence is included in the
Categorical Exclusion.
Consultation Documentation Upload
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)

6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper was utilized. USFWS and NCWRC were contacted regarding fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed
project. No concerns were identified regarding essential fish habitat. Correspondence is included in the Categorical Exclusion.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
NCSHPO was contacted regarding the presence of historical properties or cultural resources within the project area. SHPO commented that they were
aware of no historic or cultural resources that would be affected by the project. Correspondence is included in the Categorical Exclusion.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Wildlands is coordinating with the Wilkes County floodplain administrator to ensure all regulatory requirements
are met. All necessary permits will be
obtained.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA FIRM Panels 3710490400J
Miscellaneous
u
Comments
See the approved Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document in Mitigation Plan for additional information.
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Lyon Hills401 COffice. pdf
393.97KB
LyonHills401 FeeMemo.pdf
371.86KB
Lyon Hills IRT Comment Response.pdf
266.04KB
Lyon Hills_100085_ MP_2020.pdf
64.56MB
Signature
*
P By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Lin Xu
Signature
�iri-��
Full Name (Co -Signor)*
Jeff Keaton
Co -Signor Signature *
Date
8/5/2020

August 5, 2020
Erin Davis, Stream / Wetland Mitigation Specialist
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1617
Re: Permit Application- Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Mitigation Project, Wilkes
County (DMS Full Delivery Project)
Dear Ms. Davis:
Attached for your review is 404/401 permit application package for the subject project. A memo
for the permit application fee is also included in the package. Per agreement between DMS and
DWR, the hard copy of the final mitigation plan is not included in the submittal. However, the
electronic copy of the final mitigation plan along with all other electronic files (uploaded along
with the ePCN for the project) have been uploaded to NC DWR’s file system. Please feel free to
contact me with any questions regarding this plan (919-707-8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package
Permit Application Fee Memo
Lin Xu
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Debby Davis
FROM: Lin Xu
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
August 5, 2020
The Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is implementing a mitigation project
for Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Mitigation Project in Wilkes County (DMS IMS # 100085).
The activities associated with this restoration project involve stream restoration related
temporary stream and wetland impact. To conduct these activities, the DMS must
submit a Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Form to the Division of Water Resources
(DWR) for review and approval. The DWR assesses a fee of $570.00 for this review.
Please transfer $570.00 from DMS Fund # 2984, Account # 535120 to DWR as
payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be
reached at 919-707-8319. Thanks for your assistance.
cc: Erin Davis, DWR
LX

July 14, 2020

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Lyon Hills Mitigation Site / Wilkes
Co./ SAW-2018-01784/ NCDMS Project # 100085

Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Dear Mr. Baumgartner:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the Lyon Hills Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed
on May 24, 2020. These comments are attached for your review.

Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.

The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the
project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in
the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not
satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan,
but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation
credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

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

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please call me at 919-554-4884, ext 60.

Sincerely,

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:

NCIRT Distribution List
Kelly Phillips, Paul Wiesner—DMS
Jeff Keaton—WEI

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 557 Page: 433 County: Wilkes
Estate Files: 00-E Page: 173 County: Wilkes
Parcel ID Number: 4904-73-6035, 4904-82-1964
Street Address: 1315 and 1317 Hanks Street, Traphill, NC
Property Owner (please print): John Irving Lyon
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a
potential stream, wetland and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream
and/or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required
permit(s) or certification(s). I agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of
Engineers, to visit the property as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address: PO Box 122, Traphill, NC 28685
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 336-984-9380
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 1156 Page: 106 County: Wilkes
Parcel ID Number(s): 1902594, 1900851, 1900876
Street Address: 334 Lyon Ridge, Traphill NC 28685
Property Owner (please print): Horace Randle Wood
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a
potential stream, wetland and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream
and/or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required
permit(s) or certification(s). I agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of
Engineers, to visit the property as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address: PO Box 9, Thurmond NC 28683
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 336-413-1794
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Authorized
(Date)

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 1249 Page: 99 County: Wilkes
Parcel ID Number: 1902501
Street Address: 10246 Austin Traphill Road, Traphill, NC 28685
Property Owner (please print): Mikey Durham
Property Owner (please print): Linda Durham
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a
potential stream, wetland and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream
and/or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required
permit(s) or certification(s). I agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of
Engineers, to visit the property as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address: 10333 Austin Traphill Road, Traphill, NC 28685
(if different from above) p
Property Owner Telephone Number: =�jT(� �j �-- �C1��. (-mot " 7 &/
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
- a--2 c/ ?
(Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

¹USGS Topographic MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 0 304010 1
Wilkes County, NC
Project Location
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
Purlear USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
0 600300 Feet
¹Soils MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 0 304010 1
Wilkes County, NC
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
0 600300 Feet
Figure 3c. Stream ImpactsFigure 3f. Wetland Impacts
U T3U
T
4
H a n k s B r a n c h
Sp
arks CreekUT5U T 5 A
UT3A
UT3BUT5 UT1UT2
UT2AUT to Sparks CreekUT3Hanks BranchNC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3 Impact Map KeyLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 300150 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Conservation Easement
Delineated Wetlands
Open Water
Existing Intermittent Streams
Existing Perennial Streams
Figure 3a. Stream ImpactsFigure 3d. Wetland Impacts
Figure 3b. Stream ImpactsFigure 3e. Wetland Impacts
S8 - Relocation
S8 - Relocation
S7 - Relocation
S1 - J-hook
S7 - Relocation
S7 - Log sill
S1 - Boulder sill
Sparks CreekUT5 UT5A
H anks BranchUT4UT5UT to Sparks CreekPond A
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3a Stream Impact - Sh eet 1Lyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Conservation Easem ent
Delineated Wetlands
Open Water
Existing Intermittent St reams
Existing Perennial Strea ms
Permanent Stream Impact
S4 - Relocation
S7 - Relocation
S7 - Relocation
S1 - J-hook
S1 - Bank repairs,log vane
S4 - Relocation
S2 - Smooth in-channel bed material
S4 - Bank repairs
S4 - Log sill, bank repairs
S4 - Log sill
S5 - Riffle construction
S1 - Log sill, bank repairs
S6 - Log sill
S1 - Boulder sill
S1 - Boulder toe
S7 - Log sill
U
T
3
U
T
4
Hanks BranchUT3A
UT3B
UT2
UT2AUT3H a n k s B r a n c h
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3b Stream Impact - Sheet 2Lyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Conservation Easem ent
Delineated Wetlands
Existing Intermittent S tream s
Existing Perennial Streams
Permanent Stream Impact
Temporary Stream Im pact
Hanks BranchUT1
Hanks Branch
UT2
UT2A
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3c. Stream Impact - Sheet 3Lyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Conservation Easement
Delineated Wetlands
Existing Imterm ittent Streams
Existing Perennial Streams
Permanent Stream Impact
Temporary Stream Impact
S3 - Relocation
S1 - Bank Repairs
S1 - Bank Repairs
S1 - Bank Repairs, log sill
S1 - Log sill
S1 - Bank Repairs, log sill
S2 - Smooth in-channelbed material
S1 - Log sill
W17 - Floodplain grading, stream relocation
W19 - Floodplain grading, stream relocation
W15 - Floodplain grading
W16 - Stream relocation
Sp
arks CreekUT5 UT5 A
H anks B ranchUT4UT5UT to Sparks CreekW18 - Floodplain grading, stream relocation
O1 - Pond Removal
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3d Wetland Impac t - Sheet 1Lyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Conservation Easem ent
Delineated Wetlands
Open Water Impa ct
Permanent Wetland Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Existing Intermittent St reams
Existing Perennial Strea ms
W11 - Fill floodplainW10 - Stream relocation
W13 - Stream relocation
W8 - Stream relocation W9 - Floodplain grading
W15 - Floodplain grading
W6 - Floodplain grading
W7 - Stream repairs
W16 - Stream relocation
W14 - Temporary crossing
W12 - Fill floodplain
U
T
3
U
T
4
Hanks BranchUT3A
UT3B
UT2
UT2AUT3H a n k s B r a n c h
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3e Wetland Impact - Sheet 2Lyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Conservation Easement
Po ten tia l Wa ters of the US
Pe rman ent Wetland Impact
Te mp orary Wetland Impact
Intermitten t Non-Wetlan d Waters
Pe re nnia l N on-Wetland Waters
Hanks BranchW2 - Stream Relocation
W4 - Stream Relocation
W5 - Floodplain grading
W5 - Floodplain grading
W4 - Stream Relocation
W3 - Floodplain grading
W6 - Floodplain grading
UT2
UT2AHanks Branch
W1 - Floodplain grading
UT1
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3f. Wetland Impact - Sheet 3Lyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Conservation Easement
Delineated Wetlands
Permanent Wetland Impact
Temporary Wetland Impact
Intermittent Non-Wetland Waters
Perennial Non-Wetland Waters
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. SAW-2018-01784 County: Wilkes U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Traphill
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Requestor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Charlie Neaves
Address: 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone Number: 919-851-9986
E-mail: [e-mail]

Size (acres) 52 Nearest Town Traphill
Nearest Waterway Hanks Branch River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040101 Coordinates Latitude: 36.327449
Longitude: -81.008201
Location description: The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is located at 334 Lyon Ridge, south of Austin-Traphill Road and north of
Hanks Street in Traphill, Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
☒ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map received 2/18/2020.
Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining
compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource
protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be
affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.
☐ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination

☐ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
☐The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
SAW-2018-01784
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, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [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 Steve Kichefski at 828-271-7980 ext. 4234 or
[e-mail].
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form signed 04/02/2020.
D. Remarks: None.

E. Attention USDA Program Participants

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

F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)

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

US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shannin, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801

In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**

Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________

Date of JD: 04/02/2020 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable
SAW-2018-01784
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0

Copy furnished:

Property Owner: John Lyon
Address: PO Box 122
Traphill, NC 28685
Telephone Number: 336-984-9380
E-mail: n/a

Property Owner: Horace Wood
Address: PO Box 9
Thurmond, NC 28683
Telephone Number: 336-413-1794
E-mail: n/a

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: Wildlands Engineering, Inc., Charlie Neaves File Number: SAW-2018-01784 Date: 04/02/2020
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 or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

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
Attn: Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Phillip Shannin, 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: Steve Kichefski, 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. Phillip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATI ON
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 04/02/2020
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Wildlands Engineering, Inc., Charlie Neaves,
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225, Raleigh, NC 27609
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, NCDMS Lyon Hills Mitigation
Site, SAW-2018-01784
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is located
at 334 Lyon Ridge, south of Austin-Traphill Road and north of Hanks Street in Traphill, Wilkes County, North
Carolina.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Wilkes City: Traphill
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 36.327449 Longitude: -81.008201
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Hanks Branch
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

☐Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
☒Field Determination. Date(s): February 11, 2020 with Steve Kichefski (USACE) and Charlie Neaves (Wildlands
Engineering, Inc.)
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION

Site Number Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated
amount of
aquatic
resources in
review area
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs.
non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section 404
or Section 10/404)
1 2 3 4 5 6
See attached
table and map

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and
obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having
discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may
be appropriate.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction
notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit,
and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is
hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic
resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and
conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could
possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions;
(3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a
permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary;
(5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without
requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a
permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in
reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that
all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as
jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial
compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and
(7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as
soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and
conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to
make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in
the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable
waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: _______BBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____BBBBBBBBBBBB.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
or Other (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Other information (please specify): ______________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
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 staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
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.
9/3/19
Signature and date of
1:12000 Traphill Quadrangle
Web Soil Survey
NC Onemap, 2018
Table 1. Summary of On-Site Jurisdictional Waters Feature Latitude Longitude Cowardin Class Estimated Amount of Aquatic Resource in Review Area Class of Aquatic Resource Sparks Creek 36.326588 -81.012224 Riverine - Streambed 1117.02 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) Hanks Branch 36.326727 -81.008730 Riverine - Streambed 3558.14 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT to Sparks Creek 36.325918 -81.011459 Unconsolidated Bottom 39.38 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent) UT1 36.330269 -81.004109 Riverine - Streambed 871.01 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT2 36.326555 -81.006409 Riverine - Streambed 78.08 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT2A 36.326418 -81.006362 Unconsolidated Bottom 49.88 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent) UT3 36.328733 -81.007952 Riverine - Streambed 2151.66 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT3A 36.330059 -81.008677 Unconsolidated Bottom 252.54 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent) UT3B 36.327005 -81.007829 Riverine-Streambed 161.51 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT4 36.327420 -81.009886 Riverine - Streambed 757.47 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT5 36.329714 -81.012342 Riverine – Streambed 691.75 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent/Perennial) UT5A 36.328847 -81.011757 Riverine - Streambed 318.01 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) Wetland A 36.329405 -81.002931 Palustrine – Emergent 0.007 Potential Waters of the US Wetland B 36.329402 -81.002931 Palustrine – Emergent 0.014 Potential Waters of the US
Feature Latitude Longitude Cowardin Class Estimated Amount of Aquatic Resource in Review Area Class of Aquatic Resource Wetland C 36.329344 -81.003610 Palustrine – Emergent 0.015 Potential Waters of the US Wetland D 36.32930077 -81.003679 Palustrine – Emergent 0.002 Potential Waters of the US Wetland E 36.3293255 -81.003815 Palustrine – Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US Wetland F 36.329893 -81.003971 Palustrine – Emergent 0.431 Potential Waters of the US Wetland G 36.328956 -81.004307 Palustrine – Emergent 0.019 Potential Waters of the US Wetland H 36.328800 -81.004239 Palustrine – Emergent 0.009 Potential Waters of the US Wetland I 36.328212 -81.005166 Palustrine – Emergent 0.035 Potential Waters of the US Wetland J 36.327736 -81.005399 Palustrine – Emergent 0.012 Potential Waters of the US Wetland K 36.328475 -81.004579 Palustrine – Emergent 0.016 Potential Waters of the US Wetland L 36.327298 -81.005863 Palustrine – Emergent 0.010 Potential Waters of the US Wetland M 36.327199 -81.006090 Palustrine – Emergent 0.005 Potential Waters of the US Wetland N 36.326540 -81.007134 Palustrine – Emergent 0.011 Potential Waters of the US Wetland O 36.326883 -81.007695 Palustrine – Emergent 0.078 Potential Waters of the US Wetland P 36.327042 -81.007960 Palustrine – Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US Wetland Q 36.327034 -81.008272 Palustrine – Emergent 0.032 Potential Waters of the US Wetland R 36.327812 -81.007827 Palustrine – Emergent 0.013 Potential Waters of the US Wetland S 36.329508 -81.008101 Palustrine – Emergent 0.010 Potential Waters of the US Wetland T 36.329670 -81.008202 Palustrine – Emergent 0.023 Potential Waters of the US Wetland U 36.330603 -81.008076 Palustrine – Emergent 0.005 Potential Waters of the US Wetland V 36.330966 -81.007904 Palustrine – Emergent 0.021 Potential Waters of the US
Feature Latitude Longitude Cowardin Class Estimated Amount of Aquatic Resource in Review Area Class of Aquatic Resource Wetland W 36.329104 -81.008115 Palustrine – Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US Wetland X 36.326493 -81.009214 Palustrine – Emergent 0.007 Potential Waters of the US Wetland Y 36.328073 -81.010287 Palustrine – Emergent 0.079 Potential Waters of the US Wetland Z 36.327737 -81.012955 Palustrine – Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US Wetland AA 36.328023 -81.012816 Palustrine – Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US Wetland BB 36.328311 -81.012775 Palustrine – Emergent 0.017 Potential Waters of the US Wetland CC 36.328828 -81.011586 Palustrine – Emergent 0.028 Potential Waters of the US Wetland DD 36.328828 -81.011586 Palustrine – Emergent 0.046 Potential Waters of the US Pond A 36.328205 -81.012852 Palustrine – Unconsolidated Bottom 0.033 Potential Waters of the US
Figure 3b
UT3
U
T
4
Hanks Branch
Sp
a
r
k
s

C
r
e
e
kUT5UT5A
UT3A
UT3
BUT5 UT1UT2
UT2AUT to Sparks CreekUT3Hanks BranchNC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3a Site Map OverviewLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 300150 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
2 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Culvert
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
Open Water
Figure 3d
Figure 3c
DP 8
DP 7
DP 6
DP 5
DP 4
DP 3
DP 2
DP 1
Wetland F
Wetland I
Wetland K
Wetland C Wetland B
Wetland J
Wetland G
Wetland N
Wetland H
Wetland A
Wetland LWetland M
Wetland E
Wetland O
Wetland D
Wetland F
Wetland I
Wetland L
UT1
Hanks BranchUT2
UT2A
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3b Site MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Data Points
2 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
DP 9
DP 8
DP 7
DP 11DP 10
Wetland Y
Wetland O
Wetland Q
Wetland T
Wetland V
Wetland R
Wetland N
Wetland S
Wetland X
Wetland L
Wetland U
Wetland MWetland P
Wetland W
U
T
3
U
T
4
Hanks BranchUT
3
A
UT3B
UT2
UT2AUT3Hanks Branch
Bridge - 12.68 LF of Stream Impacted
Ford Crossing
Clogged, Offline Culvert
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3c Site MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Data Points
2 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Culvert
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
Sp
a
r
k
s

C
r
e
e
kUT5 UT5A
Hanks Branch UT4UT5UT to Sparks CreekDP 13
DP 12
DP 10
Wetland DD
Wetland CC
Wetland BB
Wetland AA
Wetland Z
Wetland YPond A
22' Culvert
15' Culvert
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3d Site MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Data Points
2 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Culvert
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
Open Water

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

July 24, 2020

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Attention: Kim Browning

Subject: Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans
Lyon Hills Mitigation Project, Wilkes County
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01784/DWR No. 2018-1274 v1

Dear Kim:

We have reviewed the IRT’s comments on the draft mitigation plan for the Lyon Hills Stream Mitigation
Site. We have made the necessary revisions to the draft documents and we are submitting revised
versions of the documents along with this letter. Below are responses to each of the IRT’s comments in
your letter dated June 25, 2020. Your original comments are provided below followed by our responses
in bold italics.

USACE Comments, Kim Browning:

1. Please include photos of culverts/crossings in monitoring reports.
I have passed this comment on to the monitoring team who will add the photos to the monitoring
reports.
2. Please show location of existing wetlands on Figure 8.
This revision has been made.
a. Please add a veg plot to the wetland area along UT1.
We have added a veg plot to the wetland area along UT1. Note that we added a plot rather than move
another existing one.
b. It is preferred to move the crossing on UT1 out of the wetland, closer to the confluence.
We deliberated about the location of this crossing because there is no good place to locate it without
creating wetland impacts. We cannot move it closer to the confluence due to the steep slope down to
Hanks Branch. There is no way to move it upstream and avoid wetland impacts and have the culvert
and road in an appropriate location with a reasonable slope. Despite the wetland impact, it needs to
2

stay where it is.
3. UT1: The neighbor’s existing spring box drainage pipe, and its discharge into the channel, is not permitted
within the conservation easement. Please remove.
The spring box and discharge pipe are located outside of the easement. We are doing work above the
easement on an adjacent property (with a temporary construction easement) to tie into a headcut
downstream of the culvert and we will leave the spring box and discharge pipe in place.
4. During planting, if species substitutions occur due to availability or refinement, please red-line the As-
Built and MY0 report if substitutions occur.
Any plant substitutions will be noted in the As-Built Report.
5. Table 5 lists five existing invasive species. Please include a performance standard addressing the control
of invasive species to less than 5% of the conservation easement.
We have added this performance standard to Table 20.
6. Section 3.4: Please update with PJD received June 11, 2020. Also, please add discussion regarding work
that will be done on (UT1) the adjacent landowner’s property in connection with this project.
The revised PJD is noted in Section 3.4. There is already text describing work that will be done on the
neighbor’s property in Section 6.6. Text has been added to this section to clarify that the work will be
done on the upstream neighbor’s property and that Wildlands has a temporary construction easement
to do this work.
7. UT4: There is concern that raising the channel bed at the upper end will cause loss of flow. Please add
a gauge in the upper 1/3 of the reach.
We have added a gauge to the upper 1/3 of UT4 as shown in Table 21 and Figure 11.
8. Recommend removing silver maple from the planting list, as it can be invasive.
The planting plan has been updated including the removal of silver maple.
9. Section 6.7: Please add the target community type and planting window.
The target community type (mesic mixed hardwood forest) and planting Window (December through
April) have been added to Section 6.7.
10. On future planting plans, please add a column that designates whether the species is FAC, FACW, etc.
A column has been added to the planting plan tables to include the wetland indicator status of each
plant.
11. Section 3.8: I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this section. It may be beneficial to add discussion on
crossing and culvert maintenance, especially the ford.
Text describing the monitoring and maintenance of crossings has been added to Section 3.8.
Table 20: Since several of the reaches are designed as B type channels, please include a performance
standard of ER no less than 1.4 for B channels.
This performance standard has been added to Table 20.

USACE Comments, Casey Haywood:
3

1. Table 1 Project Information, Project Coordinates- please annotate degrees with symbol
This revision has been made.
2. Table 2 Add the “0” at the beginning of the 8-digit HUC so that it reflects 8-digits
This revision has been made.
3. Section 3.1 paragraph 2, 3rd to last sentence “The other tributaries have small watersheds the
are contained within the project site and adjacent parcels.” Please change “the” to “that”.
This revision has been made.
4. Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use- Land use source- National Land Cover Database 2011
(NLCD 2011), Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium; why not use the most up to date
2016 NLCD database? Is it much different than 2011?
We checked the 2016 NLCD and it is no different than 2011, however, we updated the reference in the
footnote.
5. Section 3.4 mentions evidence of prolonged saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile;
were groundwater gauges installed? Please provide this data if it is available and reference it within the
document.
There are no pre-construction groundwater gauges on site. “Evidence of prolonged saturation within
the upper 12 inches of the soil profile” has been replaced with the more common terminology “wetland
hydrology indicators” used in delineation.
6. Section 3.6, 1st paragraph, Table 6 is highlighted
The highlight has been removed.
7. Section 3.7 paragraph 2 typo “These project components are described in Section 4 in terms of goals,
objectives, and outcomes for the project and in in greater detail as the Section 6 in the project site
mitigation plan.”
This revision has been made.
8. Section 3.7 last paragraph, “There is little concern that if the site is properly constructed and maintained
that the project goals will not be met.” Will or will not be met? Is this a typo?
This sentence has been rephrased to be clearer.
9. Section 5.2 last paragraph, typo “Wildlands has acquired a temporary construction agreement with this
landowner who is please that the project will involve fixing the headcut.”
The typo has been corrected.
10. Section 6.6 “The upstream end of the reach will tie into an existing culvert and the bed will be raised
somewhat but kept low enough in the valley to allow for neighbor’s existing spring box drainage pipe,
which currently discharges to the channel, to remain in place approximately 65 downstream of the
culvert.” Please add distance, is it 65 feet?
The sentence now says “65 feet.”
11. Table 19 Determination of Credits indicates a bridge crossing on Hanks Branch, reach 2;
however, this is not noted in Table 6: Easement Breaks and Crossings. Additionally, Table 19 does not
note the internal culvert crossing on Hanks Branch reach 3 as noted in table 6. Are there actually 7
4

crossings on this site or six? Is there a reason they are not shown on both tables? On figure 8 Concept
Map it shows the crossing on Hanks Branch reach 3 but not on reach 2.
The problem was that Table 6 listed the crossing incorrectly as a culvert on Hanks Branch Reach 3
when it is actually a bridge on Hanks Branch Reach 2. These errors in Table 6 have been corrected.
Table 19 lists the crossings correctly.
12. Section 12.0 References; please reference the use of the National Land Cover Database 2011
(NLCD 2011) and any other documents mentioned in the document.
The references have been updated.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. DWR appreciates the high connectivity of the site, as well as the inclusion of stream origins and addition
of BMPs. Also, the mitigation plan format made for an efficient review, including the concise text,
descriptive tables and photos. The discussions on risks and uncertainties and soil treatment of bench
cuts were good to see.
Great. The mitigation plan format was intended to be concise for efficient preparation and review.
2. Page 1, Table 1 – On the DMS comments page 2, a response states the easement area as
20.29 acres. Table 1 specifies 20.72 acres. Please confirm.
The total easement area including internal crossings is 20.72 as stated in Table 1. No revision necessary.
3. Page 9, UT3 – Please include a sentence on the existing condition of UT3 Reach 4.
A sentence summarizing the condition of UT3 Reach 4 has been added.
4. Page 11 & Page 25, UT 4 – The IRT meeting minutes mention a dewatered pond bed within UT4 Reach
1. Is this the area mapped as Wetland Y? Is working within the relic pond bed sediment a concern?
The area you are referring to is Wetland Y. Based on further investigation, we do not think there was
a pond in that area. We think that a crossing was established there during the early 90’s when it was
logged. Pipes were used that were likely too small and they clogged and backed up some water &
sediment in that area. Any sediment accumulation within the stream corridor has washed away and
will not be an issue.
5. Page 17, Section 5.1 – More than 0.35 acres of wetland is proposed to be permanently impacted by the
project, primarily along UT1. The proposed UT1 crossing spans a wide area of existing wetland. Please
include an explanation for why this crossing couldn’t be located further upstream to reduce wetland
impacts.
The culvert was located with consideration of multiple factors including slope of the proposed pipe,
existing valley topography, landowner wishes, and wetland impacts. Considering all of these factors,
the culvert needs to be located where it is shown on the plans. Text explaining this has been added
to Section 5.1.
6. Page 18, Table 10 – Please add “replanting buffer” to Sparks Creek and Hanks Branch R1. Also, please add
a row for UT3 Reach 4.
Both of these revisions have been made.
7. Page 24, UT1 – Can you briefly describe the condition of the existing culvert that UT1 will tie into (e.g.
adequately sized, perched, partially buried).
The upstream end of UT1 will actually tie into a 2.4-foot high headcut downstream of this culvert and
5

the text of this paragraph has been changed to clarify this. Some additional information about the
culvert has been added.
8. Page 25, UT4 Reach 1 – Echoing DMS question, with the UT4 DWR Stream ID Form score close to the
perennial/intermittent threshold, is there a concern that raising the bed will alter the flow regime from
perennial to intermittent? DWR may request a flow gauge following the post- construction review.
We have added a gauge to the upper 1/3 of UT4 as shown in Table 21 and Figure 11.
9. Page 25, UT5 – Has the existing pond sediment been assessed? How will the sediment be
handled/reused onsite?
The pond sediments have not been assessed but will be during construction. A portion of the channel
will be built through the dam. It is likely that the material from the pond bottom will be removed
along the channel alignment and replaced with material from the dam. This will provide better soil
for construction of the channel for the portion that goes through the pond bed. Some sediment may
remain in the pond bottom outside of the new channel. These small areas will likely become wetland
features. Sediment removed from the pond will be spread on the surrounding pastures. A sentence
has been added to this section to describe removing sediment from the pond bed and replacing it with
material from the dam.
10. Page 26, Hanks Branch – The IRT meeting minutes’ note creating floodplain benches on both sides of
Reach 3. Please explain why only a right side floodplain bench is now proposed and how this effects the
potential functional uplift.
We decided to only bench one side of Hanks Branch Reach 3 because the left side is heavily vegetated
and we felt it would be better to leave it undisturbed. In addition, the landowner asked that we not
clear vegetation on the left side of the stream. The bench on the right side will give the stream
floodplain access and will still provide a similar level of uplift.
11. Page 27, Table 19 – The IRT meeting minutes note “improving the buffer by planting native trees” along
UT2. However, the existing conditions section describes a mature canopy and Table 10 does not mention
replanting. DWR supports a 3:1 ratio for UT2 based on existing conditions and potential functional uplift.
Upon further assessment of the site, we decided that the only planting that would be feasible for UT2
would be planting understory species. However, we have not had success with understory planting
on past projects. We have changed the credit ratio for UT2 to 3:1 which results in a reduction of 5.2
credits. The credit total for the site is now 5,304.783.
12. Page 29, Section 10 – Please define the max. duration between “periodic” inspections.
It is our understanding that the NC DEQ Stewardship Program conducts inspections every one to three
years on closed out projects. This information has been added to Section 10.
13. Figure 6 – Please indicate any existing culvert crossings.
Existing culvert crossing have been added to Figure 6.
14. Sheet 1.04 – As DMS noted, please address the callout “avoid existing water line”. Please assess the
condition of the pipe and remove from the easement if possible.
This pipe is not actually a water line. It is a conduit for electrical wiring that is no longer in use. It will
be removed. The call out on the plans has been changed.
15. Sheet 1.08 – Table 10 notes wood being added to Hanks Branch R2, please callout these areas on the
design sheet. Also, do the “remove tree” callouts indicate hazard trees not located within the proposed
6

grading areas?
We added callouts for wood on Hanks Branch Reach 2. “Remove tree” refers to fallen trees or trees
likely to fall that we want removed during construction.
16. Sheet 1.09 – Can you please explain why the proposed rock outlet is necessary.
We plan these to stabilize areas where water accumulates and flows into the channel over the banks.
It’s very important as these areas will erode if not reinforced. We will use the native rock found on site
to construct them.
17. Sheet 1.14 – It would help our review to see the existing channel area proposed to be filled as a shaded
feature on the plan view sheets.
We have shaded the channels to be filled on the plan sheets.
18. Sheets 1.21-1.23 – Please assess the banks along UT3 Reach 2 and Reach 3 that have callouts to “repair
trampled stream banks per Engineer’s direction” and include specific proposed actions/features in the
final design plan.
We have added callouts for specific locations of bank repairs on the plans.
19. Sheet 2.00 – Either on the design sheet or in the mitigation plan text, please indicate that the proposed
BMPs are designed to not require long-term maintenance.
A sentence has been added to Appendix 10 – Maintenance plan stating that the BMPs are not
expected to require maintenance.
20. Sheet 2.01 – Please confirm that the proposed rock sill is being installed over existing bedrock.
This sill has been removed.
21. Sheets 2.02 & 2.03 – These BMPs are described as ponds in Section 6.6. Are they designed to wet year-
round? They are not included in the planting plan, but please confirm at minimum the side slopes will
be vegetated. DWR would like to see planting within the BMP ponds if possible.
These features generally function as “dry ponds” filling to the outlet during large storms but drying
out in dry weather. We have added herbaceous plugs to the side slopes and this is now included in
the planting plan. If they are observed to hold water most or all of the time, we will install live stakes
on the side slopes as well.
22. Sheet 3.0 – Please consider a wetland planting zone replacement species for American Holly, which is
FACU. Also, have you had success planting Helesia tetraptera in restoration wetland areas? I was not
able to identify its wetland indicator status.
American holly and Carolina silverbell have been removed from the planting plan
23. Design Plans – Please include an overall fencing plan indicating existing and proposed fencing and
approximate locations of anticipated gates.
The fencing plan is included in the revised plans. Gate locations are shown.
WRC Comments, Travis Wilson:
1. I like the site-specific culvert crossing details shown in the back of the plans. They were also depicted in
the plan view, however they were not identified in the plan profiles. For review purposes it is beneficial
to record the culvert invert elevations on the profiles as well as the road crossing elevation.
Culverts are now shown on the profiles.
7

2. “Outlet stabilization” is shown for each outlet in the plan view detail. A note should be included in this
detail to embed the stone into the stream bed substrate. Any outlet protection should function more as
an armored plunge pool or bedrock and not a rip rap dissipater pad.
We have added this note to the plans.

Please contact me at 919-851-9986 x103 if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Jeff Keaton, PE
Project Manager

July 14, 2020

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Lyon Hills Mitigation Site / Wilkes
Co./ SAW-2018-01784/ NCDMS Project # 100085

Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Dear Mr. Baumgartner:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the Lyon Hills Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed
on May 24, 2020. These comments are attached for your review.

Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.

The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the
project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in
the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not
satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan,
but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation
credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

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

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please call me at 919-554-4884, ext 60.

Sincerely,

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:

NCIRT Distribution List
Kelly Phillips, Paul Wiesner—DMS
Jeff Keaton—WEI

MITIGATION PLAN
Final

July 2020
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7620
DMS ID No. 100085

Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101

USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01784
DWR No. 2018-1274 v1

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

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

July 24, 2020

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Attention: Kim Browning

Subject: Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans
Lyon Hills Mitigation Project, Wilkes County
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01784/DWR No. 2018-1274 v1

Dear Kim:

We have reviewed the IRT’s comments on the draft mitigation plan for the Lyon Hills Stream Mitigation
Site. We have made the necessary revisions to the draft documents and we are submitting revised
versions of the documents along with this letter. Below are responses to each of the IRT’s comments in
your letter dated June 25, 2020. Your original comments are provided below followed by our responses
in bold italics.

USACE Comments, Kim Browning:

1. Please include photos of culverts/crossings in monitoring reports.
I have passed this comment on to the monitoring team who will add the photos to the monitoring
reports.
2. Please show location of existing wetlands on Figure 8.
This revision has been made.
a. Please add a veg plot to the wetland area along UT1.
We have added a veg plot to the wetland area along UT1. Note that we added a plot rather than move
another existing one.
b. It is preferred to move the crossing on UT1 out of the wetland, closer to the confluence.
We deliberated about the location of this crossing because there is no good place to locate it without
creating wetland impacts. We cannot move it closer to the confluence due to the steep slope down to
Hanks Branch. There is no way to move it upstream and avoid wetland impacts and have the culvert
and road in an appropriate location with a reasonable slope. Despite the wetland impact, it needs to
2

stay where it is.
3. UT1: The neighbor’s existing spring box drainage pipe, and its discharge into the channel, is not permitted
within the conservation easement. Please remove.
The spring box and discharge pipe are located outside of the easement. We are doing work above the
easement on an adjacent property (with a temporary construction easement) to tie into a headcut
downstream of the culvert and we will leave the spring box and discharge pipe in place.
4. During planting, if species substitutions occur due to availability or refinement, please red-line the As-
Built and MY0 report if substitutions occur.
Any plant substitutions will be noted in the As-Built Report.
5. Table 5 lists five existing invasive species. Please include a performance standard addressing the control
of invasive species to less than 5% of the conservation easement.
We have added this performance standard to Table 20.
6. Section 3.4: Please update with PJD received June 11, 2020. Also, please add discussion regarding work
that will be done on (UT1) the adjacent landowner’s property in connection with this project.
The revised PJD is noted in Section 3.4. There is already text describing work that will be done on the
neighbor’s property in Section 6.6. Text has been added to this section to clarify that the work will be
done on the upstream neighbor’s property and that Wildlands has a temporary construction easement
to do this work.
7. UT4: There is concern that raising the channel bed at the upper end will cause loss of flow. Please add
a gauge in the upper 1/3 of the reach.
We have added a gauge to the upper 1/3 of UT4 as shown in Table 21 and Figure 11.
8. Recommend removing silver maple from the planting list, as it can be invasive.
The planting plan has been updated including the removal of silver maple.
9. Section 6.7: Please add the target community type and planting window.
The target community type (mesic mixed hardwood forest) and planting Window (December through
April) have been added to Section 6.7.
10. On future planting plans, please add a column that designates whether the species is FAC, FACW, etc.
A column has been added to the planting plan tables to include the wetland indicator status of each
plant.
11. Section 3.8: I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this section. It may be beneficial to add discussion on
crossing and culvert maintenance, especially the ford.
Text describing the monitoring and maintenance of crossings has been added to Section 3.8.
Table 20: Since several of the reaches are designed as B type channels, please include a performance
standard of ER no less than 1.4 for B channels.
This performance standard has been added to Table 20.

USACE Comments, Casey Haywood:
3

1. Table 1 Project Information, Project Coordinates- please annotate degrees with symbol
This revision has been made.
2. Table 2 Add the “0” at the beginning of the 8-digit HUC so that it reflects 8-digits
This revision has been made.
3. Section 3.1 paragraph 2, 3rd to last sentence “The other tributaries have small watersheds the
are contained within the project site and adjacent parcels.” Please change “the” to “that”.
This revision has been made.
4. Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use- Land use source- National Land Cover Database 2011
(NLCD 2011), Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium; why not use the most up to date
2016 NLCD database? Is it much different than 2011?
We checked the 2016 NLCD and it is no different than 2011, however, we updated the reference in the
footnote.
5. Section 3.4 mentions evidence of prolonged saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile;
were groundwater gauges installed? Please provide this data if it is available and reference it within the
document.
There are no pre-construction groundwater gauges on site. “Evidence of prolonged saturation within
the upper 12 inches of the soil profile” has been replaced with the more common terminology “wetland
hydrology indicators” used in delineation.
6. Section 3.6, 1st paragraph, Table 6 is highlighted
The highlight has been removed.
7. Section 3.7 paragraph 2 typo “These project components are described in Section 4 in terms of goals,
objectives, and outcomes for the project and in in greater detail as the Section 6 in the project site
mitigation plan.”
This revision has been made.
8. Section 3.7 last paragraph, “There is little concern that if the site is properly constructed and maintained
that the project goals will not be met.” Will or will not be met? Is this a typo?
This sentence has been rephrased to be clearer.
9. Section 5.2 last paragraph, typo “Wildlands has acquired a temporary construction agreement with this
landowner who is please that the project will involve fixing the headcut.”
The typo has been corrected.
10. Section 6.6 “The upstream end of the reach will tie into an existing culvert and the bed will be raised
somewhat but kept low enough in the valley to allow for neighbor’s existing spring box drainage pipe,
which currently discharges to the channel, to remain in place approximately 65 downstream of the
culvert.” Please add distance, is it 65 feet?
The sentence now says “65 feet.”
11. Table 19 Determination of Credits indicates a bridge crossing on Hanks Branch, reach 2;
however, this is not noted in Table 6: Easement Breaks and Crossings. Additionally, Table 19 does not
note the internal culvert crossing on Hanks Branch reach 3 as noted in table 6. Are there actually 7
4

crossings on this site or six? Is there a reason they are not shown on both tables? On figure 8 Concept
Map it shows the crossing on Hanks Branch reach 3 but not on reach 2.
The problem was that Table 6 listed the crossing incorrectly as a culvert on Hanks Branch Reach 3
when it is actually a bridge on Hanks Branch Reach 2. These errors in Table 6 have been corrected.
Table 19 lists the crossings correctly.
12. Section 12.0 References; please reference the use of the National Land Cover Database 2011
(NLCD 2011) and any other documents mentioned in the document.
The references have been updated.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. DWR appreciates the high connectivity of the site, as well as the inclusion of stream origins and addition
of BMPs. Also, the mitigation plan format made for an efficient review, including the concise text,
descriptive tables and photos. The discussions on risks and uncertainties and soil treatment of bench
cuts were good to see.
Great. The mitigation plan format was intended to be concise for efficient preparation and review.
2. Page 1, Table 1 – On the DMS comments page 2, a response states the easement area as
20.29 acres. Table 1 specifies 20.72 acres. Please confirm.
The total easement area including internal crossings is 20.72 as stated in Table 1. No revision necessary.
3. Page 9, UT3 – Please include a sentence on the existing condition of UT3 Reach 4.
A sentence summarizing the condition of UT3 Reach 4 has been added.
4. Page 11 & Page 25, UT 4 – The IRT meeting minutes mention a dewatered pond bed within UT4 Reach
1. Is this the area mapped as Wetland Y? Is working within the relic pond bed sediment a concern?
The area you are referring to is Wetland Y. Based on further investigation, we do not think there was
a pond in that area. We think that a crossing was established there during the early 90’s when it was
logged. Pipes were used that were likely too small and they clogged and backed up some water &
sediment in that area. Any sediment accumulation within the stream corridor has washed away and
will not be an issue.
5. Page 17, Section 5.1 – More than 0.35 acres of wetland is proposed to be permanently impacted by the
project, primarily along UT1. The proposed UT1 crossing spans a wide area of existing wetland. Please
include an explanation for why this crossing couldn’t be located further upstream to reduce wetland
impacts.
The culvert was located with consideration of multiple factors including slope of the proposed pipe,
existing valley topography, landowner wishes, and wetland impacts. Considering all of these factors,
the culvert needs to be located where it is shown on the plans. Text explaining this has been added
to Section 5.1.
6. Page 18, Table 10 – Please add “replanting buffer” to Sparks Creek and Hanks Branch R1. Also, please add
a row for UT3 Reach 4.
Both of these revisions have been made.
7. Page 24, UT1 – Can you briefly describe the condition of the existing culvert that UT1 will tie into (e.g.
adequately sized, perched, partially buried).
The upstream end of UT1 will actually tie into a 2.4-foot high headcut downstream of this culvert and
5

the text of this paragraph has been changed to clarify this. Some additional information about the
culvert has been added.
8. Page 25, UT4 Reach 1 – Echoing DMS question, with the UT4 DWR Stream ID Form score close to the
perennial/intermittent threshold, is there a concern that raising the bed will alter the flow regime from
perennial to intermittent? DWR may request a flow gauge following the post- construction review.
We have added a gauge to the upper 1/3 of UT4 as shown in Table 21 and Figure 11.
9. Page 25, UT5 – Has the existing pond sediment been assessed? How will the sediment be
handled/reused onsite?
The pond sediments have not been assessed but will be during construction. A portion of the channel
will be built through the dam. It is likely that the material from the pond bottom will be removed
along the channel alignment and replaced with material from the dam. This will provide better soil
for construction of the channel for the portion that goes through the pond bed. Some sediment may
remain in the pond bottom outside of the new channel. These small areas will likely become wetland
features. Sediment removed from the pond will be spread on the surrounding pastures. A sentence
has been added to this section to describe removing sediment from the pond bed and replacing it with
material from the dam.
10. Page 26, Hanks Branch – The IRT meeting minutes’ note creating floodplain benches on both sides of
Reach 3. Please explain why only a right side floodplain bench is now proposed and how this effects the
potential functional uplift.
We decided to only bench one side of Hanks Branch Reach 3 because the left side is heavily vegetated
and we felt it would be better to leave it undisturbed. In addition, the landowner asked that we not
clear vegetation on the left side of the stream. The bench on the right side will give the stream
floodplain access and will still provide a similar level of uplift.
11. Page 27, Table 19 – The IRT meeting minutes note “improving the buffer by planting native trees” along
UT2. However, the existing conditions section describes a mature canopy and Table 10 does not mention
replanting. DWR supports a 3:1 ratio for UT2 based on existing conditions and potential functional uplift.
Upon further assessment of the site, we decided that the only planting that would be feasible for UT2
would be planting understory species. However, we have not had success with understory planting
on past projects. We have changed the credit ratio for UT2 to 3:1 which results in a reduction of 5.2
credits. The credit total for the site is now 5,304.783.
12. Page 29, Section 10 – Please define the max. duration between “periodic” inspections.
It is our understanding that the NC DEQ Stewardship Program conducts inspections every one to three
years on closed out projects. This information has been added to Section 10.
13. Figure 6 – Please indicate any existing culvert crossings.
Existing culvert crossing have been added to Figure 6.
14. Sheet 1.04 – As DMS noted, please address the callout “avoid existing water line”. Please assess the
condition of the pipe and remove from the easement if possible.
This pipe is not actually a water line. It is a conduit for electrical wiring that is no longer in use. It will
be removed. The call out on the plans has been changed.
15. Sheet 1.08 – Table 10 notes wood being added to Hanks Branch R2, please callout these areas on the
design sheet. Also, do the “remove tree” callouts indicate hazard trees not located within the proposed
6

grading areas?
We added callouts for wood on Hanks Branch Reach 2. “Remove tree” refers to fallen trees or trees
likely to fall that we want removed during construction.
16. Sheet 1.09 – Can you please explain why the proposed rock outlet is necessary.
We plan these to stabilize areas where water accumulates and flows into the channel over the banks.
It’s very important as these areas will erode if not reinforced. We will use the native rock found on site
to construct them.
17. Sheet 1.14 – It would help our review to see the existing channel area proposed to be filled as a shaded
feature on the plan view sheets.
We have shaded the channels to be filled on the plan sheets.
18. Sheets 1.21-1.23 – Please assess the banks along UT3 Reach 2 and Reach 3 that have callouts to “repair
trampled stream banks per Engineer’s direction” and include specific proposed actions/features in the
final design plan.
We have added callouts for specific locations of bank repairs on the plans.
19. Sheet 2.00 – Either on the design sheet or in the mitigation plan text, please indicate that the proposed
BMPs are designed to not require long-term maintenance.
A sentence has been added to Appendix 10 – Maintenance plan stating that the BMPs are not
expected to require maintenance.
20. Sheet 2.01 – Please confirm that the proposed rock sill is being installed over existing bedrock.
This sill has been removed.
21. Sheets 2.02 & 2.03 – These BMPs are described as ponds in Section 6.6. Are they designed to wet year-
round? They are not included in the planting plan, but please confirm at minimum the side slopes will
be vegetated. DWR would like to see planting within the BMP ponds if possible.
These features generally function as “dry ponds” filling to the outlet during large storms but drying
out in dry weather. We have added herbaceous plugs to the side slopes and this is now included in
the planting plan. If they are observed to hold water most or all of the time, we will install live stakes
on the side slopes as well.
22. Sheet 3.0 – Please consider a wetland planting zone replacement species for American Holly, which is
FACU. Also, have you had success planting Helesia tetraptera in restoration wetland areas? I was not
able to identify its wetland indicator status.
American holly and Carolina silverbell have been removed from the planting plan
23. Design Plans – Please include an overall fencing plan indicating existing and proposed fencing and
approximate locations of anticipated gates.
The fencing plan is included in the revised plans. Gate locations are shown.
WRC Comments, Travis Wilson:
1. I like the site-specific culvert crossing details shown in the back of the plans. They were also depicted in
the plan view, however they were not identified in the plan profiles. For review purposes it is beneficial
to record the culvert invert elevations on the profiles as well as the road crossing elevation.
Culverts are now shown on the profiles.
7

2. “Outlet stabilization” is shown for each outlet in the plan view detail. A note should be included in this
detail to embed the stone into the stream bed substrate. Any outlet protection should function more as
an armored plunge pool or bedrock and not a rip rap dissipater pad.
We have added this note to the plans.

Please contact me at 919-851-9986 x103 if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Jeff Keaton, PE
Project Manager

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7620
DMS ID No. 100085
River Basin
HUC 03040101
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01784
PREPARED FOR:

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

PREPARED BY:

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

July 2020

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

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

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection ...................................................................................1
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................2
3.1 Watershed Conditions .................................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Existing Stream Conditions ........................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Existing Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.5 Existing Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.6 Utilities, Site Access, and Site Constraints .................................................................................. 14
3.7 Potential for Functional Uplift and Project Justification ............................................................ 15
3.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties .................................................................................................... 15
4.0 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 16
5.0 Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 17
5.1 401/404 ...................................................................................................................................... 17
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................. 17
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ........................................................................... 18
6.1 Design Overview ......................................................................................................................... 18
6.2 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................... 19
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis........................................................................................................... 20
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 21
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... 23
6.6 Design Summary ......................................................................................................................... 24
6.7 Planting Plan ............................................................................................................................... 26
7.0 Determination of Credits ....................................................................................................... 27
8.0 Performance Standards ......................................................................................................... 28
9.0 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................... 29
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan ................................................................................................ 30
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan ................................................................................................... 30
12.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 31

TABLES
Table 1: Project Background Information ..................................................................................................... 1
Table 2: Project Watershed Summary Information ...................................................................................... 2
Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use ....................................................................................... 3
Table 4: Project Soil Types and Descriptions ................................................................................................ 4
Table 5: Existing Riparian Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 14
Table 6: Easement Breaks and Crossings .................................................................................................... 15
Table 7: Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 16
Table 8: Project Attribute Table Part 4 ....................................................................................................... 17
Table 9: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands ........................................................................................ 17
Table 10: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach .............................................................................. 18
Table 11: Reference Reach Summary ......................................................................................................... 20
Table 12: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis ......................................................................... 20
Table 13: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT1 ............................................................... 21
Table 14: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT3 ............................................................... 21
Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT4 ............................................................... 22
Table 16: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT5 ............................................................... 22

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page ii
Table 17: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Hanks Branch ............................................... 23
Table 18: Results of Competence Analysis ................................................................................................. 24
Table 19: Determination of Credits ............................................................................................................ 27
Table 20: Summary of Performance Standards .......................................................................................... 29
Table 21: Monitoring Requirements ........................................................................................................... 29

FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Watershed Map
Figure 4 Topo Map
Figure 5 Soils Map
Figure 6 Existing Conditions Map
Figure 7 FEMA Flood Map
Figure 8 Concept Design Map
Figure 9 Reference Reach Map
Figure 10 Design Discharge Analysis Graph
Figure 11 Proposed Monitoring Components Map

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

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 1
1.0 Introduction
The Lyon Hills mitigation site is in a rural area of the Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040101) in
Northeast Wilkes County approximately 11 miles northwest of the Town of Elkin at coordinates
36.32924 degrees N and 81.01018 degrees W (Figure 1). The site is on an active cattle farm in the
foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The site is very near the break between the Piedmont and
mountain physiographic regions but is technically in the Piedmont. The proposed project will include
restoration and enhancement of a network of streams on the property that range in drainage area from
four acres to 9.58 square miles. These include a portion of Sparks Creek, Hanks Branch (tributary to
Sparks Creek), and five unnamed tributaries to Hanks Branch; four of which originate within the project
limits. Restoration will be performed on 3,192 LF of stream and enhancement will be performed on
6,600 LF of stream. Three stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs) will also be
constructed on the site. The outcomes of the project will include significant ecological improvements to
the streams and riparian zones on the project site. The project will provide 5,309.983 cool water stream
credits. Table 1 shows the basic project information.
The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site was instituted via NCDEQ-DMS RFP # 16-007406. As approved by the
NCIRT, all projects contracted under the 16-007406 RFP have a cool or warm service type. Penalties will
not be assessed for using these project mitigation credits to satisfy cool or warm requirements.
Table 1: Project Background Information
Project Information
Project Name Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
County Wilkes
Project Area (acres) 20.72
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36.32924o N, 81.01018o W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 9.8

2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The site was selected for development as a mitigation project due to the potential to offset documented
stressors within the watershed. Sparks Creek and its tributaries are located within the East Prong
Roaring River 12-digit HUC (030401010405). The site is within a targeted local watershed (TLW) but is
not in a local watershed planning (LWP) area. The HUC is described in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee
River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document (NC DMS, 2009). According to the RBRP, agricultural
land use, including 30 animal operations, is a major stressor to aquatic resources in the lower portion of
the HUC. Degraded riparian buffers is also noted as a significant stressor. Stressors described for the 8-
digit CU include erosion and sedimentation (including erosion from pasture lands) which lead to aquatic
habitat degradation. Turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria violations have been documented across the
CU. The RBRP lists primary watershed restoration goals including the improvement of water quality and
aquatic habitat in impaired stream segments, implementation of stream and riparian buffer restoration
and enhancement, and implementation of agricultural and water quality BMPs to limit sediment,
nutrient, and fecal coliform contributions to streams from active farming operations.
The site (Figure 2) is located in DWR Subbasin 03-07-01. The 2008 Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan (NC DWR, 2008) indicates that fecal coliform concentrations often exceeded the
maximum regulatory limit in the CU which creates a potential health risk. The plan also notes major

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 2
stressors in the Yadkin River Basin include excessive sedimentation and changes in hydrology and
geomorphology due to urban development and agriculture. Agriculture was identified in the plan as the
most significant stressor leading to water quality degradation in the Yadkin river basin.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
3.1 Watershed Conditions
The project watersheds (Figure 3) are drained by a dense, dendritic network of streams typical for the
North Carolina Piedmont. The landscape throughout the area is hilly and valleys of smaller streams tend
to be narrow, often with steep side slopes. Larger streams such as Sparks Creek have well defined,
meandering floodplains. Table 2 summarizes the overall project watershed information.
Table 2: Project Watershed Summary Information
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03040101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101060030
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-01
Project Drainage Area (acres) 6,131
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification 66% forested, 22% agriculture, 2%
herbaceous/grassland, 6% developed, 4% shrub/scrub

The watershed of Sparks Creek extends to the north of the project site and into the Blue Ridge
Mountains near Stone Mountain State park. The watershed is very rural with the major land uses being
forest and agriculture. The northern perimeter of the watershed is mountainous topography (Figure 4)
with elevations ranging up to 3,065 feet MSL. The mountain slopes in this portion of the watershed are
steep and completely forested. The central portion and southern perimeter of the watershed are lower
in elevation (1,150 to 1,650) and include both large wooded tracks and several large agricultural areas,
mostly pasture lands. There are a few chicken houses in the lower watershed and sparse residential
development throughout the central and southern portions. There are no large developments or towns.
The watersheds of the other project reaches are much smaller and have a lower range of elevations
(1,160 feet to 1,560 feet). The Hanks Branch watershed is the largest of the remaining project streams
and extends to the east from the project site. This watershed is largely forested but has some areas that
have been cleared for pasture and row crops and some single-family residences. The UT2 watershed
borders the Hanks Branch watershed to the south. This watershed is mostly cleared and used for
pasture and row crops but the riparian zones along the creek and its tributaries are wooded. The other
tributaries have small watersheds that are contained within the project site and adjacent parcels. These
watersheds are mostly pastureland though many of the riparian corridors are wooded. Drainage areas
and land cover classifications are included in Table 3 below.
The land cover throughout the project watersheds has remained very similar for at least the past 30
years. Some clearing was performed on a large tract of land just north of the project site around 2008,
including denuding of the riparian zones. Some of the channels have likely been straightened and/or
deepened but there is no evidence of significant hydrologic alterations such as redirecting streamflow.
The major watershed disturbances have included the original clearing of land and conversion to pasture
or other agricultural uses decades ago, some road building, and the typical impacts related to grazing

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 3
livestock and allowing livestock access to streams and riparian corridors. Due to the location and rural
nature of the project watersheds along with the consistency in land cover over several decades, there is
no reason to think land cover change within the watersheds will impact the project.
Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Reach
Name
NC DWR Stream
Identification
Form Scores
Intermittent/
Perennial Status
Watershed
Area
(acres)
Watershed
Area
(sq. mi.)
Land Use1
Sparks
Creek 42.5 Perennial 6,131 9.58
66% Forested, 22% Agriculture,
2% Herbaceous/Grassland, 6% Developed,
4% Shrub/Scrub
Hanks
Branch 41.5 Perennial 669 1.05
46% Forested, 40% Agriculture,
2% Herbaceous/Grassland, 7% Developed,
5% Shrub/Scrub
UT1 40.75 Perennial 37 .06 36% Forested, 53% Agriculture,
2% Herbaceous/Grassland, 9% Developed
UT2 34.5 Perennial 231 .36
48% Forested, 43% Agriculture,
2% Herbaceous/Grassland, 5% Developed,
2% Shrub/Scrub
UT3 36 Perennial 46 .07 19% Forested, 68% Agriculture,
6.5% Developed, 6.5% Shrub/Scrub
UT3A 31.5 Perennial 5 .007 100% Agriculture
UT4 30.5 Perennial 12 .02 3% Forested, 97% Agriculture
UT5 35.5 Perennial 13 .02 5% Forested, 95% Agriculture
UT5A 30.5 Perennial 5 .006 10% Forested, 90% Agriculture
1. Land Use Source – National Land Cover Database 2016 (NLCD 2016), Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium,
https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2016-land-cover-conus
3.2 Geology and Soils
3.2.1 Geology
The Site is located in the Blue Ridge Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Blue Ridge Belt is
composed of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. The underlying geology of the site and most of the
watersheds is the Alligator Back Formation which are Late Proterozoic aged rocks primarily consisting of
gneiss and secondary geology consisting of conglomerate (NCGS, 1985). Gneiss geologic units are
foliated rock formed by regional metamorphism and conglomerate geologic units are coarse-grained
clastic sedimentary rock. A portion of the Sparks Creek watershed is underlain by quartz diorite to
granodiorite formation of Devonian age. These rocks are igneous intrusive rocks of felsic composition.

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 4
3.2.2 Soils
Project area soils are described below in Table 4. Figure 5 provides a soil map of the Site.
Table 4: Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name Description
CoA – Codorus loam
These somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained soils form in recently
deposited alluvial sediment on floodplains. Texture is loamy throughout the soil profile
and saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately high to high.
DoA – Dan River and
Comus Soils
Dan River and Comus series soils are well drained alluvial soils found on floodplains. Both
have loamy texture in all horizons and have high saturated hydraulic conductivity.
DpC2 – Danripple sandy
clay loam
These soils are formed of old alluvium and located on stream terraces and low hill slopes.
Danripple is well drained with high saturated hydraulic conductivity but has an argillic
horizon.
FaD/FcC2 – Fairview sand
loam and Fairview sandy
clay loam
The Fairview series is formed of residuum on upland hillslopes and ridges. These soils
have an argillic horizon but are well drained with high to moderately high saturated
hydraulic conductivity.
RdE – Rhodhiss fine sandy
loam
These soils are located on piedmont hillslopes and ridges and are formed of residuum.
They are well drained with moderately high to high saturated hydraulic conductivity and
have an argillic horizon.
Source: Soil Survey of Wilkes County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS,
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
3.3 Existing Stream Conditions
Most of the streams on the project site are small, first or second order streams with the exception of
Sparks Creek, Hanks Branch, and UT2. Hanks Branch flows across the southern edge of the site and joins
Sparks Creek at the southwestern corner. UT5 drains to Sparks Creek. The other project streams drain to
Hank’s Branch and, except for UT2, flow south across the site (Figure 6). Approximately 85 head of cattle
are typically grazed on the site and have access to all of the project streams. The streams are used as
water sources for the cattle and the wooded riparian areas are used for shade. The continual cattle
access has led to bank erosion, trampling of bed features, fining of substrate material, animal waste in
the streams, and reduced habitat quality. Several of the tributaries to Hanks Branch have active head
cuts or nick points arrested by tree roots or bedrock features indicating that vertical incision is occurring.
As this incision has occurred, the affected channels have become deeply entrenched. Hanks Branch has
been impacted by recent high flow events, including large storms in 2018. A culvert crossing was
destroyed, and bank erosion has become more severe in a few isolated locations. Figure 6 shows the
existing stream features on the site. The stream assessment forms are located in Appendix 1. Surveyed
cross sections of existing streams are included in Appendix 2. The following sections include information
about the specific reaches.

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 5
Sparks Creek
Sparks Creek on the project site is generally vertically and laterally stable. The major stressor to this
reach is cattle access to the entire reach. Cattle routinely use it for water and shade. A 20-30 foot
mature hardwood canopy lines Sparks Creek.

Reach Summary Information
Parameters Sparks Creek
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 994 (on site)
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined
Drainage area (acres) 6,131
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) C4/C4
Evolutionary Trend I
FEMA zone Classification AE
Sparks Creek Sparks Creek

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 6
Hanks Branch
Hanks on the project site is generally vertically and laterally stable. Cattle routinely access Reaches 1 and
2 for water and shade. It does not appear that cattle access Reach 3 as much but Reach 3 is very incised
(bank height ratio is 4.6). There are some isolated areas of lateral instability, primarily on Reach 2. The
culvert on Reach 2 was destroyed during the storms of Fall 2018. Bank erosion in the vicinity of the
culvert became significantly worse during this period. Reach 3 of Hanks Branch is very deep (over 5.5
feet) and narrow (bankfull width is 13.0 feet) and appears to have been channelized. The wooded buffer
along much of the right bank of Hanks Branch has been removed or is now very narrow (20 to 25 feet
wide). The buffer along the left bank of Reaches 1 and 2 is intact, extending 300 or more feet. The buffer
along the left bank of Reach 3 is very narrow.

Reach Summary Information
Parameters Hanks Branch Reach 1 Hanks Branch Reach 2 Hanks Branch Reach 3
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 1,678 1,125 581
Valley confinement (Confined,
moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined
Drainage area (acres) 358 565 669.5
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C C
Stream Classification (Existing and
Proposed) C4/C4 C4/C4 C4/C4
Evolutionary Trend I I I
FEMA zone Classification X X X
Hanks Branch - Reach 1 Hanks Branch – Reach 2
Hanks Branch – Reach 2 Hanks Branch – Reach 3

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 7
UT1
UT1 is a small stream with severe impacts and erosion related to cattle trampling. In some sections the
channel has been nearly destroyed by trampling. There is a bedrock slide that provides grade control
near the midpoint along the length of the stream. There are pockets of wetlands in the floodplain of this
stream. The buffer zone along this stream is mostly devoid of trees.

Hanks B

Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT1
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 930
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined
Drainage area (acres) 37.5
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend I
FEMA zone Classification X
UT1 UT1

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 8
UT2
There is only a short section of UT2 on the property that will be included in the project. Cattle have
access to this reach, but the damage thus far has not been significant. This stream is buffered by a
mature canopy extending the length of the watershed.

Hanks B

Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT1
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 78
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined
Drainage area (acres) 231.3
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) C4/C4
Evolutionary Trend I
FEMA zone Classification X
UT2 UT2

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 9
UT3
This stream begins on the project property. The watershed is almost entirely on the project property.
Cattle have access to the stream and have caused significant damage. Reach 1 is not incised at the
upstream end. However, a head cut exists near the downstream end of Reach 1 and below this point,
the stream is very incised (bank height ratio is 2.7). Reach 2 also has a head cut. There is exposed
bedrock in Reach 2 below the head cut which provides grade control. There is bank erosion and incision
along the majority of this stream including some areas of severe erosion on reach 3. Reach 4 is on the
Hanks Branch floodplain and has a flatter slope. Most of the damage on this stream is related to cattle
access. The buffer zone ranges from a degraded canopy to open pasture.

Hanks B

Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT3 Reach 1 UT3 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 3 UT3 Reach 4
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 702 447 691 272
Valley confinement (Confined,
moderately confined, unconfined) Confined Confined Confined Unconfined
Drainage area (acres) 26.8 37.3 46 47.3
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C C C
Stream Classification (Existing and
Proposed) B4/B4 B4/B4 B4/B4 B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend IV IV IV IV
FEMA zone Classification X X X X
UT3 - Reach 1 UT3 – Reach 2
UT3 - Reach 3 UT3 - Reach 3

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 10
UT3a
UT3a is a small stream in a deep confined valley. Cattle have access to this stream and have destroyed
the stream banks through much of the reach. Large amounts of colluvium have eroded off the hillslopes
due to cattle trampling and deposited in the stream. The buffer along this reach is sparse and narrow
(approximately 25 feet wide).

Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT3a
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 253
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Confined
Drainage area (acres) 4.9
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend IV
FEMA zone Classification X
UT3A UT3A

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 11
UT4
UT4 begins on the project property. The watershed is almost entirely on the project property. Most of
UT4 is a steep stream (4.4% to 5.3% slope) in a deep, confined valley; however, the downstream end is
flatter as it flows across the Hanks Branch floodplain. Cattle have access to this stream and have
destroyed the stream banks and bed forms through much of the reach. There are exposed failed
drainpipes along the reach. The buffer along most of this reach is sparse and narrow. The buffer is
devoid of trees on the downstream end.

Hanks B

Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT4 Reach 1 UT4 Reach 2 UT4 Reach 3
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 237 323 276
Valley confinement (Confined,
moderately confined, unconfined) Confined Confined Confined
Drainage area (acres) 7 10.5 12.3
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C C
Stream Classification (Existing and
Proposed) B5/B5 B4/B4 B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend IV IV IV
FEMA zone Classification X X X
UT4 - Reach 1 UT4 - Reach 3

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 12
UT5
This stream originates on site and most of the watershed is on the property. Reach 1 of UT5 is a small,
steep (channel slope of 8.2%) stream entrenched in a deep, confined valley. Reach 2 is less steep (2.5%
slope) than Reach 1 and is not entrenched in a narrow valley but is up against a hill slope on the left
side. The right floodplain is open and flat. Cattle have access to this stream and have destroyed the
stream banks through much of the reach. There is a small pond at the upstream end of Reach 2 used by
cattle for water. The buffer along Reach 1 is wooded and approximately 50 feet on both sides. The
buffer along Reach 2 is mostly devoid of trees except for the upstream portion of the reach on the left
side.

Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT5 Reach 1 UT5 Reach 2
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 437 356
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Confined Unconfined
Drainage area (acres) 10.9 12.8
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4/B4 B4/C4b
Evolutionary Trend IV IV
FEMA zone Classification X X
UT5 – Reach 1 UT5 - Pond
UT5 – Reach 2

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 13
UT5a
UT5a is a small, steep (9.4% slope) stream in a deep confined valley. Cattle have access to this stream
and have destroyed the stream banks through much of the reach. The buffer along this reach is wooded
and fairly wide (approximately 50 feet) on both sides.

3.4 Existing Wetlands
On May 20-22, 2019, Wildlands investigated the extent of Waters of the United States within the project
area. All jurisdictional resources were located by sub-meter accurate GPS or conventional survey. A
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (JD) has been issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
JD and supporting forms are included in Appendix 3.
There are 30 jurisdictional wetland features located within the project area (Figure 6). Jurisdictional
wetland features exhibited wetland hydrology indicators, hydric soils, and wetland plant communities.
Many of the wetlands are small floodplain benches that have formed within oversized stream channels.
3.5 Existing Vegetation
The site is used for cattle pasture and most of the vegetation on the site consists of herbaceous
groundcover such as white clover (Trifolium repens), buttercup (Ranunculus acris), and dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium). Portions of the riparian zones are vegetated with narrow strips of deciduous
trees and herbaceous undergrowth. The riparian vegetation is shown in Table 5 below by stream.
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT3a
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 318
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Confined
Drainage area (acres) 4.15
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend IV
FEMA zone Classification X
UT5a

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 14
Table 5: Existing Riparian Vegetation
Scientific Name Common Name Sparks
Creek
Hanks
Branch UT1 UT2 UT3 /
UT3A UT4 UT5 /
UT5A
Acer negundo Box Elder X
Acer rubrum Red Maple X X X X X
Aralia spinosa Devils Walking Stick X
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam X X X X
Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental Bittersweet* X X X
Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood X
Fagus grandifolia American Beech X
Festuca arundinacea Tall Fescue X X X X X X X
Glechoma hederacea Ground Ivy X X X X X X
Ilex opaca American Holly X X X
Impatiens capensis Orange Jewelweed X X X X
Juglans nigra Black Walnut X X
Juncus spp. Juncus X X
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar X X
Kalmia latifolia Mountain Laurel X X
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet* X X
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar X X X X
Lonicera japonica Honeysuckle* X X X X
Paulownia tomentosa Princess tree* X
Pinus strobus White Pine X X
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore X X X X X
Prunus serotina Black Cherry X X X
Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose* X X X
Rubus allegheniensis Blackberry X X X
Salix nigra Black Willow X
Smilax rotundifolia Green Brier X X
Toxicodendron radicans Poison Ivy X
Tsuga caroliniana Carolina Hemlock X X X
*Invasive Species
3.6 Utilities, Site Access, and Site Constraints
There are no known utilities on the site. There will be six internal easement breaks for crossings. These
are on Hanks Branch, Sparks Creek, UT1, UT3 Reach 3, UT4 Reach 3, and UT5 Reach 2. Table 6
summarizes information about the proposed crossings. Maintenance of crossings will be the
responsibility of the landowner once the project is closed by the regulatory agencies (IRT) and
transferred to NCDEQ stewardship. The site can be accessed on the southern end of the site from Hanks
Street and on the northern end of the site from Lyon Ridge (road). Both of these roads provide direct
access to the project properties.

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 15
Table 6: Easement Breaks and Crossings
No. Width (ft) Location Internal or External Crossing Type
1 40 UT1 Internal Culvert
2 40 UT3 Reach 3 Internal Culvert
3 40 UT4 Reach 3 Internal Culvert
4 40 UT5 Reach 2 Internal Culvert
5 40 Hanks Branch Reach 2 Internal Bridge
6 40 Sparks Creek Internal Ford

3.7 Potential for Functional Uplift and Project Justification
The main stressors on the site are cattle access to streams, removal or narrowing of riparian buffers,
runoff from agricultural fields, and some historic channelization of streams. These stressors have led to
degraded aquatic habitat; erosion of stream banks; head cutting and disconnection of streams from
floodplains; and water quality problems such as sediment and bacteria entering the system from
livestock waste, channel erosion and pasture runoff, increases in water temperatures, and decreased
dissolved oxygen. These ecological problems are very similar to those described in the watershed
planning documents discussed in Section 2 above. These problems will be reduced or eliminated
through the following:
• Restoring degraded stream channels to reduce erosion and reconnect streams to floodplains.
• Eliminating bank erosion and associated pollutants.
• Providing grade control in streams to eliminate headcutting.
• Planting riparian buffers to shade streams, help stabilize streams, and filter runoff and overbank
flows.
• Installing stormwater BMPs to treat runoff from adjacent pastures.
• Fencing out livestock.
• Protecting the site with a conservation easement.
These project components are described in Section 4 in terms of goals, objectives, and outcomes for the
project and in greater detail as the Section 6 in the project site mitigation plan.
The project offers an excellent opportunity for ecological uplift with low risk of failure (Section 3.8
below). Project risks and uncertainties are described in the next section. The risks most likely to cause
real problems are all manageable. Therefore, the uplift potential given the site constraints is very high
and the project goals will very likely be met if the site is properly constructed and maintained.
3.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties
The level of overall risk on this project is low. Due to the very rural nature of the surrounding area, it is
very unlikely that large tracts of land will be developed in the project watersheds. Some of the wooded
areas could be cut for timber and/or to create pastureland. The landowner upstream of UT1 informed
Wildlands that he has no plans to cut his wooded property. However, any plans for wooded areas of the
UT3 or Hanks Branch watersheds are unknown. The Hanks Branch watershed is large (669.5 acres) and it
is unlikely that enough of it would be timbered to cause a problem for the project. Foreseeable
problems that may arise on the site include easement encroachments, large floods, beaver activity,
spreading of invasive species, culverts becoming blocked by debris, and stone washing off roads over
culverts and the ford. The main area of concern for easement encroachments will be on the Lyon
property adjacent to Reach 3 of Hanks Branch because this is the only area where there will be no
fencing adjacent to an area that is routinely mowed. Wildlands will install closely spaced (approximately
every 50 feet) easement signs along the boundary in this location and work with the landowner to make

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 16
sure they do not mow within the easement. If necessary, Wildlands will install horse tape between the
signs to show the easement boundary. Large floods will eventually occur on the site but the grade
control structures and bank revetments are designed to handle large flows. While there have been no
indications of beaver activity on the site that Wildlands is aware of, there is potential for beaver dams
after construction. Wildlands will contract with USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
to remove beaver from the site and dismantle the dams. There are invasive species on the site as noted
in Table 5. Wildlands will do pre-construction treatment of these species and will provide ongoing
treatments as needed throughout the monitoring period. Culverts will be monitored and blockages will
be routinely cleared. Large stone will be used on the crossings, however, if enough stone washes off the
roads over culverts or the ford, it will be replaced.
4.0 Goals and Objectives
The overall goal for stream restoration elements of the project is to restore natural/historic functions to
degraded stream channels. The overall goal of enhancement reaches is to enhance specific aquatic
resource functions. The specific goals and objectives for this mitigation site have been carefully
developed so that the project results in 1) alleviation of the specific watershed stressors discussed in
Section 2 above and 2) provides maximum ecological uplift to project streams and riparian zones. The
goals and objective for this project are described in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal Objectives Expected Outcomes
Improve the
stability of stream
channels
Construct stream channels that will maintain
a stable pattern and profile considering
hydrologic and sediment inputs to the
system; install bank revetments and grade
control; install bank vegetation.
Reduce erosion and sediment inputs; maintain
appropriate bed forms and sediment size
distribution; support water quality and habitat
goals.
Reconnect
channels with
floodplains and
riparian wetlands
Reconstruct stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and depth
relative to the existing floodplain.
Reduce shear stress on channel; hydrate adjacent
wetland areas and vernal pools; filter pollutants
out of overbank flows; provide surface storage of
water on floodplain; increase groundwater
recharge while reducing outflow of stormwater;
support water quality and habitat goals.
Improve instream
habitat
Install habitat features such as cover logs, log
sills, and brush toes into restored/enhanced
streams. Add woody materials to channel
beds. Construct a variety of riffle features and
pools of varying depth. Fence out livestock.
Support biological communities and processes.
Provide aquatic habitats for diverse populations of
aquatic organisms.
Improve water
quality
Stabilize stream banks. Plant riparian buffers
with native trees. Construct BMPs to treat
pasture runoff. Fence out livestock.
Reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from stream
banks; reduce sediment, nutrient, and bacteria
inputs from pasture runoff; keep livestock out of
streams, further reducing pollutants in project
streams.
Restore/improve
riparian buffers
Plant native tree species in riparian zone
where currently insufficient.
Provide a canopy to shade streams and reduce
thermal loadings; stabilize stream banks and
floodplain; support water quality and habitat goals.
Permanently
protect the
project site from
harmful uses
Establish conservation easements on the Site
Ensure that development and agricultural uses that
would damage the site or reduce the benefits of
the project are prevented.

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 17
5.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 8, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. A Categorical Exclusion (included
Appendix 4 along with agency correspondence) for the Lyon Hills Mitigation Site was submitted to DMS
on November 5, 2018 and approved on November 7, 2018.
Table 8: Project Attribute Table Part 4
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes PCN1
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes PCN
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix 4
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix 4
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance2 No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
1. PCN to be provided to DMS with Final Mitigation Plan
2. FEMA boundaries shown on Figure 7
5.1 401/404
Impacts to wetland features are summarized in Table 9 below. The largest impact is to wetland F due to
a culvert crossing in this location. The culvert was located with consideration of multiple factors
including slope of the proposed pipe, existing valley topography, landowner wishes, and wetland
impacts. The location of the culvert was chosen considering all these factors and is located in the
optimal location.
Table 9: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands
Jurisdictional
Feature Classification Acreage Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T) Type of Activity Impact Area
(acres)
Wetland F Headwater Forest 0.430 P Channel Realignment 0.250
Wetland O Bottomland
Hardwood Forest 0.078 P Channel Realignment 0.078
Wetland R Headwater Forest 0.013 P Channel Realignment 0.013
Wetland U Headwater Forest 0.005 P Channel Realignment 0.005
Wetland V Headwater Forest 0.021 T Floodplain Grading 0.020
Wetland Y Headwater Forest 0.079 T Floodplain Grading 0.079
Wetland Z Headwater Forest 0.004 P Channel Realignment 0.004
Wetland AA Headwater Forest 0.004 P Channel Realignment 0.004
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
Sparks Creek is mapped in Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on Wilkes County Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 4904, as depicted in Figure 7. Hanks Branch and UT5 are located within the
mapped Zone AE boundary and flood fringe of Sparks Creek. Base flood elevations are defined for Sparks
Creek through the project area. There are no base flood elevations or associated modeling for Hanks
Branch or UT5. All other streams within the project limits are located in Zone X. Wildlands will
coordinate with the local Floodplain Administrator and the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping program

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 18
to make sure that all regulatory requirements are met. It is likely that a floodplain development permit
and a technical memo describing the proposed project will be required but that no modeling will be
necessary for this project.
There is no concern for hydrologic trespass on adjacent properties as a result of this project. UT3, UT3A,
UT4, UT5, and UT5A all begin within the project boundaries. UT1 will be tied into a headcut below an
existing culvert at the upstream end on an adjacent landowner’s property. Wildlands has acquired a
temporary construction agreement with this landowner who is pleased that the project will involve
fixing the headcut. Due to the slope of the stream the project will not backup water through this culvert
except possibly in extreme flood events. The enhancement section on Hanks Branch will not involve
raising the stream bed, and in fact will include cutting a floodplain bench. There is no chance of the
project causing hydrologic trespass upstream on Hanks Branch or UT2. Sparks Creek is enhancement II
only. Due to the slopes of the streams and valleys, there is not possibility of creating wetlands on
upstream properties.
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
6.1 Design Overview
The design for this mitigation site was developed to maximize the potential uplift described in Section
3.7 above. The approaches for each reach were initially devised by Wildlands but some approaches were
modified as a result of IRT input during the post-contract site walk that was conducted on September
26, 2018. Meeting notes from that site walk are included in Appendix 5. Three approaches will be used
for the project reaches including stream enhancement I, stream enhancement II, and stream
restoration. The least amount of manipulation will be performed on the enhancement II reaches.
Enhancement II activities will primarily consist of fencing out livestock, planting riparian buffer zones,
and repairing localized bank erosion/instability. Enhancement I activities will include fencing out
livestock, planting riparian buffer zones, adding structure to the bed, and cutting a floodplain bench to
allow flows higher than the design bankfull discharge to access the floodplain. Restoration will involve
the most extensive manipulation and activities will include rebuilding the channel with the appropriate
dimensions, plan view pattern, and profile to transport the water and sediment loads. Bed features
including riffles, pools, cascades, and step-pool sequences will be constructed. The cascades and step-
pool sequences are necessary due to the high slopes of many of the design reaches. Grade control
structures such as log sills will be added to the beds and brush toes and log vanes will be used to protect
restored stream banks. Restored reaches will be reconnected with their floodplains by raising the
channel beds. Livestock will be fenced out and riparian buffer zones will be planted. The entire project
area will be protected by a conservation easement. Specific mitigation activities are listed below by
reach in Table 10. Figure 8 is an overview of the site design.
Table 10: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach
Project Reach Primary
Stressors/Impairments Approach Mitigation Activities
Sparks Creek Cattle access EII Fencing out cattle, replanting buffers, protecting
with conservation easement
Hanks Branch R1 Cattle access EII
Localized bank repairs, creating floodplain bench
at upstream end, fencing out cattle, protecting
with conservation easement
Hanks Branch R2
Cattle access, areas of lateral
instability, lack of buffer on
right floodplain
EII
Fencing out cattle, bank repairs where needed,
add wood to channel, replanting buffers,
protecting with conservation easement

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 19
Project Reach Primary
Stressors/Impairments Approach Mitigation Activities
Hanks Branch R3 Channelization, incision,
sparse/narrow buffers EI
Fencing out cattle, creating floodplain bench,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement
UT1
Severe erosion and cattle
trampling, poor buffer
quality/lack of buffer
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement
UT2 Cattle access EII Fencing out cattle, protecting with conservation
easement
UT3 R1
Cattle access, active head
cutting and incision, bank
erosion, poor buffers
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement
UT3 R2 Cattle access, some incision,
poor buffers EII
Fencing out cattle, replanting buffers, localized
bank repairs, protecting with conservation
easement
UT3 R3 Cattle access, incision, bank
erosion, poor buffers R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement
UT3 R4 Cattle access, poor buffers EII Fencing out cattle, replanting buffers, protecting
with conservation easement
UT3A Cattle access, some incision,
poor buffers EII Fencing out cattle, replanting buffers, protecting
with conservation easement
UT4 R1 Cattle access, incision, bank
erosion, poor buffers R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement
UT4 R2 Cattle access, some incision,
poor buffers EII
Fencing out cattle, stabilizing head cuts,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement
UT4 R3
Severe erosion and cattle
trampling, poor buffer
quality/lack of buffer
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement
UT5 R1 Cattle access, incision EII Fencing out cattle, protecting with conservation
easement
UT5 R2
Severe erosion and cattle
trampling, poor buffer
quality/lack of buffer,
impoundment
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
replanting buffers, removing impoundment,
protecting with conservation easement
UT5A Cattle access, incision EII Fencing out cattle, protecting with conservation
easement
6.2 Reference Streams
Reference reaches were selected from Wildlands’ reference database and other sources to develop the
range of design parameters for each of the design streams. References were selected for specific design
reaches based on design stream type and similarities in drainage area and physical characteristics.
Reference reach information is provided in Table 11. More detailed reference reach geomorphic data
are included in Appendix 6. Four additional reference reaches were used along with those in Table 11 to
create the reference reach regional curve for the discharge analysis discussed in Section 6.3. Locations
of reference reaches are shown on Figure 9.

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 20
Table 11: Reference Reach Summary
Design Stream Hanks Branch Tributaries
Reference
Reach
UT to Rocky
Creek
Shrew
Trib A
UT to
Austin
Branch DS
Timber
Trib R1
UT to Kelly
Branch UT to Gap Branch
County Montgomery Wilkes Buncombe Wilkes McDowell Rutherford
Reference
Type
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern, Profile,
Discharge
Region Slate Belt Piedmont Mountains Piedmont Inner
Piedmont Belt Piedmont
Basin Yadkin Yadkin French
Broad Yadkin Broad River Broad
Drainage Area
(sq. mi.) 1.05 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.04
Stream Type E4b A5 B4a B4 B4/B4a B4a
Bkf Q (cfs) 85 3.5 27.3 17 23 18.7
Sinuosity 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1
Valley Slope
(ft/ft) 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.049 -
Channel Slope
(ft/ft) 0.02 0.03-0.065 0.04 0.03 0.03-0.065 -
D50 (mm) 2.2 2 59 6.5 - 19
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to estimate bankfull discharges for restoration reaches including regional
curve data (Harman et al. 2003 and Walker, unpublished), a regional flood frequency analysis using U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) gage sties, and reference reach data. The methods were compared, and a
design discharge was selected based on the results of the different methods. Slightly larger design
discharges relative to drainage areas were established for the small tributaries to drive designs of
slightly larger channels for these reaches. This will help prevent filling of channels and clogging with
vegetation after construction. Results of each method and the final design discharges are shown in Table
12 and illustrated in Figure 10.
Table 12: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Discharge Estimate Method
Hanks
Branch
R3
(669.5 ac)
UT1
(37.5 ac)
UT3 R1
(26.8 ac)
UT3 R3
(45.9 ac)
UT4 R1
(7.0 ac)
UT4 R3
(12.3 ac)
UT5
R2
(12.8
ac)
NCSU Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 92.0 11.0 9.0 13.0 3.4 5.1 5.3
NRCS Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve 58.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 3.0
Regional Flood Frequency
Analysis (cfs)
1.2-year
event 80.0 10.0 8.0 11.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
1.5-year
event 114.0 14.0 11.0 16.0 4.2 6.3 6.5
Reference Reach Regional Curve (cfs) 94.0 15.0 13.0 18.0 5.4 7.7 7.9
Final Design Q 85 13 10 15 4 6 6

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 21
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reach data and designer experience were used to develop design morphologic parameters for
each of the enhancement I and restoration reaches. Key morphological parameters are summarized in
Tables 13-17. Complete design morphological parameters are included in Appendix 6.
Table 13: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT1
Parameter
Existing
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed
Parameters
UT1 UT to
Kelly
Branch
Shrew
Trib A
UT to
Austin
Branch DS
Timber
Trib R1
UT to
Gap
Branch
UT1
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 37.5 51.2 12.8 76.8 25.6 76.8 37.5
Channel/Reach Classification B4 B4/B4a A5 B4a B4 B4a B4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 7.2 7.9 3.6 6.2 8.9 6.2 6.6
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 1.2 1.1 0.5 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.7
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 3.8 5.7 1.1 4.4 4.6 3.8 3.2
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 3.5 5.9 3.3 6.2 3.7 5.0 4.1
Design Discharge (cfs) 13.2 23.0 3.5 27.3 17.0 18.7 13
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.051 0.065 0.063 0.040 0.033 0.068 0.053
Sinuosity 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 - 1.05
Width/Depth Ratio 13.5 10.9 12.1 8.8 17.0 10.1 14
Bank Height Ratio 1.7 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 6.7 1.2 2.1 4.3 1.5 - >1.4
d50 (mm) 15.4 - 2.0 59.0 6.5 19.0 -
Table 14: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT3
Parameter
Existing
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed
Parameters
UT3
Reach
1
UT3
Reach
3
UT to
Kelly
Branch
Shrew
Trib A
UT to
Austin
Branch
DS
Timber
Trib R1
UT to
Gap
Branch
UT3
Reach
1
UT3
Reach
3
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 26.8 45.9 51.2 12.8 76.8 25.6 76.8 26.8 45.9
Channel/Reach Classification B4 B4 B4/B4a A5 B4a B4 B4a B4 B4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 7.3 6 7.9 3.6 6.2 8.9 6.2 5.9 6.8
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.6 1 1.1 0.5 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.5-0.7 0.6-
0.8
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 3.1 5.7 5.7 1.1 4.4 4.6 3.8 2.7 3.5
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 4.9 5.7 5.9 3.3 6.2 3.7 5.0 3.8 4.3
Design Discharge (cfs) 15 27.5 23.0 3.5 27.3 17.0 18.7 10 15
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.056 0.039 0.065 0.063 0.040 0.033 0.068 0.040 0.042
Sinuosity 1.02 1.03 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 - 1.1 1.05

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 22
Parameter
Existing
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed
Parameters
UT3
Reach
1
UT3
Reach
3
UT to
Kelly
Branch
Shrew
Trib A
UT to
Austin
Branch
DS
Timber
Trib R1
UT to
Gap
Branch
UT3
Reach
1
UT3
Reach
3
Width/Depth Ratio 17.5 7.5 10.9 12.1 8.8 17.0 10.1 13 13
Bank Height Ratio 2.7 2.6 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 1.4 1.2 2.1 4.3 1.5 - >1.4 >1.4
d50 (mm) 11 27.6 - 2.0 59.0 6.5 19.0 - -
Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT4
Parameter
Existing
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed
Parameters
UT4
Reach
1
UT4
Reach
3
UT to
Kelly
Branch
Shrew
Trib A
UT to
Austin
Branch
DS
Timber
Trib R1
UT to
Gap
Branch
UT4
Reach
1
UT4
Reach
3
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 7 12.3 51.2 12.8 76.8 25.6 76.8 7 12.3
Channel/Reach Classification B5 B4 B4/B4a A5 B4a B4 B4a B4 B4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 6.2 7.3 7.9 3.6 6.2 8.9 6.2 4.0 4.9
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.5 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.4-
0.5 0.4
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 3.1 1.8 5.7 1.1 4.4 4.6 3.8 1.3 1.9
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 5.1 3.1 5.9 3.3 6.2 3.7 5.0 3.3 3.3
Design Discharge (cfs) 15.5 5.6 23.0 3.5 27.3 17.0 18.7 4 6
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.053 0.044 0.065 0.063 0.040 0.033 0.068 0.049 0.037
Sinuosity 1.1 1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 - 1.05 1.05
Width/Depth Ratio 12.5 29.1 10.9 12.1 8.8 17.0 10.1 13 13
Bank Height Ratio 1.7 2.3 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.1 4.3 1.5 - >1.4 >1.4
d50 (mm) 0.1 20.6 - 2.0 59.0 6.5 19.0 - -
Table 16: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT5
Parameter
Existing
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed
Parameters
UT5 Reach
2
UT to
Kelly
Branch
Shrew
Trib A
UT to
Austin
Branch DS
Timber
Trib R1
UT to Gap
Branch
UT5 Reach
2
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 12.8 51.2 12.8 76.8 25.6 76.8 12.8
Channel/Reach Classification B4 B4/B4a A5 B4a B4 B4a C4b
Design Discharge Width (ft) 5.4 7.9 3.6 6.2 8.9 6.2 5.0

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 23
Parameter
Existing
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed
Parameters
UT5 Reach
2
UT to
Kelly
Branch
Shrew
Trib A
UT to
Austin
Branch DS
Timber
Trib R1
UT to Gap
Branch
UT5 Reach
2
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.6 1.1 0.5 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.4
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 2.2 5.7 1.1 4.4 4.6 3.8 1.9
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 4.1 5.9 3.3 6.2 3.7 5.0 3.2
Design Discharge (cfs) 9 23.0 3.5 27.3 17.0 18.7 6
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.025 0.065 0.063 0.040 0.033 0.068 0.028
Sinuosity 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 - 1.2
Width/Depth Ratio 13 10.9 12.1 8.8 17.0 10.1 13
Bank Height Ratio 1.7 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.1 1.2 2.1 4.3 1.5 - 2.2-5.0
d50 (mm) 15.7 - 2.0 59.0 6.5 19.0 -
Table 17: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Hanks Branch
Parameter
Existing
Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed Parameters
Hanks Branch
Reach 3 UT to Rocky Branch Hanks Branch Reach 3
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 669.5 672 669.5
Channel/Reach Classification C4 E4b C4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 13 12.2 15.5
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 1 1.8 1.4-1.7
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 13.4 16.3 17.7
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 5.1 5.5 4.8
Design Discharge (cfs) 68.8 85.0 85
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.02 0.024 0.02
Sinuosity 1 1.1 -
Width/Depth Ratio 12.6 9.1 14
Bank Height Ratio 4.8 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 6.0 2.2-5.0
d50 (mm) 46.1 23.0 -
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
A qualitative assessment of sediment supply and sources in the project watershed was performed based
on visual inspection and review of historic aerial photos. The watershed assessment indicates that the
watershed is stable and there is no reason to believe that land use will change significantly in the
foreseeable future, beyond occasional logging. Due to the rural nature of the watershed, the stable land
use, and the lack of sediment accumulation in the project streams, the sediment load to the project
streams is expected to be low and stable. As a result, design channels are expected to remain stable and
pass the sediment delivered from the watershed.

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 24
A competence analysis was performed to analyze the ability of the proposed streams to transport the
sizes of sediment supplied to them. The results of the competence analysis are shown in Table 18. The
competence analysis on these reaches indicates that the reaches will be able to transport the sediment
supplied to them by the watersheds.
Table 18: Results of Competence Analysis
Hanks
Branch R3 UT1 UT3 R1 UT3 R3 UT4 R1 UT4 R3 UT5 R2
Abkf (sq ft) 17.7 3.2 2.7 3.5 1.3 1.9 1.9
Wbkf (ft) 15.5 6.6 5.9 6.8 4.0 4.9 5.0
Dbkf (ft) 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4
Schan (ft/ft) 0.015 0.043 0.040 0.042 0.049 0.037 0.028
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 4.8 4.1 3.8 4.3 3.3 3.3 3.2
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 1.01 1.26 1.10 1.29 0.95 0.86 0.64
Movable particle size (mm) 79 99 87 102 74 67 49
Largest particle from bar sample (mm) 80 50 80 80 72 72 25
6.6 Design Summary
Below are descriptions of the designs for the restoration and enhancement I reaches. Enhancement II
reaches will generally include fencing out cattle, planting with native tree species, permanent protection
in a conservation easement, and bank repairs where necessary.
UT1
UT1 will be built as a B type stream with the existing tight valley. The alignment will be constructed with
little meander pattern, similar to a natural B stream. The upstream end of the reach will tie into a 2.4-
foot high headcut downstream of an existing 48-inch metal culvert. The bed will be raised somewhat in
this upstream section but kept low enough in the valley to allow for a neighbor’s existing spring box
drainage pipe, which currently discharges to the channel, to remain in place approximately 65 feet
downstream of the culvert. This work at the upstream end will be done with a temporary construction
easement on the property of a non-participating neighbor. Downstream of the drainage pipe, the
easement begins and the bed will be constructed so that the top of bank is raised to the grade of
existing wetlands on the right bank. This will improve wetland hydrology. Beginning at approximately
225 linear feet downstream of the existing culvert, the channel will be tied to existing bankfull benches.
For much of the rest of this reach, the channel grade will be established to connect to existing bankfull
features or to existing wetlands along both the left and right banks. At approximately 600 feet
downstream from the culvert, the channel will be tied into an existing bedrock feature in a meander
bend. Downstream of this meander bend there will be a forty-foot internal crossing with a culvert.
Beyond the culvert, the channel will tie back into existing bedrock on a very steep grade until the point it
ties into Hanks Branch. Rock step-pools and boulder cascades are strategically placed to stabilize very
steep sections of channel. Most of the mild meander bends will be protected with brush toe.
Approximately 200 feet downstream of the UT1 confluence on Hanks Branch, a step-pool stormwater
conveyance BMP will be installed on an existing ephemeral headcut. This BMP feature will treat 3.2
acres of cattle pasture.
UT3 Reach 1
UT3 Reach 1 begins at a natural springhead seep at the upstream end of the existing channel. The
upstream tie in has been designed below this springhead. The reach is designed as a B-type stream
channel. Below this section, the reach transitions to raise grade to allow the stream to tie to natural,
infrequently occurring, stable bankfull bench features throughout Reach 1. A 3-foot wide, bankfull
bench will be built on the left side and then transition to a 4:1 slope to tie to existing left floodplain

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 25
grade. Fill dirt generated will be used to backfill portions of the oversized existing UT3 channel.
Continuing downstream, the channel will be raised to meet existing bench features and rebuilt to an
appropriately sized channel for the watershed. UT3 Reach 1 pattern follows the natural fall of the valley,
creating a stable channel that meanders gently through the existing valley topography. Following the
natural valley, the design stream profile was created to connect these low bench features, alternating
between constructed riffles and rock or log step-pool sequences. Reach 1 restoration ends just below
the confluence with UT3A where the existing UT3 channel regains natural flood relief through an
existing low bench feature and the reach transitions to enhancement II approach through UT3 Reach 2.
A BMP pond will be constructed above the head of the jurisdictional channel and will capture upper
watershed runoff and flow into the UT3 jurisdictional stream through a rock-lined swale.
UT3 Reach 3
UT3 Reach 3 was designed as a B type channel, with few gentle meanders and frequent step-pool
sequences. Most of the pool bends will be protected with brush toe, while in line pools will be built
following drop structures. The reach starts in a confined valley but will be moved offline shortly
downstream from the origin to tie into an existing bench approximately 30 feet wide that maintains
grade with the existing channel and preserves mature native trees. After the bench feature ends, the
channel will be constructed in-line, an existing head cut will be filled, and the bed will be raised to
improve access to the floodplain. The channel design downstream remains confined to the existing
valley; however, grade work will be done to lessen the slope of the valley walls adjacent to the channel.
The next section of channel will be constructed offline in the lower slope portion of the reach to enter a
culvert passing through an internal easement break. Below the culvert, streamflow will be conveyed
through a step pool system to tie into grade with the existing channel of UT3 Reach 4.
UT4 Reach 1
UT4 is has been designed to be a steep B stream type within the existing valley. The existing valley is
wide enough to allow for floodplain creation within the valley. UT4 begins at a spring head near the bed
of the existing channel. Reach 1 will be designed to tie into this springhead at the upstream end and
then quickly transition to a raised streambed. The bed will be raised enough to tie into some existing
terrace features in the valley. A portion of low-quality wetland area (wetland Yon Figure 6), created by
cattle wallows, will be filled to create a steady longitudinal valley slope. For the downstream portion of
this wetland, the channel bed will be raised to improve hydrology for adjacent wetlands. A series of rock
cascades and pools will be constructed on a very steep section of channel to stabilize the headcut and
transition to the lower grade at the beginning of Reach 2. A BMP pond will be constructed above the
head of the jurisdictional channel and will capture runoff and flow into the UT4 jurisdictional stream
through a rock-lined swale.
UT4 Reach 3
Although somewhat less steep than Reach 1, UT4 Reach 3 is also a fairly steep B type stream. This
channel will be slightly more sinuous than Reach 1. This reach transitions from being deeply entrenched
in a tight valley to be much less entrenched. In the entrenched section, the bed will be raised, and the
cross section will be sized appropriately for the watershed, but the stream will remain entrenched to
make the downstream grades for the culvert crossing work. Once the entrenchment is decreased, the
channel will be raised to tie into the existing floodplain elevations. There is an internal culvert crossing
approximately two-thirds of the way through this reach. The downstream end of this reach will tie into
Hanks Branch with a series of rock step-pool features.
UT5 Reach 2
UT5 Reach 2 will begin as a Cb type channel where the valley widens downstream of the incised UT5
Reach 1. UT5 Reach 2 was designed in-line until entering the existing pond. The channel will be

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 26
positioned towards the pond dam on the right perimeter to maximize access to compacted soil that will
form the bed of the channel. Some sediment may be removed from the pond bed along the channel
alignment and replaced with material from the dam to provide better soil for constructing the new
channel. Downstream of the pond dam, UT5 will be moved westward to take advantage of a more
gently sloped pasture area (~2%) and to move the channel away from the base of very steep valley wall
on the left. The channel will be designed to allow for greater access to the floodplain and to be a more
sinuous channel with pools in the meander bends. A portion of the channel will enter a culvert passing
through an internal easement break. Beyond the culvert, the channel will be designed as a B stream and
will be purposefully incised to drop through a step pool system and tie into existing bankful features at
the confluence of Sparks Creek.
Hanks Branch
Hanks Branch Reach 3 starts immediately downstream of a culvert crossing on Hanks branch. The
stream is characterized by having large particles in the substrate and good bed forms but being
straightened and channelized. The existing channel has few pools, so the design includes a series of
alternating j-hooks to force inline pools to form. The right bank of the channel will be graded back and
benched to allow for better floodplain access.
6.7 Planting Plan
One of the goals of the project is to restore and improve riparian buffers on the site. To that end, native
trees appropriate for the site will be planted to establish a mesic mixed hardwood forest within the
conservation easement. The wetland and buffer planting zones will be planted with bare root seedlings,
at a maximum spacing of 12 feet, from the tops of bank to the extents of the conservation easement or
extents of disturbance where currently forested. Hanks Branch Reach 3 will be planted with live stakes
in two rows along the banks with a three foot by three foot staggered spacing along both sides of riffles
and one row with a spacing of six feet on the outsides of meander bends. Hanks Branch will also be
planted with herbaceous plugs at normal baseflow stage with a linear spacing of four feet along both
sides of riffles and 3 feet along outsides of meander bends. For the restoration and enhancement I
reaches on UT1, UT3, UT4, and UT5, a single row of live stakes will be planted at one to two feet offset
from the tops of banks on both sides of riffles and outsides of meander bends with a spacing of six feet.
For these streams, a single row of herbaceous plugs will be planted between the normal baseflow stage
and the top of bank on the outsides of meander bends with a spacing of six feet and immediately
upstream and downstream of sills. Permanent seed will be spread on streambanks, floodplain areas, and
all disturbed areas within the conservation easement. See Sheets 3.0 and 3.01 of the construction plans
for the species lists and planting zones layout. The site will be planted between December and April.
Construction practices are intended to minimize effects to soil properties, but some impacts are
unavoidable. Ripping may be implemented to ameliorate soil compaction resulting from haul roads,
stockpile areas, etc. Areas of compacted soil such as haul roads will be ripped to a depth of 18 inches in
a grid-like pattern with a maximum rip shank spacing of six feet. Ripping will be performed during the
driest conditions feasible to maximize shatter of the plow pan. Where grading is required, topsoil will be
stockpiled and reapplied. Soil amendments may be incorporated to enhance survival and growth of
planted vegetation as determined necessary by soil testing.
Most invasive species within the project area will be treated and/or mechanically removed during
construction, but additional treatment is expected to be necessary. Invasive species presence will be
monitored and treated as necessary throughout the monitoring period. Additional monitoring and
management issues regarding vegetation are included in Sections 10 and 11.

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 27
The pasture grass that occurs throughout the project includes tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea).
Wildlands will treat the existing fescue within the conservation easement to prevent any effects on tree
growth. The treatment will be a part of the site management plan and will include spraying the fescue
throughout the easement with a boom sprayer and/or ring sprays around planted trees.
7.0 Determination of Credits
The final stream credits associated with the Site are listed in Table 19. Stream Restoration is at a ratio of
1:1. All buffers meet the minimum 50-foot requirement. Credit ratios for multiple reaches including UT3
Reach 4, UT5 Reach 1, and UT5a were agreed upon at the post-contract IRT site walk. The credit release
schedule is located in Appendix 7.
Table 19: Determination of Credits
Project Segment
Existing
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio
(X:1)
Notes
Sparks Creek - Not for
Credit 215 215 Cool EII N/A 2.5 No buffer on
right side
Sparks Creek 405 405 Cool EII N/A 2.5
Sparks Creek - Not for
Credit 42 42 Cool EII N/A 2.5 Ford
crossing
Sparks Creek 332 332 Cool EII N/A 2.5
Hanks Branch Reach 1 1678 1678 Cool EII N/A 2.5
Hanks Branch Reach 2 1083 1065 Cool EII N/A 2.5
Hanks Branch Reach 2 - Not
for Credit 42 42 Cool EII N/A 2.5 Bridge
crossing
Hanks Branch Reach 3 581 581 Cool EI PII 1.5
UT1 - Not for Credit 61 60 Cool R PI 1
TCE to work
above
property
line
UT1 717 659 Cool R PI 1
UT1 - Not for Credit 42 40 Cool R PI 1 Culvert
crossing
UT1 110 106 Cool R PI 1
UT2 78 78 Cool EII N/A 3
UT3 Reach 1 702 655 Cool R PI 1
UT3 Reach 2 447 447 Cool EII N/A 2.5
UT3 Reach 3 560 513 Cool R PI 1
UT3 Reach 3 - Not for Credit 47 45 Cool R PI 1 Culvert
crossing
UT3 Reach 3 84 74 Cool R PI 1
UT3 Reach 4 272 272 Cool EII N/A 4
UT3A 253 253 Cool EII N/A 2.5
UT4 Reach 1 237 233 Cool R PI 1
UT4 Reach 2 323 323 Cool EII N/A 2.5
UT4 Reach 3 138 140 Cool R PI 1

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 28
Project Segment
Existing
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio
(X:1)
Notes
UT4 Reach 3 - Not for Credit 42 40 Cool R PI 1 Culvert
crossing
UT4 Reach 3 96 100 Cool R PI 1
UT5 Reach 1 437 437 Cool EII N/A 4
UT5 Reach 2 207 220 Cool R PI 1
UT5 Reach 2 - Not for Credit 36 35 Cool R PI 1 Culvert
crossing
UT5 Reach 2 113 107 Cool R PI 1
UT5A 318 318 Cool EII N/A 3

Project Credits
Restoration Level
Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland (Acres) Non-
Riparian
Wetland
(Acres)
Coastal
Marsh Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 2,807.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Re-establishment N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rehabilitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Enhancement N/A N/A N/A N/A
Enhancement I 387.333 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Enhancement II 2,110.450 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Creation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Preservation 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Totals 5,304.783 0.000 0.000 0.000
8.0 Performance Standards
The stream performance standards for the project will follow approved performance standards
presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (Version 2.3, June 2017), the Annual Monitoring
Template (June 2017), and the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update issued October 2016 by the USACE and NCIRT. Annual monitoring and routine site visits will be
conducted by a qualified scientist to assess the condition of the finished project. Specific performance
standards that apply to this project are those described in the 2016 Compensatory Mitigation Update
including Vegetation (Section V, B, Items 1 through 3) and Stream Channel Stability and Stream
Hydrology Performance Standards (Section VI, B, Items 1 through 7). Performance standards are
summaries in Table 20.

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 29
Table 20: Summary of Performance Standards
Parameter Monitoring Feature Performance Standard
Dimension Cross-Section Survey BHR <1.2; ER <2.2 for C/E channels, ER <1.4 for B channels
Pattern and Profile Visual Assessment Should indicate stream stability
Substrate Pebble Counts Coarser material in riffles; finer particles in pools
Photo
Documentation
• Cross-Section Photos
• Photo Points
No excessive erosion or degradation of banks
No mid-channel bars, Stable grade control
Hydrology Pressure Transducer • Four bankfull events during the 7-year period; in separate years
• 30 days of consecutive flow on restored intermittent streams
Vegetation Vegetation Plots
MY3 success criteria: 320 planted stems per acre,
MY5 success criteria: 260 planted stems per acre, average of 7 feet
in height in each plot
MY7 success criteria: 210 planted stems per acre, average of 10 feet
in height in each plot
Visual Assessment CCPV Signs of encroachment, stream instability, invasive species - <5% of
conservation easement
9.0 Monitoring Plan
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are
met, and project goals and objectives are achieved. Project monitoring requirements are shown in Table
21. Approximate locations of the proposed monitoring components are illustrated in Figure 11.
Table 21: Monitoring Requirements
Parameter Monitoring Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency Notes Hanks
Branch
Reach 3
UT1
UT3
Reach 1
& 3
UT4
Reach 1
& 3
UT5
Reach
2
Dimension Riffle Cross Sections 1 1 2 2 1 Year 1, 2,
3, 5, & 7 Pool Cross Section 1 1 2 N/A N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A 1 Profile Longitudinal Profile
Substrate Reach Wide (RW) 1 1 2 2 1 Year 1, 2,
3, 5, & 7
Hydrology
Pressure Transducer:
Crest Gauge (CG) or
Flow Gauge (FG)
1 CG 1 CG 1 CG 1 CG
1 FG 1 CG N/A 2
Vegetation CVS Level 2 9 Year 1, 2,
3, 5, & 7
Exotic and Nuisance
Vegetation Annual 3
Project Boundary Annual 4
Reference Photos Photographs 34 Annual
1. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during MY0 only,
unless observations indicate lack of stability and profile survey is warranted in additional years.
2. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly and downloaded, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a
photo when possible. Transducers will be set to record stage once every four hours.
3. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
4. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 30
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for
the property and will conduct inspections of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. The Stewardship Program usually conducts inspections every one to
three years. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the non-
reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the
Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest
gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship
administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The Site Protection Instrument can be found in
Appendix 8 and financial assurances are in Appendix 9.
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of site construction Wildlands will implement the post-construction monitoring
protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described
Appendix 10. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined the site’s ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, DMS will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in-house technical staff or may
require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
DMS will:
• Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
• Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
• Obtain other permits as necessary.
• Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
• Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.

Lyon Hills Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100085
Final Mitigation Plan July 2020 Page 31
12.0 References
Harman, W.H., et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 2008. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Plan.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-planning/water-resource-
plans/yadkin-pee-dee-2008
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Yadkin_River_Basin/2009%20
Upper%20Yadkin%20RBRP_Final%20Final%2C%2026feb%2709.pdf
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS.
http://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=a8281cbd24b84239b29cd2ca798d
4a10
North Carolina Interagency Review Team, 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-Mitigation-
Update.pdf
Web Soil Survey, 2020. US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Survey,
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium, 2016. National Land Cover Database 2016
(NLCD 2016). https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2016-land-cover-conus
Walker, Alan, unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve.

Figures 

®q
Waterfalls Creek Slopes
Pine Swamp Forest-Bog
Stone Mountain State Park
Doughton Park Natural Area
Mitchell River Headwaters
Waterfalls Creek Meadow Bog Skunk Cabbage Bogs
Brush Creek Bog
Laurel Branch Bog
Elkin Creek Meadow Bogs
Stone Mountain State ParkGambill Creek Meadow Bog
03040101060010
Holbrook Farm Complex
Elbert Crouse Farmstead Devotion Rural Historic District
Traphill Historic District
Claymont Hill
NC Agricultural Foundation Preserve
Blue Ridge Conservancy Easement
NC Clean Water ManagementTrust Fund Funded Project
Blue Ridge Conservancy Easement
Piedmont Land ConservancyChatham Forest
Stone Mountain State Park
Wilkes Co
0304010106003003040101060010
03040101070030
03040101070010
03040101080010
03040101060040
05050001030030
03040101070020
03040101080030
05050001030020
03040101050010
03040101060020
03040101060050
03040101070050
03040101080020
03040101070040 03040101070040
Figure 1 - Vicinity MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 0 304010 1
Wilkes County, NC
¹0 21 Miles
5 Mile Radius
Project Location
County Boundary
Municipalities
Hydrologic Unit C ode (14-digit)
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
NC Historical Preservation Areas
Water Supply Watersheds
Targeted Local Watersheds
303d Listed Streams
Major Rivers
®q Airports
Hanks BranchS
p
ark
s Cree
k
UT5
UT5A
UT4
UT3A
UT3 UT1
UT2Hanks Branch
0 300 600 Feet ¹
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 2 - Site MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Existing Pond
Existing Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
Hanks St Lyon Ridge
Sparks Creek6,131 acres Hanks BranchUT513 acres
UT5A5 acres
UT137 acres
UT412 acres
UT2231 acres
UT3A5 acres
UT346 acres
Hanks Branch669 acres
Hanks Branch
0 900 1,800 Feet ¹
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 3 - Watershed MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
Sparks Creek Watershed
Subwatersheds
Existing Project Streams
Non-Project Streams Hanks St
0 0.5 1 Miles Lyon Ridge
¹Figure 4 - USGS Topographic MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 0 304010 1
Wilkes County, NC
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
Purlear USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
0 500250 Feet
UT2 Hanks BranchUT1
UT3
UT3A
UT5A
UT4UT5
S
p
ark
s C
re
e
k
Hanks Branch
CoA
FaD
RdE
CoA
RdE
RdE
FaD
FcC2
FaD
DpC2
DaA
0 300 600 Feet ¹
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 5 - Soils MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
CoA - Codorus Loam (0-2% slopes)
DaA - Dan River and Comus soils (0-4% slopes)
DpC2 - Danripple sandy clay loam (8-15% slopes)
FaD - Fairview sandy loam (15-25% slopes)
FcC2 - Fairview sandy clay loam (8-15%)
RdE - Rhodhiss fine sandy loam (25-60% slopes)
Existing Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
Hanks St Lyon Ridge
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(Hanks BranchS
p
ark
s
C
r
e
e
k
UT5
UT5A
Reach 1
UT3A
UT3
UT1
UT2Hanks Branch
Reach 2
UT4
Reach 3
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 4
X S 1 0 Y
O
F
Q
T
V
K
C
J
B
R
CC G
N
S
IBB
H
DD
X
A
L
U
P M
E
Z
W
AA
D
XS 4
XS 1XS
2 XS 12XS 6
XS 8
XS 13XS 14
XS 5
XS 11X S 9
X S 7
XS 3
0 300 600 Feet ¹
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 6 - Existing Conditions MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Existing Pond
Existing Cross-Sections
Existing Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
!(Reach Break
Hanks St Lyon RidgeExisting Ford Crossing
Existing Culvert Crossing
Existing Culvert Crossing
Existing Culvert Crossing
Failed Culvert Crossing
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(Hanks BranchReach 2
UT5A
UT3A
UT3 UT1
UT2
Sparks Creek Hanks Branch
Reach 3
Reach 4UT4
UT5
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 1
0 300 600 Feet ¹
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 7 - Concept MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Easement Continued for No Credit
Existing Wetlands
Proposed Stream Approach
Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement I (1.5:1)
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement II (3:1)
Enhancement II (4:1)
No Credit
Non-Project Streams
^_Proposed BMP
!(Reach Break
Hanks St Lyon RidgeRemove ExistingFarm Pond
Continue EasementNot For Credit
40' InternalFord Crossing
35' InternalCulvert Crossing
45' InternalCulvert Crossing
Pocket Pool
Pocket Pool
Step-Pool StormwaterConveyance
40' InternalCulvert Crossing
40' InternalBridge Crossing
40' InternalCulvert Crossing
Hanks BranchSparks Creek
UT5
UT5A
UT4
UT3A
UT3
UT1
UT2Hanks Branch
0 300 600 Feet ¹
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 8 - FEMA Floodplain MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Existing Pond
Zone AE - 100 Year Floodplain Boundary
Existing Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
Hanks St Lyon Ridge
##
##
##
##
####
^_
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Shew Tributary A
UT to Gap Branch
UT to Rocky Creek
UT to Kelly BranchUT to Austin Branch DS
Timber Tributary R1
0 12 24 Miles ¹
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 9 - Reference Reach Vicinity MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
^_Project Location
##Reference Site
Figure 10 - Discharge Analysis Graph Lyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
^_
^_
^_Hanks BranchReach 2
UT5A
Reach 1
UT3A
Reach 1 UT1
UT2
S
p
arks Creek
Hanks Branch
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 1
UT5
UT4
UT3
Reach 1
Reach 2
0 300 600 Feet ¹
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 11 - Monitoring Components MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Existing Wetlands
Proposed Stream Approach
Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement I (1.5:1)
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement II (3:1)
Enhancement II (4:1)
No Credit
Non-Project Streams
Cross-Section
^_BMP
!(Reach Break
!A Crest Gauge
!A Flow Gauge
Vegetation Plot
GF Photo Point
Hanks St Lyon Ridge0

Appendices 

Appendix 1 

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Pa4
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - Sparks Creek Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb3
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - Hanks Branch R 1 & 2 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb3
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - Hanks Branch R3 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT1 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Pb2
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - Hanks Branch UT2 Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NO
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT3 R1 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT3 R2 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb2
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT3 R3 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT3 R4 Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT3A Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb2
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT4 R1 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT4 R2 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb2
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT4 R3 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT5 R1 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Pa2
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT5 R2 Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name Lyon Hills - UT5A Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Carolyn Lanza
5/22/19
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
0-r(
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: o3 %� zoos'
Project/Site: L C,,'i _® 0 /
Latitude:
Evaluator: J ;%
County: iV,wS
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (ci �Ig..one}-.e
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30"�
E hemeral Intermitten Perennial
P
e. Quad Name:
g'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = �L`1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = �)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3 '
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
oo
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
009
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = T71_ __)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
ACW = 0.75' OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p.
35 of manual.
Notes: 7\70 r o cc,.
11
Sketch:
(%

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3 1 0i ig
Project/Site: L &A - I
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: �Jlv-e S
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ��
Stream Determination (ci
Other
if > 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = F J +�
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str ng
1a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3 1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
C2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1'
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = (0 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3 1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1'
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0)
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:S �-1
Project/Site: L, - r3
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: County: �,`S
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (ci I .o�
Other
if >_ 19 or perennial if _> 30"
Ephemeral Intermitten erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
ryes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = �!_)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0)
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0�
0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
Mo = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _tJ_)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
CO)1
2
3
22. Fish
0.
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
CO)0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
l
�7'

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: (53 Pi -2c ri 6�
Project/Site: Lye,,A - �� %
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: �a' V,.t s
Longitude:
Total! Points:
Stream is at least intermittent C
Stream Determination (ci
Other
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30`
Ephemeral Intermitten Perenni
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = '/-U )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2�)
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
77- 0;._6
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 ,
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual ®--
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = (0o 5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1i
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 ..
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal =j
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 6 liq 6-
Project/Site:s C,? (�
Latitude:
Evaluator: D
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ,
Stream Determination (ci
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial `
Other
i
if > 19 or perennial if _> 30'
p
e. Quad Name:
5
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3�
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5 j
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 61,5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
?
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5 1
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
I
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 COfher = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
]j
`�l

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site: veti5 - I "� S
Latitude:
Evaluator: YOU-)
County: r i l�
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (ci
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if > 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial
p
e. Quad Name:
g
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = r�
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str g
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1)
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual �---/
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = (p_____ _ _)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3,
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0)
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
o = 0 '
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5 ;5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
di
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
s�

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

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: c)3
tH1205
Project/Site,: tPp OVi5 �- ��n �.
Latitude:
f
Evaluator:
r
County: (, j. (�
�
.one """
Ike
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (c'
Other
,
if > 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = KLZ�)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.2
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1�,
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
rYes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual -- ---'
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 'I )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2'
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1'
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5'
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
o = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biologv (Subtotal = Lo-') )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 ,
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 0 3 I)q 2&- 1 s
Project/Site: L I�G aiS - S � � �
Latitude:
Evaluator: PUl
County: �
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 2
Stream Determination (ci a
Other
,
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
Ephemeral Intermitten Perennial
p
e. Quad Name:
g'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 2(0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3 ,
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3;
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3'
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
Cl)
1.
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6, j )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
T32
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1 '
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1 .
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

       Appendix 2 

Cross Section 1Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials13.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 15.6 W flood prone area (ft) 42.5D50 (mm)13.0 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio 90D84 (mm)1.0 mean depth (ft) 5.9 low bank height (ft) 62 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 4.8 low bank height ratio13.9 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)---12.6 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power5.3 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 2.1 channel slope (%)70.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.19 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.26 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.95 Froude number 6.0 resistance factor u/u* 0.81 shear velocity (ft/s)3.5 relative roughness 7.1 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)88899091929394959697980 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 1 (Hanks Branch Reach 3 - Riffle)Elevation (ft)
Cross Section 2Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials34.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 23.7 W flood prone area (ft) ---D50 (mm)20.5 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)1.7 mean depth (ft) 7.1 low bank height (ft) 99 threshold grain size (mm):2.7 max depth (ft) 2.6 low bank height ratio22.3 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type1.5 hydraulic radius (ft)b12.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power7.2 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 2.1 channel slope (%)246.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.16 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 2.02 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.02 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 1.02 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 15.8 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)87888990919293949596970 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 2 (Hanks Branch Reach 3 - Pool)
Cross Section 3Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials10.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) --- W flood prone area (ft) ---D50 (mm)10.2 width (ft) --- entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)1.0 mean depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height (ft) 69 threshold grain size (mm):2.1 max depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio11.7 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)b9.9 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power5.5 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 2.5 channel slope (%)58.1 discharge rate (cfs) 0.19 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.41 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.02 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.85 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 8.8 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)9292.59393.59494.59595.59696.59797.50 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 3 (UT1 - Pool)
Cross Section 4Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials3.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 48.0 W flood prone area (ft) 16.9D50 (mm)3.7 width (ft) 13.0 entrenchment ratio 43.7D84 (mm)0.9 mean depth (ft) 2.0 low bank height (ft) 103 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height ratio4.9 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)b4.2 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power6.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 5.1 channel slope (%)20.8 discharge rate (cfs) 0.21 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 2.10 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.38 Froude number 7.2 resistance factor u/u* 1.04 shear velocity (ft/s)6.2 relative roughness 18 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50, 9292.59393.59494.59595.59696.5970 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 4 (UT1 - Riffle)
Cross Section 5Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials16.5 x-section area (ft.sq.) 24.2 W flood prone area (ft) ---D50 (mm)16.0 width (ft) 1.5 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)1.0 mean depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height (ft) 163 threshold grain size (mm):2.1 max depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio17.4 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)a15.5 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power8.5 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 5.6 channel slope (%)140.2 discharge rate (cfs) 0.19 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 3.31 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.54 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 1.31 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 31 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)89.59090.59191.59292.59393.59494.50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 5 (UT3 Reach 1 - Pool)
Cross Section 6Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials3.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.4 W flood prone area (ft) 19.9D50 (mm)7.3 width (ft) 1.4 entrenchment ratio 50D84 (mm)0.4 mean depth (ft) 1.5 low bank height (ft) 70 threshold grain size (mm):0.6 max depth (ft) 2.7 low bank height ratio7.5 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)a17.5 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.9 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 5.6 channel slope (%)15.0 discharge rate (cfs) 0.25 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.43 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.34 Froude number 5.4 resistance factor u/u* 0.86 shear velocity (ft/s)2.6 relative roughness 7.1 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50, 909192939495960 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 6 (UT3 Reach 1 - Riffle)
Cross Section 7Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 9.1 W flood prone area (ft) ---D50 (mm)8.2 width (ft) 1.1 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)0.3 mean depth (ft) 5.1 low bank height (ft) 39 threshold grain size (mm):0.9 max depth (ft) 5.7 low bank height ratio8.6 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)b24.1 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.5 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 3.9 channel slope (%)9.6 discharge rate (cfs) 0.27 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.79shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.07 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.64 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 2.9 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)899091929394959697980 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 7 (UT3 Reach 3 - Pool)
Cross Section 8Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials4.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 8.7 W flood prone area (ft) 23.6D50 (mm)6.0 width (ft) 1.4 entrenchment ratio 57.6D84 (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 2.6 low bank height (ft) 84 threshold grain size (mm):1.0 max depth (ft) 2.6 low bank height ratio6.9 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)---7.5 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power5.8 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 3.9 channel slope (%)28.2 discharge rate (cfs) 0.21 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.72 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.22 Froude number 6.4 resistance factor u/u* 0.94 shear velocity (ft/s)4.2 relative roughness 11.4 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)Missing: , , , D50, 9191.59292.59393.59494.59595.50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 8 (UT3 Reach 3 - Riffle)
Cross Section 9Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials3.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 7.4 W flood prone area (ft) 0.1D50 (mm)6.2 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio 6.3D84 (mm)0.5 mean depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height (ft) 74 threshold grain size (mm):0.7 max depth (ft) 2.3 low bank height ratio6.7 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)---12.5 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power5.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 5.3 channel slope (%)15.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.24 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.50 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.33 Froude number 11.0 resistance factor u/u* 0.88 shear velocity (ft/s)23.9 relative roughness 8.3 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50, 85868788899091929394950 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 9 (UT4 Reach 1 - Riffle)
Cross Section 10Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials14.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 12.3 W flood prone area (ft) ---D50 (mm)8.2 width (ft) 1.5 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)1.8 mean depth (ft) 3.2 low bank height (ft) 221 threshold grain size (mm):3.2 max depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio11.0 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)---4.5 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power10.5 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 5.3 channel slope (%)157.2 discharge rate (cfs) 0.17 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 4.50 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.59 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 1.52 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 63 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)848688909294960 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 10 (UT4 Reach 1 - Pool)
Cross Section 11Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials1.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 9.0 W flood prone area (ft) 37.9D50 (mm)7.3 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio 70.8D84 (mm)0.3 mean depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height (ft) 33 threshold grain size (mm):0.4 max depth (ft) 2.3 low bank height ratio7.5 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.2 hydraulic radius (ft)---29.1 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 4.4 channel slope (%)5.6 discharge rate (cfs) 0.30 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.67shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.09 Froude number 3.5 resistance factor u/u* 0.59 shear velocity (ft/s)1.1 relative roughness 2.1 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50, 858687888990919293940 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 11 (UT4 Reach 3 - Riffle)
Cross Section 12Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials7.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 12.6 W flood prone area (ft) ---D50 (mm)7.7 width (ft) 1.6 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)1.0 mean depth (ft) 3.9 low bank height (ft) 118 threshold grain size (mm):1.3 max depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height ratio8.5 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)---7.9 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power7.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 4.4 channel slope (%)53.1 discharge rate (cfs) 0.19 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 2.40 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.35 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 1.11 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 19 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)84868890929496980 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 12 (UT4 Reach 3 - Pool)Elevation (ft)
Cross Section 13Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 7.6 W flood prone area (ft) ---D50 (mm)5.3 width (ft) 1.4 entrenchment ratio ---D84 (mm)0.4 mean depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height (ft) 30 threshold grain size (mm):0.7 max depth (ft) 4.2 low bank height ratio5.6 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)---13.1 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 2.5 channel slope (%)6.7 discharge rate (cfs) 0.26 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.60shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.89 Froude number --- resistance factor u/u* 0.56 shear velocity (ft/s)--- relative roughness 1.97 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)92.59393.59494.59595.59696.59797.50 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 13 (UT5 Reach 2 - Pool)
Cross Section 14Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) 11.0 W flood prone area (ft) 16.9D50 (mm)5.4 width (ft) 2.1 entrenchment ratio 43.7D84 (mm)0.4 mean depth (ft) 1.1 low bank height (ft) 30 threshold grain size (mm):0.6 max depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height ratio5.7 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)a13.0 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 2.5 channel slope (%)7.0 discharge rate (cfs) 0.25 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.61shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.89 Froude number 5.7 resistance factor u/u* 0.56 shear velocity (ft/s)2.9 relative roughness 2 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)Missing: , , Sinuosity, D50, 92.59393.59494.59595.50 5 10 15 20 25Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 14 (UT5 - Riffle)

Appendix 3 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. SAW-2018-01784 County: Wilkes U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Traphill

NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (revised)

Requestor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Charlie Neaves
Address: 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone Number: 919-851-9986
E-mail: [e-mail]

Size (acres) 52 Nearest Town Traphill
Nearest Waterway Hanks Branch River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040101 Coordinates Latitude: 36.327449
Longitude: -81.008201
Location description: The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is located at 334 Lyon Ridge, south of Austin-Traphill Road and north of
Hanks Street in Traphill, Wilkes County, North Carolina.

Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
☒ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed revised delineation map received 5/28/2020.
Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining
compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource
protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be
affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.
☐ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corp s.
B. Approved Determination

☐ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
☐The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
SAW-2018-01784
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, pro vided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
☐The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our publish ed
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 ma y
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, constru ction 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 quest ions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steve Kichefski at 828-271-7980 ext. 4234 or
[e-mail].

C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form signed 6/11/2020. Due to an expanded project area, a revised PJD was requested by email (with
supporting documentation) on May 28, 2020. This revised PJD replaces the PJD issued on April 2,
2020.
D. Remarks: None.

E. Attention USDA Program Participants

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

F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)

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

US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shannin, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801

In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Shoul d you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspo ndence.**

Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________

Date of JD: 6/11/2020 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable
SAW-2018-01784
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0

Copy furnished:

Property Owner: Linda & Mickey Durham
Address: 10246 Austin Traphill Road
Traphill, NC 28685
Telephone Number: 336-957-2702
E-mail: n/a

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Wildlands Engineering, Inc., Charlie Neaves File Number: SAW-2018-01784 Date: 6/11/2020
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 or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

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
Attn: Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Phillip Shannin, 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: Steve Kichefski, 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. Phillip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATI ON
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 6/11/2020
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Wildlands Engineering, Inc., Charlie Neaves,
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225, Raleigh, NC 27609
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, NCDMS Lyon Hills Mitigation
Site, SAW-2018-01784
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is located
at 334 Lyon Ridge, south of Austin-Traphill Road and north of Hanks Street in Traphill, Wilkes County, North
Carolina.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Wilkes City: Traphill
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 36.327449 Longitude: -81.008201
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Hanks Branch
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

☐Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
☒Field Determination. Date(s): February 11, 2020 with Steve Kichefski (USACE) and Charlie Neaves (Wildlands
Engineering, Inc.)
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION

Site Number Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated
amount of
aquatic
resources in
review area
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs.
non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section 404
or Section 10/404)
1 2 3 4 5 6
See attached
table and map

1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and
obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having
discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may
be appropriate.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide
General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction
notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit,
and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is
hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic
resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and
conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could
possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions;
(3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a
permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary;
(5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without
requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a
permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in
reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that
all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as
jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial
compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and
(7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as
soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and
conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to
make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in
the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the
review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable
waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: _______BBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____BBBBBBBBBBBB.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
or Other (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Other information (please specify): ______________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
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 staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
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.
5/28/2020
Signature and date of
1:12000 Traphill Quadrangle
Web Soil Survey
NC Onemap, 2018
Table 1. Summary of On-Site Jurisdictional Waters Feature Latitude Longitude Cowardin Class Estimated Amount of Aquatic Resource in Review Area Class of Aquatic Resource Sparks Creek 36.326588 -81.012224 Riverine - Streambed 1117.02 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) Hanks Branch 36.326727 -81.008730 Riverine - Streambed 3558.14 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT to Sparks Creek 36.325918 -81.011459 Unconsolidated Bottom 39.38 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent) UT1 36.330269 -81.004109 Riverine - Streambed 952.82 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT2 36.326555 -81.006409 Riverine - Streambed 78.08 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT2A 36.326418 -81.006362 Unconsolidated Bottom 49.88 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent) UT3 36.328733 -81.007952 Riverine - Streambed 2151.66 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT3A 36.330059 -81.008677 Unconsolidated Bottom 252.54 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent) UT3B 36.327005 -81.007829 Riverine-Streambed 161.51 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT4 36.327420 -81.009886 Riverine - Streambed 757.47 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) UT5 36.329714 -81.012342 Riverine – Streambed 691.75 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent/Perennial) UT5A 36.328847 -81.011757 Riverine - Streambed 318.01 Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial) Wetland A 36.329405 -81.002931 Palustrine – Emergent 0.007 Potential Waters of the US Wetland B 36.329402 -81.002931 Palustrine – Emergent 0.014 Potential Waters of the US
Feature Latitude Longitude Cowardin Class Estimated Amount of Aquatic Resource in Review Area Class of Aquatic Resource Wetland C 36.329344 -81.003610 Palustrine – Emergent 0.015 Potential Waters of the US Wetland D 36.32930077 -81.003679 Palustrine – Emergent 0.002 Potential Waters of the US Wetland E 36.3293255 -81.003815 Palustrine – Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US Wetland F 36.329893 -81.003971 Palustrine – Emergent 0.431 Potential Waters of the US Wetland G 36.328956 -81.004307 Palustrine – Emergent 0.019 Potential Waters of the US Wetland H 36.328800 -81.004239 Palustrine – Emergent 0.009 Potential Waters of the US Wetland I 36.328212 -81.005166 Palustrine – Emergent 0.035 Potential Waters of the US Wetland J 36.327736 -81.005399 Palustrine – Emergent 0.012 Potential Waters of the US Wetland K 36.328475 -81.004579 Palustrine – Emergent 0.016 Potential Waters of the US Wetland L 36.327298 -81.005863 Palustrine – Emergent 0.010 Potential Waters of the US Wetland M 36.327199 -81.006090 Palustrine – Emergent 0.005 Potential Waters of the US Wetland N 36.326540 -81.007134 Palustrine – Emergent 0.011 Potential Waters of the US Wetland O 36.326883 -81.007695 Palustrine – Emergent 0.078 Potential Waters of the US Wetland P 36.327042 -81.007960 Palustrine – Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US Wetland Q 36.327034 -81.008272 Palustrine – Emergent 0.032 Potential Waters of the US Wetland R 36.327812 -81.007827 Palustrine – Emergent 0.013 Potential Waters of the US Wetland S 36.329508 -81.008101 Palustrine – Emergent 0.010 Potential Waters of the US Wetland T 36.329670 -81.008202 Palustrine – Emergent 0.023 Potential Waters of the US Wetland U 36.330603 -81.008076 Palustrine – Emergent 0.005 Potential Waters of the US Wetland V 36.330966 -81.007904 Palustrine – Emergent 0.021 Potential Waters of the US
Feature Latitude Longitude Cowardin Class Estimated Amount of Aquatic Resource in Review Area Class of Aquatic Resource Wetland W 36.329104 -81.008115 Palustrine – Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US Wetland X 36.326493 -81.009214 Palustrine – Emergent 0.007 Potential Waters of the US Wetland Y 36.328073 -81.010287 Palustrine – Emergent 0.079 Potential Waters of the US Wetland Z 36.327737 -81.012955 Palustrine – Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US Wetland AA 36.328023 -81.012816 Palustrine – Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US Wetland BB 36.328311 -81.012775 Palustrine – Emergent 0.017 Potential Waters of the US Wetland CC 36.328828 -81.011586 Palustrine – Emergent 0.028 Potential Waters of the US Wetland DD 36.328828 -81.011586 Palustrine – Emergent 0.046 Potential Waters of the US Pond A 36.328205 -81.012852 Palustrine – Unconsolidated Bottom 0.033 Potential Waters of the US
Figure 3b
UT3
U
T
4
Hanks Branch
Sp
a
r
k
s

C
r
e
e
kUT5UT5A
UT3A
UT3
BUT5 UT1UT2
UT2AUT to Sparks CreekUT3Hanks BranchNC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3a Site Map OverviewLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 300150 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
2 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Culvert
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
Open Water
Figure 3d
Figure 3c
DP 8
DP 7
DP 6
DP 5
DP 4
DP 3
DP 2
DP 1
Wetland F
Wetland I
Wetland K
Wetland C Wetland B
Wetland J
Wetland G
Wetland N
Wetland H
Wetland A
Wetland LWetland M
Wetland E
Wetland O
Wetland D
Wetland F
Wetland I
Wetland L
UT1
Hanks BranchUT2
UT2A
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3b Site MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Data Points
2 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
DP 9
DP 8
DP 7
DP 11DP 10
Wetland Y
Wetland O
Wetland Q
Wetland T
Wetland V
Wetland R
Wetland N
Wetland S
Wetland X
Wetland L
Wetland U
Wetland MWetland P
Wetland W
U
T
3
U
T
4
Hanks BranchUT
3
A
UT3B
UT2
UT2AUT3Hanks Branch
Bridge - 12.68 LF of Stream Impacted
Ford Crossing
Clogged, Offline Culvert
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3c Site MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Data Points
2 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Culvert
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
Sp
a
r
k
s

C
r
e
e
kUT5 UT5A
Hanks Branch UT4UT5UT to Sparks CreekDP 13
DP 12
DP 10
Wetland DD
Wetland CC
Wetland BB
Wetland AA
Wetland Z
Wetland YPond A
22' Culvert
15' Culvert
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3d Site MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 15075 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Data Points
2 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Culvert
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
Open Water
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP1-Wetland A-E
5/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1NoneFloodplain
Datum: NAD 1983-81.00340336.329402LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Rhodhiss fine sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
10
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Impacted by cattle grazing.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP1-Wetland A-E
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
107
0
93
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Salix nigra
No
No
8Impatiens capensis
3Ranunculus spp.FAC
Carex lurida 80
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
93
OBLNo
1947
2
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
3
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
9
82
0
Multiply by:
16
1.15Prevalence Index = B/A =
8
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
82
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
OBL
FACW
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Cobble
4 PL
D DP1-Wetland A-EESOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 4/1 10YR 5/6
8-12
0-8
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey96C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP2 Upland
5/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2NoneFloodplain
Datum: NAD 1983-81.00341836.329304LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Rhodhiss fine sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP2 Upland
2
8
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
25
666
5
172
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
25.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
25
Betula lenta
Acer rubrum
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Betula lenta
Pinus strobus
Liriodendron tulipifera
Oxydendrum arboreum
30' )
48
Indicator
Status
15
18
Yes
Dominant
Species?
Yes
5
10
Eupatorium capillifolium
No
No
15
Rhododendron maximum 5
5
Cornus florida
Microstegium vimineum
2Ranunculus spp.FAC
Schedonorus arundinaceus 80
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
99
FACUNo
20
513
50
2
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FACU
Total % Cover of:
27
140
(A)
(B)
(A)
Yes
Yes
81
0
560
Multiply by:
0
3.87Prevalence Index = B/A =
FAC
0
FACU
Yes FACU
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
24 10
10
0
5 No UPL
Yes
Yes
FACU
FACU
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FAC
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
% Texture
DP2 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 5/6
10YR 4/1
3-12
0-3
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP3 Wetland F
5/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
4ConcaveFloodplain
Datum: NAD 1983-81.00397136.329893LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Rhodhiss fine sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10
2
No
120
10
28
Multiply by:
80
2.45Prevalence Index = B/A =
FACU
40
FAC
Yes
No FACU
FAC
10 No
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
40
7
(A)
(B)
(A)
No
2049
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
Eupatorium capillifolium
Schedonorus arundinaceus 5
40
Juncus tenuis
Carex lurida
97
Ranunculus spp.
Juncus effusus
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
30
10
FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
OBL
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP3 Wetland F
2
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
238
0
97
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey92C
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 4/1 10YR 5/60-12
DP3 Wetland FSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
8 PL
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP4 Upland
5/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
5ConvexTerrace
Datum: NAD 1983-81.00406236.329959LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Rhodhiss fine sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FAC
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
60
0
320
Multiply by:
0
3.80Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
80
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACUNo
2050
10
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
Schedonorus arundinaceus
Yes
No
20Ranunculus spp.
10Eupatorium capillifolium FACU
Trifolium repens 60
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
50.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP4 Upland
1
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
380
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 5/6
10YR 4/3
4-12
0-4
DP4 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% % Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
9
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP5-Wetland G-M
5/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2NoneFloodplain
Datum: NAD 1983-81.00516636.328212LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
No OBL
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
5
90
5
140
Multiply by:
20
3.19Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
30
35
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACYes
1640
Impatiens capensis
Vernonia noveboracensis
Carex lurida
15
5
5
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACW
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
80
Polygonum spp.
No
No
No
Yes
10
FACW5
Trifolium repens
15Ranunculus spp.FAC
Schedonorus arundinaceus 25
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
66.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP5-Wetland G-M
2
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
255
0
80
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Cobble layer encountered below 12" so a full 6" of depleted matrix was not observed. It is believed that saturated conditions persist below this depth.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
PL
50
Sandy
Sandy
Loamy/Clayey
90 C
Color (moist)
10
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
10YR 7/6 10YR 5/6
10YR 5/65-8
0-5
D DP5-Wetland G-MMSOIL
8-12 10YR 4/1
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
90
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 5/8
%%
M50
Faint redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
10 M
C Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP6 Upland
5/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1NoneFloodplain
Datum: NAD 1983-81.00518036.328085LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
FAC
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
240
0
48
Multiply by:
0
3.13Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
80
12
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACNo
1946
5
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
92
Ranunculus spp.
No
No
10Schedonorus arundinaceus
2Eupatorium capillifolium FACU
Microstegium vimineum 75
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP6 Upland
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
288
0
92
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Soil color is due to mixing of A and B horizons, not redox reactions.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
90
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 5/6
10YR 3/2 10YR 5/6
10YR 3/26-12
0-6
DP6 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% %
10
disturbed
Texture
disturbed
10
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP7-Wetland N-Q, X
5/21/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1NoneFloodplain
Datum: NAD 1983-81.00713436.326540LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Rhodhiss fine sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
FAC
FACW
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
255
0
0
Multiply by:
30
2.85Prevalence Index = B/A =
15
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
85
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACNo
2050
2
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
Ranunculus spp.
No
No
15Impatiens capensis
8Microstegium vimineum FAC
Unknown grass 75
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
D DP7-Wetland N-Q,XX
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
285
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
85
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
10YR 5/4
7.5YR 4/64-12
0-4
DP DP7-Wetland N-Q,X, XSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%
PL15
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP8 Upland
5/21/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1NoneFloodplain
Datum: NAD 1983-81.00731536.326692LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Rhodhiss fine sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
6
0
388
Multiply by:
0
3.98Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
2
97
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACUNo
2050
2
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
99
Eupatorium capillifolium
No
No
10Trifolium repens
2Ranunculus spp. FAC
Schedonorus arundinaceus 85
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP8 Upland
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
394
0
99
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 4/4
4-12
0-4
DP8 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% % Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP9 Wetland R-W
5/21/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
6ConcaveSideslope
Datum: NAD 1983-81.00790436.330996LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
FACW
OBL
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
25
15
25
0
Multiply by:
130
1.79Prevalence Index = B/A =
65
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
5
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACNo
1948
5
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
95
Ranunculus spp.
Yes
Yes
25Carex lurida
40Eleocharis spp.FACW
Juncus effusus 25
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP9 Wetland R-W
3
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
170
0
95
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
95 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 5/2
5Y 3/1 10YR 6/8
10YR 6/83-12
0-3
D DP9 Wetland R-WWSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%
PL20
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
5 PL
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP10 Wetland Y
5/21/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2ConcaveHead of drain
Datum: NAD 1983-81.01028736.328073LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP10 Wetland Y
4
4
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
233
0
113
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
8
Salix nigra
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
30' )
5
Indicator
Status
5
Dominant
Species?
Yes
Unknown grass
Yes
No
40
8
Polygonum spp.
10Juncus effusus FACW
Carex lurida 40
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
FACNo
20
24
50
10
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
55
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
165
48
0
Multiply by:
20
2.06Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
3 1 48
Yes FAC
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
OBL
FAC
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
Redox masked by OM, disturbance
Texture
DP10 Wetland YSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 4/10-12
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Cattle trampling and organic matter incorporation suspected of disturbing and masking iron concentrations required to meet indicator F3. Abundant
iron deposits suggest soil is hydric by Technical Standard.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP11 Upland
5/21/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
5NoneToeslope
Datum: NAD 1983-81.01028736.328073LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP11 Upland
0
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
390
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Eupatorium capillifolium
Yes
No
35Trifolium repens
10Ranunculus spp.FAC
Schedonorus arundinaceus 50
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
FACUNo
2050
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
10
90
(A)
(B)
(A)
30
0
360
Multiply by:
0
3.90Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
% Texture
DP11 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
7.5YR 5/8
7.5YR 4/6
3-12
0-3
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP12 Wetland Z-DD
5/22/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
5NoneHead of Drain
Datum: NAD 1983-81.01119936.328812LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Rhodhiss fine sady loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Excessively trampled by cattle.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
D DP12 Wetland Z-DDD
3
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
60
0
20
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
Yes
6Microstegium vimineum
6Ranunculus spp.FAC
Polygonum spp.8
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
20
410
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
60
0
0
Multiply by:
0
3.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
FAC
FAC
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%Texture
Unconsolidated rock
D DP 12 Wetland Z-DDDDSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 2/2
2-12
0-2
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Dark surface and abundant iron deposits suggest the area maintains saturation via groundwater discharge year round and meets hydric soil technical
standard.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP13 Upland
5/22/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
4convexSide slope
Datum: NAD 1983-81.01138536.328791LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Rhodhiss fine sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP13 Upland
1
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
464
0
124
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FACUNo
FACU
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
33.3%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
40
Ilex opaca
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Quercus alba
Liriodendron tulipifera
Carpinus caroliniana
30' )
6
84
Indicator
Status
12
6
Yes
No
Dominant
Species?
Yes40
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
820
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FACU
Total % Cover of:
32
92
(A)
(B)
(A)
96
0
368
Multiply by:
0
3.74Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
42 17
Quercus rubra
30
0
Magnolia acuminata
20 Yes FAC
No
No
FACU
FAC
10
FACU
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5'
=Total Cover
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
% Texture
DP13 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 6/6
10YR 2/2
2-12
0-2
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0

Appendix 4 

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the environmental document.
"art enera ' roject Information Project Name: Lyon Hill MitigationS a
County Name: wilkescounty
EEP Number' 1000E15
Project Sponsor: WI dIands Engineering Inc.
Project Contact Name: Carolyn Lanza
Project Contact Address 312W. Millbroak. Suite 225 Ral gh NC 27609
Project Contact E-mail. clanza@w'rdlandseng.com
EEP Pro ect Menai er: Kelly Phillips
Project Description
The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site Is a stream mitigation project located approximately 10 miles northwest of Elkin and 14
miles northeast of North Wilkesboro in Wilkes County. The project includes Hanks Branch, Sparks Creek, and?
unnamed tributaries for a total of 8,630 linear feet of stream. Agriculture, specifically livestock, has been the main use
of the land. The project will provide stream mitigation units to the Division of Mitigation Services in the Yadkin River
Basin (03040101).
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
11/6/2018 Xe4_ ) 1" ''' " Date EEP PrOject Managbr
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
outstanding issues Check this box if there are
Final Approval By:
i i — 7-1? -. Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 7
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the species and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 8
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 9
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
SUMMARY

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a
Federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous -waste sites as well as accidents,
spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment.
As the Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project; an EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was
ordered for the site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc on July 11, 2018. While neither the
target property nor any adjacent properties were listed in any of the Federal, State, or Tribal
environmental databases searched by the EDR, a property located over 0.25 miles away from the target
property called Anderson Grocery was listed under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Management
Database (LUST), Incident Management Database (IMD), and the Petroleum Underground Storage Tank
Database (UST) database for soil to groundwater contamination on October 30, 2000. The incident
phase was closed out on February 22, 2001 in the IMD and LUST database. The assessment revealed no
evidence of any "recognized environmental conditions" in connection to the target property. The
Executive Summary of the EDR report is included in the Appendix. The full report is available if needed.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
The National Historic Preservation Act declares a national policy of historic preservation to protect,
rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American
architecture, history, archaeology, and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal agencies take
into account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion in,
the National Register of Historic Places.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) requested review and comment from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archeological and architectural resources related to the
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site on July 11, 2018. SHPO responded on August 16, 2018 and stated they were
aware of "no historic resources which would be affected by the project" and would have no further
comment. All correspondence related to Section 106 is included in the Appendix.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act provides for the protection and preservation of places of
religious importance to American Indians, Eskimos, and Native Hawaiians.
Wildlands requested review and comment from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic
Preservation Office (THPO) with respect to any archeological or religious resources related to the Lyon
Hills Mitigation Site on August 15, 2018. The Cherokee Nation and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee
Indians in Oklahoma THPO were contacted on October 5, 2018. The Cherokee nation responded on
November 2, 2018 saying Lyon Hills is "outside the Cherokee Nation's Area of Interest". At this time,
Wildlands has not received a response from EBCI and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in
Oklahoma. All correspondence related to AIRFA is included in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
These acts, collectively known as the Uniform Act, provide for uniform and equitable treatment of
persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit associations, or farms by federal and
federally -assisted programs, and establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies.
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of the fair
market value of the project property and the lack of condemnation authority by Wildlands was included

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

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and the appropriate state wildlife agency on projects
that alter or modify a water body. Reports and recommendations prepared by these agencies document
project effects on wildlife and identify measures that may be adopted to prevent loss or damage to
wildlife resources.
The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site includes stream restoration. Wildlands requested comment on the project
from both the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on July 11, 2018.
NCWRC responded on August 7, 2018 and had no objections to the project. At this time, Wildlands has
not received a response from the USFWS. All correspondence with the two agencies is included in the
Appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or
export any migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by
the MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a taking.
Wildlands requested comment on the Lyon Hills Mitigation Site from the USFWS regarding migratory
birds on July 11, 2018. No response from the USFWS was received within the 30-day response period.
All correspondence with USFWS is included in the Appendix.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609
July 11, 2018
Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617

Subject: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina

Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the Lyon Hills Mitigation Site. A Site
Map and USGS Topographic Map with approximate project areas are enclosed. The topographic figure
was prepared from the Purlear, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream
channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project
will include stream restoration and enhancement on Sparks Creek, Hanks Branch (tributary to Spark
Creek) and five unnamed tributaries all which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. The site is currently
all in active cattle pasture with some small areas of mature vegetation. Furthermore, no archeological
artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes.

We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
historic properties.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning the project.

Sincerely,
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist

Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
August 16, 2018
Carolyn Lanza
Wildlands Engineering
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Re: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site, Wilkes County, ER 18-1613
Dear Ms. Lanza:
Thank you for your letter of July 11, 2018, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
August 15, 2018
Mr. Russell Townsend
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
PO Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Subject: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Townsend,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Lyon Hills Mitigation Site. A USGS
Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Purlear, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel
impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project will include stream
restoration and enhancement on Sparks Creek, Hanks Branch (tributary to Spark Creek) and five unnamed
tributaries all which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. The site is currently all in active cattle pasture with some
small areas of mature vegetation.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
cc: via email
Ms. Holly Austin, Federal Cultural Resource Law Liaison, EBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Mr. Donnie Brew, Federal Highway Administration
Mr. Matthew Reid, Division of Mitigation Services
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
L ra C>>NE EF:I uG
October 5, 2018
Ms. Sheila Bird
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
PO Box 746
Tahlequah, OK 74465
Subject: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Bird,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Lyon Hills Mitigation Site. A USGS
Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Purlear, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel
impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project will include stream
restoration and enhancement on Sparks Creek, Hanks Branch (tributary to Spark Creek) and five unnamed
tributaries all which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. The site is currently all in active cattle pasture with some
small areas of mature vegetation.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea S. Eckardt
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
L ra C>>NE EF:I uG
October 5, 2018
Ms. Elizabeth Toombs
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Cherokee Nation
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
Subject: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Toombs,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Lyon Hills Mitigation Site. A USGS
Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Purlear, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel
impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project will include stream
restoration and enhancement on Sparks Creek, Hanks Branch (tributary to Spark Creek) and five unnamed
tributaries all which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. The site is currently all in active cattle pasture with some
small areas of mature vegetation.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea S. Eckardt
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

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

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

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

TO SELLER: John6ving Lyon
PO Box 122
Traphill, NC 28685
e-mail:
Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this paragraph.
3.4 Assignment. Buyer has the right to assign this agreement without the consent of Seller. No assignment
will be effective unless the assignee has delivered to Seller a written assumption of Buyer's obligations under this
agreement. Seller hereby releases Buyer from any obligations under this agreement arising after the effective date of
any assignment of this agreement by Buyer.
3.5 Value of Conservation Easement; No Power of Eminent Domain. In accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Buyer hereby notifies Seller that: (i) Buyer
believes that the fair market value of the Conservation Easement is an amount equal to the Purchase Price; and (ii)
Buyer does not have the power of eminent domain.
3.6 Modification; Waiver. No amendment of this agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and
signed by the parties. No waiver of satisfaction of a condition or failure to comply with an obligation under this
agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the party granting the waiver, and no such waiver will
constitute a waiver of satisfaction of any other condition or failure to comply with any other obligation.
3.7 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other to interpret or enforce any of the
terms of this agreement or because of the breach by the other party of any of the terms of this agreement, the losing
party shall pay to the prevailing party reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, court costs, litigation costs and any other
expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution or defense of such action, whether or not the action is prosecuted
to a final judgment.
3.8 Memorandum of Option Agreement. Concurrently with the signing of this agreement, Buyer and Seller
agree to sign a Memorandum of Option that will be recorded against the Property in the Register of Deeds in the County
stated in paragraph A within five days after the Effective Date.
3.9 Tax Deferred Exchange. If Seller desires to implement a tax -deferred exchange (the "Exchange") in
connection with Buyer's purchase of the Conservation Easement, the parties agree to cooperate in affecting the
Exchange. Seller is responsible for all additional costs associated with the Exchange and Buyer shall not have any
additional liability with respect to the Exchange. The parties will execute any additional documents required for the
Exchange at no cost to Buyer.
3.10 Brokers. Shawn D. Wilkerson, Robert W. Bugg and Ian Hazelhoff are North Carolina Real Estate Brokers.
Neither Buyer nor Seller has incurred any liability for any brokerage fee, commission or finder's fee in connection with
this agreement or the transactions contemplated by this agreement.
3.11 Entire Agreement. Each party acknowledges they are not relying on any statements made by the other
party, other than in this agreement, regarding the subject matter of this agreement. Neither party will have a basis for
bringing any claim for fraud in connection with any such statements.
3.12 Mutual Agreement. This is a mutually negotiated agreement and regardless of which party was more
responsible for its preparation, this agreement shall be construed neutrally between the parties.
6
3-21-18 IMH
Buyer
Seller

TO BUYER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Attention: Robert W. Bugg
e-mail: [e-mail]
TO SELLER: Horace Randle Wood
PO Box 9
Thurmond, NC 28683
e-mail:
COPY TO: Dale F. Fulk
Rogers Realty and Auction
1310 EMS Drive
Mount Airy, NC 27030
e-mail: [e-mail]
Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this paragraph.
3.6 Assignment. Buyer has the right to assign this agreement without the consent of Seller. No assignment
will be effective unless the assignee has delivered to Seller a written assumption of Buyer's obligations under this
agreement. Seller hereby releases Buyer from any obligations under this agreement arising after the effective date of
any assignment of this agreement by Buyer.
3.7 Value of Conservation Easement; No Power of Eminent Domain. In accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Buyer hereby notifies Seller that: (i) Buyer
believes that the fair market value of the Conservation Easement is an amount equal to the Purchase Price; and (ii)
Buyer does not have the power of eminent domain.
3.8 Modification; Waiver. No amendment of this agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and
signed by the parties. No waiver of satisfaction of a condition or failure to comply with an obligation under this
agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the party granting the waiver, and no such waiver will
constitute a waiver of satisfaction of any other condition or failure to comply with any other obligation.
3.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other to interpret or enforce any of the
terms of this agreement or because of the breach by the other party of any of the terms of this agreement, the losing
party shall pay to the prevailing party reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, court costs, litigation costs and any other
expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution or defense of such action, whether or not the action is prosecuted
to a final judgment.
3.10 Memorandum of Option Agreement. Concurrently with the signing of this agreement, Buyer and Seller
agree to sign a Memorandum of Option that will be recorded against the Property in the Register of Deeds in the County
stated in paragraph A within five days after the Effective Date.
3.11 Tax Deferred Exchange. If Seller desires to implement a tax -deferred exchange (the "Exchange") in
connection with Buyer's purchase of the Conservation Easement, the parties agree to cooperate in affecting the
Exchange. Seller is responsible for all additional costs associated with the Exchange and Buyer shall not have any
3-14-18 RWB
Buyer
i I / Seller

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
July 11, 2018
Marella Buncick
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Lyons Hill Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Buncick,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds, or other trust resources associated
with the proposed Lyons Hill Mitigation Site. A USGS Topographic Map and an Overview Site
Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared
from the Purlear, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
The Lyons Hill Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly
degraded. The project will include stream restoration and enhancement on Sparks Creek, Hanks
Branch (tributary to Spark Creek) and five unnamed tributaries all which eventually drains to the
Yadkin River. The site is currently all in active cattle pasture with some small areas of mature
vegetation.
According to your website (httPS://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/wilkes.html) the
threatened or endangered species for Wilkes County are: the bog turtle (Glyptemys
muhlenbergii), Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and the rusty -patched bumble
bee (bombus affinis). If we have not heard from you in 30 days, we will assume that you do not
have any comments regarding associated laws and that you do not have any information
relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
l.rvr.�vv ine'.!v
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra-Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance:
YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone'?
❑
❑X
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency' to determine if your project is near
©
❑
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑X
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
❑
hibernaculum?
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
❑
❑X
any time of ear?
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
❑
other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question #1 or yes to question #2 and no to
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the
BO.
Agency and Applicant3 (Name, Email, Phone No.):
Carolyn Lanza, clanza@wildlandseng com, 919-851-9986 ext 113
Donnie Brew, [e-mail], 919-747-7017
Project Name: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Project Location (include coordinates if known): 36°19'32.9"N 81°00'40.3"W
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is a stream mitigation project located approximately 10 miles northwest of Elkin and 14 miles
northeast of North Wilkesboro in Wilkes County. The project includes Hanks Branch, Sparks Creek, and 7 unnamed
tributaries for a total of 8,680 linear feet of stream. Agriculture, specifically livestock, has been the main use of the land. The
i http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
'See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nhisites.html
s If applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation.

project will provide stream mitigation units to the Division of Mitigation Services in the Yadkin River Basin (030401011.
Construction of the stream restoration project will include some tree removal (>3"DBH) — approximately 7.52 acres.
General Project Information YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum?
❑
Roes the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree?
❑
Does the project include forest conversion'? (if yes, report acreage below)
®
❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
7.52 ac
If known, estimated acres5 of forest conversion from April I to .October 31
7.52 ac
If known, estimated acres of forest conversion From June 1 to July 31'
Does the project include timber harvest`? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June I to July 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from A ri1 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June I to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑
Estimated wind capacity (MW)
Agency Determination:
By signing this farm, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any
resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from submittal of this form, the action agency may
presume that its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project
responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5,
2016, Programmatic BU. The action agency will update this determination annually for multi -year
activities.
The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as
described herein. The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field
Office with the results of any surveys conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the
appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding a dead. injured. or sick NLEB.
Signature: Date Submitted:
a Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, mining, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BD).
If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than 0.1 acre.
If the activity includes tree clearing in June and July, :also include those acreage in April to October.

From:Brew, Donnie (FHWA)
To:[e-mail]
Cc:Phillips, Kelly D;Carolyn Lanza;Andrea Eckardt
Subject:Lyon Hills site DMS_mitigation project_Wilkes County_NLEB 4(d) rule consultation
Date:Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:25:07 PM
Attachments:NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form Lyons Hills site 9-26-18.pdf
Figure1_SiteMaps.pdf
Figure2_TopoMap.pdf
Good afternoon Marella,
The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined
consultation framework for the Lyon Hills Mitigation Site in Wilkes County, NC.
Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form, as well as site
maps/figures.
Thank you,
Donnie
Notifying the Service Under the Framework
Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation
Form
Federal agencies (or designated non-federal representatives) should use the Northern
Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form to notify the Service of their
project and meet the requirements of the framework.
Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form (Word document)
Information requested in the Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined
Consultation Form serves to
(1) notify the field office that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework;
(2) describe the project with sufficient detail to support the required
determination; and
(3) enable the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of
consultation for the 4(d) rule is required. This form requests the minimum
amount of information required for the Service to be able to track this
information.
Providing information in the Streamlined Consultation Form does not address section
7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017
***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County And State
PART II Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Major Crop Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
Yes No
Acres: % %Acres:
PART III Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B.Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C.Total Acres In Site
PART IV Land Evaluation Information
A.Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B.Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C.Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D.Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted
PART VI
Site Assessment Criteria
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2.Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3.Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4.Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5.Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6.Distance To Urban Support Services
7.Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8.Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9.Availability Of Farm Support Services
10.On-Farm Investments
11.Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12.Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII
Relative Value Of Farmland 100
Total Site Assessment 160
TOTAL POINTS 260
Site Selected:Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes No
Reason For Selection:
Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff
From:Carolyn Lanza
To:"Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC"
Subject:RE: AD1006 Form - Lyon Hills Mitigation Site - Wilkes County, NC
Date:Wednesday, September 12, 2018 9:32:00 AM
Attachments:Lyon Hills AD1006.pdf
image001.png
Milton,
Attached is the completed AD1006 for Lyons Hill Mitigation Site for your records.
Thank you for your help,
Carolyn Lanza | Environmental Scientist
O: 919.851.9986 x113 M: 313.969.7318

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:49 PM
To: Carolyn Lanza <[e-mail]>
Subject: AD1006 Form - Lyon Hills Mitigation Site - Wilkes County, NC
Importance: High
Carolyn;
Please, find attached the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating evaluation for Lyon Hills Mitigation
Site.
Pease let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Best Regards;
Milton Cortes
Acting State Soil Scientist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
From: Carolyn Lanza [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 11:14 AM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for AD1006 Form - Lyon Hills Mitigation Site - Wilkes County, NC
Milton,
I have a request for a completed AD-1006 form for a NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
stream restoration project (Lyon Hills Mitigation Site) located in Wilkes County. Please find a Soils
Map attached in addition to the AD-1006 form with Parts I and III filled out. The soil breakdown is
included on the Soils Map.
Thank you for your assistance with all the projects and please let me know if you need any additional
information.
Carolyn Lanza | Environmental Scientist
O: 919.851.9986 x113 M: 313.969.7318

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended
recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information
it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609
July 11, 2018
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

Subject: Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina

Dear Ms. Deaton,

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed Lyon Hills Mitigation Site. A USGS
Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The
topographic figure was prepared from the Purlear, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
The Lyon Hills Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream
channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project
will include stream restoration and enhancement on Sparks Creek, Hanks Branch (tributary to Spark
Creek) and five unnamed tributaries all which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. The site is currently
all in active cattle pasture with some small areas of mature vegetation.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning this project.

Sincerely,
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist

Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Mailing Address:
Telephone:Fax:

Appendix 5 

MEETING NOTES

MEETING:    IRT Site Walk 
      Lyon Hills Mitigation Site 
        Yadkin 03040101; Wilkes County, NC 
        DEQ Contract No. 7620 
        DMS Project No. 100085 
        Wildlands Project No. 005‐02177   

DATE:      Wednesday, September 26, 2018  

LOCATION:    Hanks Street 
Traphill, NC 

Attendees 
Todd Tugwell, USACE 
Todd Bowers, USEPA 
Mac Haupt, DWR 
Paul Wiesner, DMS 
Matthew Reid, DMS 
Kirsten Ullman, DMS 
Periann Russell, DMS 
Kelly Phillips, DMS 
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands 
Jeff Keaton, Wildlands  

Materials 
 Wildlands Engineering Lyons Hills Mitigation Site Technical Proposal dated March 28, 2018 (in response 
to RFP #16‐007403) 

Meeting Notes 
Shawn Wilkerson of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) led the group on a tour of the proposed mitigation 
site on September 26, 2018.  The purpose of the tour was to present the site to a group of IRT members and to 
get input into the management/mitigation options proposed for the site. During the tour, the group discussed 
the approaches proposed by Wildlands and the design options they felt would be most appropriate to enhance 
and restore the streams on the site. 

1. Hanks Branch 
 The tour began with Reach 2 of Hanks Branch.  The stream runs along the toe of a steep slope 
on the left floodplain between the confluences of UT2 and UT3.  Most of the right bank and 
floodplain are devoid of vegetation and there are areas of localized fluvial erosion and 
trampling.  This reach is proposed as enhancement 2 and the group agreed that this was the 
right approach but needs to include some bank repairs and revetments at specific locations and 
adding wood to the channel bed.  This work will support a 2.5:1 credit ratio.  There is a crossing 
proposed near the downstream end of this reach. 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 2 
LYON HILLS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 

 The tour continued with Hanks Branch Reach 1.  This is a longer reach that flows along the 
property line on the east side of the site from UT2 to the northeast property boundary.  Similar 
to Reach 2, cattle have access from the right floodplain but not the left due to the steep, 
wooded slope on that side.  This reach is proposed for enhancement 2 which will include some 
localized bank repairs and cutting a bench on the right floodplain near the upstream end of the 
reach.  There is a step‐pool stormwater conveyance planned for a small swale flowing into 
Reach 1 from the right floodplain near the upstream end.  The group agreed with the proposed 
treatments for this reach and the credit ratio for the E2 work will be 2.5:1.  There was some 
discussion about the uncertainty of how much of the stream and left floodplain is on the 
participating landowner’s property and related issues of Wildlands’ ability to acquire a wide 
enough easement on the left side.  Shawn indicated that we will know more about these issues 
after the site is surveyed. 
 Reach 3 of Hanks Branch was toured near the end of the site visit.  This reach flows through a 
more open floodplain between UT4 and Sparks Creek and is not confined on the left by a steep 
valley wall like the other reaches.  This reach is incised and has areas of bank erosion and is 
proposed as enhancement 1.  Shawn indicated that the work planned for this reach includes 
cutting a floodplain bench for 15 to 20 feet on both sides of the channel and installing instream 
structures for bedform habitat.  The group agreed with this approach. 
2. UT1 
 The group toured UT1 after Hanks Branch Reach 1.  This small tributary flows from the northern 
property boundary to the confluence with Hanks Branch and is proposed for restoration.  Shawn 
indicated that the design would tie into an existing bedrock slide near the mid‐way point along 
the reach.  Other than this area, Shawn explained that the bed would be raised and the channel 
would be built to meander to the extent possible in the tight valley.  There are two pockets of 
wetlands in the valley and Wildlands will try to avoid them as much as possible with the 
redesigned alignment and will expand the easement to incorporate the wetlands.  The group 
agreed with the restoration approach.   
3. UT2 
 The group briefly looked at the short section of UT2 that will be within the conservation 
easement.  The confluence of this stream with Hanks Branch is at the reach break between 
Hanks Branch Reaches 1 and 2.  This short reach is proposed for enhancement 2 and will involve 
fencing out cattle and improving the buffer by planting native trees.  The credit ratio will be 
2.5:1. 
4. UT3 
 UT3 flows to the south through the middle of the project area and connects with Hanks Branch 
Reach 2.  Cattle have access to this entire stream.  The lower reach (Reach 3) was reviewed first 
and is proposed for restoration.  This reach is incised, eroded, and trampled by cattle in spots.  
There is a crossing proposed near the confluence with Hanks Branch.  UT3 Reach 2 was walked 
next and is proposed for enhancement 2.  Shawn explained that the treatments would include 
replanting the buffer, excluding cattle with fencing, and some bank work to repair 
eroded/trampled areas.  UT3 Reach 1 was the last section toured by the group.  This reach is 
proposed for restoration.  The conservation easement will capture the headwaters of this 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 3 
LYON HILLS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
stream.  Shawn explained that Wildlands would install a pocket wetland BMP above the 
jurisdictional channel and connect it to the channel with a series of step‐pool structures.  The 
group agreed with these approaches and that Reach 2 would have an E2 credit ratio of 2.5:1. 
5. UT3A 
 This is a short tributary to UT3 that is proposed for enhancement 2 with a pocket wetland at the 
upstream end above the jurisdictional channel.  The work proposed on this reach is mainly 
fencing out cattle and planting.  The group agreed that E2 is appropriate and the ratio credit 
ratio should be 2.5:1. 
6. UT4 
 Next, the group walked UT4.  The upstream reach (Reach 1) of this stream is proposed for 
restoration through an old dewatered pond bed.  Similar to UT3, the headwaters of this stream 
will be captured by the conservation easement and a pocket wetland BMP will be installed 
above the jurisdictional channel.  Reach 2 of this stream is proposed for enhancement 2.  Shawn 
explained that the treatments would include planting, fencing out cattle, stabilizing head cuts, 
and adding log drop structures to provide grade control and scour pools.  The group agreed to 
these approaches including E2 on most of Reach 2.  There was discussion about the downstream 
end of Reach 2 which is more incised and eroded.  Multiple members of the group said that they 
thought restoration would be appropriate for this section.  Shawn explained that Wildlands 
planned to restore the section but, since it is relatively short, the restored section was planned 
to be an element of the E2 work.  Wildlands will re‐evaluate this reach as a full restoration 
section at 1:1 credit.  The credit ratio for the E2 reach will be 2.5:1. 
7. Sparks Creek 
 The group toured a section of Sparks Creek on the property.  This is a large creek (Drainage area 
of 8.58 sq. mi.) that is proposed for enhancement 2.  A group of cattle were standing in the 
creek during the tour.  The treatments on this reach will include cattle exclusion, planting, and 
treatments of invasive species in the buffer.  The group accepted the approach of E2 with a 2.5:1 
ratio.  There is a crossing approximately two thirds of the way from the upstream extent of the 
reach at the confluence with UT5 and the confluence with Hanks Branch. A small additional 
section of Sparks Creek will be buffered in the easement for no credit on one side of the creek. 
8. UT5 
 The next reach the group reviewed was UT5, a tributary to Sparks Creek.  As the group walked 
upstream, an old pond embankment was pointed out near the downstream end and Shawn 
stated that Wildlands would remove it. The entire stream is on the project property and the 
headwaters will be captured in the conservation easement.  The stream will be fenced and the 
easement will be planted as part of the E2 approach.  The stream is entrenched in a tight valley 
and has moderate erosion.  The group debated between a restoration or enhancement 2 
approach for the stream.  The problem with enhancement 2 is that the major component of that 
approach would be fencing out cattle and some members of the group did not feel like that 
activity would provide enough uplift for full E2 credit.  However, the technical difficulties 
involved with full restoration and relatively little uplift provided by reconstructing the channel 
do not make restoration a more appropriate option.  The group agreed that an E2 approach at a 
4:1 ratio would be appropriate.  The lower portion of this reach will include the pond removal 
and restoration at a 1:1 ratio. 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 4 
LYON HILLS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
9. UT5A 
 The last stream the group looked at was UT5A which is a short tributary that flows into UT5.  
This reach is mostly stable but cattle have easy access to it because it is not as entrenched at 
UT5.  The headwaters of this reach will be encompassed in the conservation easement, cattle 
will be fenced out, and the buffer enhanced and treated for invasives.  This reach is proposed 
for enhancement 2 and the group agreed on a ratio of 3:1. 
The approaches and ratios described above were agreed upon at this IRT field visit and will be utilized during the project 
design.   Wildlands and DMS understand that the final design approach and crediting rationale must be justified in the 
Mitigation Plan.  A revised asset table with updated approaches and agreed upon credit ratios is shown below.  A revised 
concept map showing the updated approaches for each project reach is attached.     
These meeting minutes were prepared by Jeff Keaton October1, 2018 and reviewed by Shawn Wilkerson on October 4, 2018 
and represent the authors’ interpretation of events.   

Stream Credits proposed for the Lyon Hills Mitigation Site – Revised 
Stream Credits 
Reach Management Objectives Type of 
Mitigation 
Length 
(feet)1 Ratio 
Cool 
Stream 
Credits  
RESTORATION 
UT1 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile 
with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat structures 
and protect and enhance pocket wetland floodplain 
features. Establish native riparian buffer and exclude 
cattle. 
Restoration  770  1:1  770 
UT3  
Reach 1 
Encompass headwaters within the Conservation 
Easement and install a pocket pool BMP at the 
upstream end of the reach. Restore appropriate 
dimension, pattern, and profile with Priority 1 
restoration. Install habitat structures and allow 
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native woody 
riparian buffer and exclude cattle. 
Restoration  605  1:1  605 
UT3  
Reach 3 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile 
with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat structures, 
allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish native 
riparian buffer and exclude cattle. Stabilize 
confluence with Hanks Branch Reach 1.  
Restoration  735  1:1  735 
UT4  
Reach 1 
Encompass headwaters within the Conservation 
Easement and install a pocket pool BMP at the 
upstream end of the reach. Restore appropriate 
dimension, pattern, and profile with Priority 1 
restoration. Install habitat structures and allow 
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native woody 
riparian buffer and exclude cattle. 
Restoration  182  1:1  182 
UT4  
Reach 3 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile 
with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat structures, Restoration  330  1:1  330 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  page 5 
LYON HILLS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish native 
riparian buffer and exclude cattle. 
UT5 Reach 2 
Remove pond embankment.  Restore appropriate 
dimension, pattern, and profile with Priority 1 
restoration. Install habitat structures, allow bankfull 
floodplain access. Establish native riparian buffer and 
exclude cattle. 
Restoration  297  1:1  297 
Restoration Subtotal  2,919  2,919 
ENHANCEMENT I 
Hanks Branch 
Reach 3 
Establish native woody riparian buffer, exclude cattle, 
install bed structures to enhance pool habitat, and 
spot treat invasive vegetation. 
Enhancement I 660  1.5:1  440 
  Enhancement I Subtotal  660 440 
ENHANCEMENT II  
Sparks Creek Establish native woody riparian buffer, exclude cattle, 
and spot treat invasive vegetation. Enhancement II  715  2.5:1  286 
Hanks Branch 
Reach 1 
Establish native woody riparian buffer, exclude cattle, 
install SPSC BMP to treat floodplain pasture drainage, 
and spot treat invasive vegetation. 
Enhancement II  1,375  2.5:1  550 
Hanks Branch 
Reach 2 
Establish native woody riparian buffer, exclude cattle, 
and spot treat invasive vegetation. Enhancement II  990  2.5:1  396 
UT2 Establish native woody riparian buffer, exclude cattle 
with fencing, and spot treat invasive vegetation. Enhancement II  95  2.5:1  38 
UT3 Reach 2 
Stabilize active headcuts, establish native woody 
riparian buffer, exclude cattle, and spot treat invasive 
vegetation. 
Enhancement II  431  2.5:1  172 
UT3A 
Encompass headwaters within the Conservation 
Easement and install a pocket pool BMP at the 
upstream end of the reach. Establish native woody 
riparian buffer, exclude cattle with fencing, and spot 
treat invasive vegetation. 
Enhancement II  242  2.5:1  97 
UT4 Reach 2 
Stabilize active headcuts, establish native woody 
riparian buffer, exclude cattle, and spot treat invasive 
vegetation. 
Enhancement II  330  2.5:1  132 
UT5 Reach 1 
Encompass headwaters within the Conservation 
Easement. Establish native woody riparian buffer, 
exclude cattle, remove the existing farm pond, and 
spot treat invasive vegetation. 
Enhancement II  665  4:1  166 
UT5A 
Encompass headwaters within the Conservation 
Easement. Stabilize active headcuts, establish native 
woody riparian buffer, exclude cattle, and spot treat 
invasive vegetation. 
Enhancement II  315  3:1  105 
Enhancement II Subtotal   5,158  1,942 
Project Total 8,737 
LF ‐ ‐ ‐  
5,301 
Cool Stream 
Credits 
^
^
^
^
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Easement Expanded toEncompass Wetland
UT5UT5A
UT5Spa
r
k
s
Cr
e
e
k
H a n k s B ra n c h Hanks BranchSparks CreekUT
4 UT3UT3A UT3U T 2 UT1Hanks Branch
Continue EasementFor No Credit
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Continue EasementFor No Credit ¬«1
¬«2 ¬«3
¬«4
¬«5
¬«6
Remove existingfarm pond
30' Internal Crossingwith New Culvert
30' Gated FordCrossing
30' Internal Crossingwith New Culvert
30' Internal Crossingwith New Culvert
Step-pool StormwaterConveyance
Pocket Pool
Pocket Pool
Pocket Pool 12401220118012601160
1280
1 3 2 0
1160
126012401260
1 2 8 01320
0 300 600150 Feet ¹
2014 Aerial Photography
Figure 6 Concept MapLyon Hills Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
Project Location
Conservation Easement
Easement Continued For No Credit
Internal Crossings
Existing Wetlands
Stream Restoration (1:1)
Stream Enhancement I (1.5:1)
Stream Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Stream Enhancement II (3:1)
Stream Enhancement II (4:1)
Non-Project Streams
Access Road
Topographic Contour (4')
^Proposed BMP
!(Reach Breaks
¬«1
H a n k s S tHank
s
St

Appendix 6 

min max min max min max min max min max min max min max
stream type --
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross-
sectional area Abkf SF
average velocity
during bankfull event vbkf fps
width at bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth at
bankfull dmax feet
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width to
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf -
low bank height -feet
bank height ratio BHR -
floodprone area
width wfpa feet
entrenchment ratio ER -
max pool depth at
bankfull dpool feet
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf -
pool width at
bankfull wpool feet
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf -
bankfull pool cross-
sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf -
pool-pool spacing p-p feet 80 178 26 115 51 92 52 113 16 93 23 72 21 36
pool-pool spacing
ratio p-p/Wbkf -6 14 4 16 7 13 9 19 4 25 3 10 4 7
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schannel feet/foot
sinuosity K -
belt width wblt feet 37.0 41.0 13.0 21.0
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf -2.8 3.2 2.4 3.9
meander length Lm feet 84.0 98.0 21.0 31.0
meander length ratio Lm/wbkf -6.5 7.5 3.9 77.5
linear wavelength LW -37.0 108.0 32.0 55.0
linear wavelength
ratio LW/wbkf -2.8 8.3 5.9 50.0
radius of curvature Rc feet 24.0 113.0 17.0 31.0
radius of curvature
ratio Rc/ wbkf -1.9 8.7 1.3 2.8
B4
0.02
2
3.1
7
0.4
0.3
29
1
2.3
9
1.2
1.3
4.3
8
1.1
0.7
Notation Units
13
7
13.0
1.06
0.022
0.021
34
2.6
21
1.6
2.7
2.7
-
1.2
5.9
4.8
1.0
13
13
5.3
1.2
B4
1.4
2.1 0.9
4.2
1.2
3.2
1.0
0.5 0.8
8
2.7
10
1.4
0.058
0.051 0.039
3 3
0.6
3 8
1.4
0.056
1.02
2.2
0.053
Parameter
5
5.8
6
1.10
4.5
8
B4
0.04
3
4.9
7
0.6
0.4
18
1.5
1.1
2.6
15
9
C4
0.02
0.025
1.10
1.7
2.1
0.0330.049
0.044
1.00
1.8
5
1.0
2
1.0
7
4.1
1.05
3
6.4
0.059
B4 B4
0.06 0.07
2.1
5.3
18
2.5
17
5.4
1.7
0.039
0.9
4
4
3.6
2
2.6
0.01
0.056
1.10
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
-
Hanks Branch Reach 3 UT1 UT3 Reach 1 UT3 Reach 3 UT4 Reach 1 UT4 Reach 3 UT5 Reach 2
3 2
4.9 7.0
7 5
1.2 0.6
0.4
14 13
2 1.1
11
C4b
1.7
6.7
0.5
0.9
-
-
-
-
-----
1.03
----
-----
----
-----
----
----
-----
Typical
Section Min Max Typical
Section Min Max Typical
Section Min Max Typical
Section Min Max Typical
Section Min Max Typical
Section Min Max Typical
Section Min Max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs 85.0 13.0 10.0 15.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
bankfull cross-
sectional area Abkf SF 17.7 3.2 2.7 3.5 1.3 1.9 1.9
average velocity
during bankfull event vbkf fps 4.8 4.1 3.8 4.3 3.3 3.3 3.2
width at bankfull wbkf feet 15.5 6.6 5.9 6.8 4.0 4.9 5.0
maximum depth at
bankfull dmax feet 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.80 0.5 0.6 0.6
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4
bankfull width to
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 14.0 14.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0
max depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
bank height ratio BHR -------
floodprone area
width wfpa feet -34 78 -9 15 -8 13 -10 15 -6 9 -7 11 -11 25
entrenchment ratio ER -2.2 5.0 ------2.2 5.0
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schnl feet/foot -0.0169 0.0200 -0.0509 0.0560 -0.0355 0.040 -0.0527 0.0420 -0.054 0.059 -0.045 0.049 -0.028 0.033
riffle slope Sriffle feet/foot -0.2540 0.060 -0.0509 0.101 -0.0355 0.070 -0.0527 0.104 -0.0536 0.106 -0.045 0.088 -0.028 0.059
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl -1.5 3.0 -1.0 1.8 -1.0 1.8 -1.0 1.8 -1.0 1.8 -1.0 1.8 -1.0 1.8
pool slope Sp feet/foot -0.000 0.0040 -0.000 0.0224 -0.000 0.0156 -0.000 0.0232 -0.000 0.0236 -0.000 0.0196 -0.000 0.0132
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl -0.00 0.20 -0.00 0.04 -0.0 0.40 -0.0 0.40 -0.0 0.40 -0.0 0.40 -0.0 0.40
pool-pool spacing Lp-p feet -47 104 -10 33 -9.0 30.0 -10 34 -6 20 -7.0 25.0 -8.0 25.0
pool spacing ratio Lp-p/wbkf -3.0 6.7 -1.5 5.0 -1.5 5.0 -1.5 5.0 -1.5 5.0 -1.5 5.0 -1.5 5.0
pool cross-sectional
area Apool SF -40.7 53.0 -6.3 9.5 -5.3 8.0 -7.0 10.6 -2.5 3.8 -26.0 39.0 -4.4 5.8
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf -2.3 3.0 -2.0 3.0 -2.0 3.0 -2.0 3.0 -2.0 3.0 -2.0 3.0 -2.3 3.0
maximum pool depth dpool feet -3.4 4.6 -1.0 1.7 -0.9 1.6 -1.0 1.8 -0.6 1.1 -0.8 1.3 -1.2 1.5
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf -3.0 4.0 -2.0 3.5 -2.0 3.5 -2.0 3.5 -2.0 3.5 -2.0 3.5 -3.0 4.0
pool width at
bankfull wpool feet -18.6 23.3 -7.9 9.2 -7.1 8.3 -8.2 9.5 -4.8 5.6 -5.9 6.9 -6 7.5
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf -1.2 1.5 -1.2 1.4 -1.2 1.4 -1.2 1.4 -1.2 1.4 -1.2 1.4 -1.2 1.5
sinuosity K -------
belt width wblt feet ----17 53 -17 47 -17 54 -10 32 -12 39 -13 40
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf ----2.5 8.0 -2.5 8.0 -2.5 8.0 -2.5 8.0 -2.5 8.0 -2.5 8
linear wavelength
(formerly meander
length)
LW feet ----33 78 -33 78 -34 81 -20 48 -25 58 -25 59
linear wavelength
ratio (formerly
meander length
ratio)
LW/wbkf ----5.0 11.9 -5.0 11.9 -5.0 11.9 -5.0 11.9 -5.0 11.9 -5.0 11.9
meander length Lm feet ----33 86 -33 86 -33 86 -20 52 -25 64 -25 71
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf ----5.0 13.1 -5.0 13.1 -5.0 13.1 -5.0 13.1 -5.0 13.1 -5.0 14.3
radius of curvature Rc feet ----13 23 -13 23 -14 24 -8 14 -10 17 -10 18
radius of curvature
ratio Rc/ wbkf ----2.0 3.5 -2.0 3.5 -2.0 3.5 -2.0 3.5 -2.0 3.5 -2.0 3.5
1.05
UT5 Reach 2
C4b
0.01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
0.033
1.20
UT4 Reach 3
B4
0.01
-
>1.4
-
-
-
-
Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
-
-----
-----
-
--
--
--
Notation Units Hanks Branch Reach 3 UT1
-
C4 B4 B4
1.05 0.0586 0.04
--
--
UT3 Reach 1
-
--
-1.05 1.10
UT3 Reach 3 UT4 Reach 1
B4 B4
0.07 0.01
-
---
0.0220 0.0560
1.05 1.05
14.0 1.0
-
-
1.0
-
-
>1.4 >1.4 >1.4 >1.4
0.0580 0.059
--
--
-
-
-
1.0
0.049
1.0
0.0390
-
-
1.0

Appendix 7 

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix 8 

Site Protection Instrument 
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes 
portions of the parcels listed in Table 1. This area totals 29.8 acres. The deed book and page number 
listed are for the agreements on an option to purchase a conservation easement. A conservation 
easement will be recorded on the parcels and includes streams being restored along with their 
corresponding riparian buffers. 
Table 1: Site Protection Instrument  
Property Owner Parcel ID Number County Site Protection 
Instrument 
Memorandum of Option Deed 
Book (DB) and Page Number 
(PG) 
Horace Randle 
Wood 4904‐85‐2899 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106 
Horace Randle 
Wood 4904‐74‐6732 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106 
Horace Randle 
Wood 4904‐94‐1831 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106 
Horace Randle 
Wood 4904‐63‐7463 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106 
John Lyon 4904‐82‐1964 Wilkes CE DB: 557, PG: 433 
All site protection instruments require 60‐day advance notification to the USACE and or DMS prior to 
any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by 
the State.  

Appendix 9 

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

Appendix 10 

Maintenance Plan

The site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post‐construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two (2) years
following site construction and may include the following:

Table1: Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close‐out

Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in‐stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank erosion. If beaver become active on the site, Wildlands will contract with
the USDA to trap the beaver and remover the dams. No maintenance is expected to be
necessary for the BMPs.

Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species
shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.

Site boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, tree‐blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be
repaired and/or replaced on an as‐needed basis.

Vicinity Map Notto Scale
Cl a:
"" 0 0 u
BEFORE YOU DIG! CALL 1-800-632-4949 N.C. ONE-CALL CENTER IT'S THE LAW!
Lyon Hills Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
for
N
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
90% PLANS
ISSUED JUNE 20, 2020 Sheet Index Title Sheet Project Overview General Notes and Symbols Stream Plan, Profile & Typical Sections BMP Overview BMP Plans Planting Tables Planting Overview Planting Plans 0.1 0.2 0.3 Erosion & Sediment Control Overview & General Notes 1.01-1.41 2.00 2.01-2.03 3.00 3.01 3.02-3.10 Not IncludedNot IncludedErosion & Sediment Control Plan Fencing Plan Overview Fencing Plan Details Project Directory 5.00 5.01-5.18 6.01-6.14 Engineering: Wildlands Engineering, Inc License No. F-0831 312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Jeff Keaton, Project Manager Nicole Millns, Project Engineer 919-851-9986Surveying: Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA 88 Central A venue Asheville, NC 28801 Phillip B. Kee, PLS 828-645-8275 Owner: DEQNCDMS 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Attention: Kelly Phillips 919-707-8976NCDEQ Contract No. 7620 DMSID No. 100085 ro�..... 2 ...... ..... 0
Cf) � � u 0 :p ..i::: ro t:: bO 0 :p z .....
� � � s ..... ,.., ::c 0 u
� [/'J 0 Q.)
>,�� ...... i
..-�
al �8�:g z C) )g
>,D:I "'"' H �� � l! Cl� Cl U
� .
J
HORACE RANDLE WOOD
/ PIN: 49 cn
2899 I / / /1
DB: 1156 PG: 106 (EXHIBIT R, TRACT II &III)
MICKEV L. DURHAM &WIFE
LINDA M. DURHAM
PIN: 4914-05-0896
BOBBY J. HOLBROOK & WIFE
/ RITA K. HOLBROOK / �O�Oy ~ DB: 1249 PG: 99
RICKY C. CARROLL & WIFE PIN: 49 9 PG: 7507 / =•QQoa �� / / PB: 11 PG: 569 (TRACT 4) 0 �
/ DB: 849 PG: 279 g m m 40' SURRY-YADKIN E.M.C. F-l1
LISA B. CARROLL v P �� F" 3
PIN: a904-76-4116 I �Q 2• ."'C UTILITY LINE EASEMENT
/ PORTION OF DB: 859 PG: 207 BEGIN UT3 = yam
/ REACH 1(RESTA.500+ 0 �CF I mW _ _ L
\ (FIRST TRACT) I / �
STA.500+00 <� I BEGIN UT1
- (RESTORATION) RICHARD D. W. L &WIFE
EDDIE D. BLACKBURN, IR. &WIFE
m c HEATHER BLACKBURN STA. 300+28 TAM MY -0 L1 8
/ ) / PIN: 4914-OS-2582 /
- _ PIN: 4904-95-3428 /
DB: 1199 PG: 210 N � � DB: 731 PG: 267 /
UT1 (RESTORATION)
- Q O TO S.R. 1749 ) BEGIN CREDITS
M I O STA.300+88 0��oot����
BEGIN UT3A J Q -;�
(ENHANCEMENT II) CIZ ff L
HORACE RANDLE WOOD STA. 550+00 -, i
PIN: 4904-74-6732 iO I � ` U /
DB: 1156 PG: 106 (EXHIBIT R, TRACT I) /
ryEND UT3A (ENHANCEMENT 11) �O C . HORACE RANDLE WOOD I i�
TB� STA.552+53 14 PIN: 4904-94-1831-
UT3 REACH 1 (RESTORATION) - DB: 1156 PG: 106 (EXHIBIT Q TRACT III)
BEGIN UTS STA.506+30
REACH 1(ENHANCEMENT II)
MP" STA. 800+00 l \
/F X5 1.29 \ END UT3REACH I
�FEMp"X5/ \ BEGIN UT3ESTORATION) �s \
END UT5A CE 1.21 REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT II) LE�
JANIE W. CHEEK (ENHANCEMENT II) BEGIN UT5A .,\ STA. 506+55 1.16 n� /
PIN: 4904-55-7721 STA. 703+18 W (ENHANCEMENT II) BEGIN HANKS BRANCH
DB: 1068 PG: 452 (TRACTS 1, 2 & 3) \ UT5 REACH 1 Ln STA. 700+00 �J / ��3 REACH 1(ENHANCEMENT 11)
ESTATE FILE 11 E-574 \ (ENHANCEMENT II) I UT5A
v STA.200+21
STA.802+12 I BEGIN UT4 m END UT3--
REACH 1(RESTORATION)
L \ \ I REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT II)
END UT5 1.36 -1.41 1.40 STA. 600+00
- - - v BEGIN UT3
REACH 1 (ENHANCEMENT II) REACH 3 (RESTORATION) `2 END UT1 (RESTORATION)
BEGIN UT5 ^ N STA.511+02 / 3
STA.308+93
REACH 2 (RESTORATION) nj/ HANKS BRANCH REACH 1 '� ++ N
STA.804+37 q ti' m (ENHANCEMENT II) � 0
EMP CYi I STA.203+08
JANIE W. CHEEK
PIN: 4904-54-8184 \ Qry2� v END UT4 W _�1 N� `/ j N/F ,G 0
DB: 1068 PG: 452 (PORTION REACH I RESTORATION O� I //- ��/ LEFF I. BENGE �I N
OF TRACT FOUR) \ ti• ( ) (� m / PIN: 4914-04-5444 r-ti
V / f DB: 819 PG: 474
ESTATE FILE 11 E-574 BEGIN UT4 x END UT4 -�- � / \l �--I
w REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT II) REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT II) / m / r~ }
STA. 602+33 BEGIN UT4 Ir�1
BEGIN SPARKS CREEK 1.39 f\ REACH 3 (RESTORATION) ��✓ x Q� U
(ENHANCEMENT II) SPARKS CREEK �U) STA. 605+55 r C c cn
cn STA.100+61
(ENHANCEMENT 11)
h
/ \ d START CREDITS 1--,
�'i a
\ O + \- LEFF J. BENGE
END UTS STA.102+75
\ is °C 1.26 END UT3 PIN: 4914-04-5444
REACH 2 (RESTORATION) \ \ J► -� DB: 819 PG: 474
_ REACH 3 RESTORATION
STA.808+00 � -� - - - - � x -BEGIN UT3 ) G�'
SPARKS CREEK (ENHANCEMENT III m \ '�h X x / REACH 4 ENHANCEMENT II
STA. 517+34 �/ A
END HANKS BRANCH n /
REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT II) 1.34 , ��- 09� m c� /"�
SF� \ BEGIN HANKS BRANCH / �1' - y TB CE 1.17
REACH 3 (ENHANCEMENT I)
STA.228+06
"ASID 30 BEGIN UT2
�
3D UT2 (ENHANCEMENT II)
END UT3 STA.400+12
e CE SF 1�0 / REACH 4 (ENHANCEMENT 11)
STA.520+06
\ lB Olt HANKS BRANCH - _ END HANKS BRANCH
END HANKS BRANCH \\ 1,\ / A`GN REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT II) REACH 1(ENHANCEMENT II) - N
I REACH 3 (ENHANCEMENT 1) c P STA. 225+25 BEGIN HANKS BRANCH
HORACE RANDLE WOOD STA. 233+87 \ �-� /�,7 yq c �9 / REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT 11)
s PIN:4904-63-7463 SPARKS CREEK (ENHANCEMENT II) ,� (���7 END UT4 STA. 216+99
III END
I
UT2(ENH
ANCEMENT 11)DB: 1156 PG: 106 (EXHIBIT QTRACT II) STA. 110+12 REACH 3 (RESTORATION)
_N` - FEMX$/ JOHN E. LYON STA.608+36 STA.400+90
FEMA-XS-FEMA-XS HANKSBRANCH'0
T -- REACH 2 (ENHANCEENNIFER A. LEONARDfQ POONOFDB:557PG:433 MENT II)
No5°,1
RANDEL M. FENDER &WIFE &HUSBAND IIMMIE E. LEONARD
STA.226+42
ETTA FENDER PIN: 4904-93-0182
JOHN E. LYON RANDEL M. FENDER & WIFE / RANDEL M. FENDER & WIFE PIN: 4904-83-7188 DB: 766 PG: 199 &
END SPARKS CREEK ETTA FENDER I DB: 1216 PG: 280 DB: 1179 PG: 338 '$ d u
PIN: 4904-73-6035 / ETTA FENDER o O c�
(ENHANCEMENT II) PORTION OF DB: 557 PG: 4371 PIN4904-82-1964 PIN: 4904-83-4149 I I Ja
8 STA. 110+54 ) ESTATE FILE OOE-173 \ �� DB: : 1270 PG: 163 DB: 1254 PG: 205
_ 8 O
z v
150' 300' 450. o ro x N
(HORIZONTAL)

General Construction Notes
1. All erosion and sediment control practices shall comply with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
2. Contractor will install pump -around systems to divert flow while working in live, flowing channels. Contractor shall operate and maintain the pump -around system 24 hours a day until all
disturbed areas are stabilized. The disturbed area being pumped around must be stabilized with temporary seeding, mulch, and erosion control matting by the end of each work day.
Contractor shall not remove pump -around systems and advance to the next work area until the current work area is completed and stabilized.
3. No material from the off-line proposed stream channel excavation may be backfilled into the adjacent existing stream channel until the newly -constructed proposed stream section is
P P Y 1 9 Y P P
completed, stabilized and the stream flow has been diverted into it not even if that section of old/existing stream is being pumped.
P � � 9 9P P
4. A pump -around operation is required for all in -stream work but is not required to be running if there is no flow. Contractor shall disturb only as much channel bank as can be stabilized
P P P 4 � 4 9 Y
with temporary seeding, mulch, and erosion control matting by the end of each work day.
5. Clearing and grubbing activities shall not extend more than 150 linear feet ahead of in -stream work.
6. When crossing an active section of new or old stream channel, a Timber Mat shall be installed according to the Details and Specifications.
7. All graded areas with slopes steeper than 3:1 will be stabilized within seven (7) working days. All other areas will be stabilized within 14 working days.
B. Locations for staging and stockpile areas and temporary stream crossings have been provided on the Plans. Additional or alternative short-term stockpile areas and stream crossings
may be used by the Contractor provided that all practices comply with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual and that the areas are approved by
the Engineer prior to implementation. Short-term stockpile areas are those that will remain in place for a short period of time so that disturbed areas can be stabilized within the
timeframes stated in item #7 of General Construction Notes. Additional stockpile areas other than short-term stockpiles, staging areas, and stream crossings not shown on the plans will
require approval of the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources.
9. Vegetation on -site to be used as transplant material (juncus, small trees, and sod mats) shall not be disturbed until the Contractor is prepared to install transplants.
10. Various types of constructed riffles are specified on the plans. Contractor shall build the specific types of constructed riffles at locations shown on the plans. Changes in constructed riffle
type must be approved by the Engineer.
11. Fertilizer and soil amendments are discussed in the Permanent Seeding Specification. Lime and fertilizer may be applied to assist with grass establishment in some disturbed areas. The
limits of applications will be determined by the Engineer in the field.
12. Existing fence located inside the conservation easement shall be removed during construction.
13. Contractor is to make every effort to avoid damaging or removing existing trees.
14. Materials harvested on -site for construction of structures must be obtained within the conservation easement and approved by the Engineer.
15. Under no circumstances will the Contractor exceed the Limits of Disturbance as shown on the plans.
16. The construction site will be accessed from two construction entrance points, one off Hanks Street and one off Lyon Ridge Road as shown on the plans.
Initial Site Preparation
1. Contact the North Carolina "One Call" Center (1.800.632.4949) before any excavation.
2. Mobilize equipment and materials to the site.
3. Identify and establish construction entrances, staging and stockpile areas, haul roads, silt fence, tree protection fencing, safety fencing, and temporary stream crossings as indicated on
the plans for work areas.
4. All haul roads shall be monitored for sediment loss daily. In the event of sediment loss, silt fence or other acceptable sediment and erosion control practices shall be installed. Silt fence
outlets shall be located at points of low elevation or a minimum spacing of 150 ft.
5. Set up temporary facilities, locate equipment within the staging area, and stockpile materials needed for the initial stages of construction within the stockpile areas. Install and maintain
an on -site rain gauge and log book to record rainfall amounts and dates. Maintain an approved copy of the ESC Plan with placard and approval letter and a copy of the NPDES permit
with a minimum of 30 days of self -inspection reports on site until project closure by NCDEQ.
6. The Contractor shall conduct self -inspections of the erosion and sedimentation control measures and complete the combined self -inspection form found on the DEMLR website
(DEMLR-CSW-Monitoring-Form-Rev-April-1-2019.pdf) as required by NCDEQ permit. Rainfall records, completed self -inspection forms, and permits should be maintained on site.
7. Monitor site for sediment loss and inspect all erosion control features after each rain event. Maintain erosion control features according to the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment
Control Manual.
Construction Sequence
1. This project may be constructed in phases according to construction entrances and regions of the site. Contractor shall not start construction on one phase and move to another phase
Existing Features Proposed Features
SFHA
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
-FEMA-XS-
FEMA CROSS SECTIONS
------- - - - - -
- EXISTING THALWEG
X X
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING STORM PIPE
- - - - -100- - - -
- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
- - - - - - - - - - -
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING BEDROCK
EXISTING FARM PATH
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING POND
III -III
EXISTING DEBRIS AREA
EXISTING SPRING
EXISTING ELECTRIC BOX
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
- CE CE -
- CE-IX CE-IX-
Oho
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
EASEMENT INTERNAL CROSSING
LOG VANE
LOG SILL
BOULDER SILL
LOG J-HOOK
ROCKVANE
ROCK STEP POOLS
ROCK CASCADE
FLOODPLAIN OUTLET
PROPOSED BOULDER TOE
before stabilizing the first, unless a crew is continuing to work on the initial phase.
2. Construction sequencing shall be determined by the Contractor and the Contractor shall provide a schedule to the Engineer prior to commencement.
3. Install temporary livestock fencing, as necessary, to secure the project area prior to construction. Conservation easement fencing may be installed prior to construction to reduce or
eliminate the need for temporary fencing.
4. Perform any necessary clearing and grubbing in phases as work progresses. Stream bank vegetation and floodplain vegetation immediately adjacent to live channels shall be left
undisturbed as Ion as possible. Remove all non-native and invasive vegetation prior to beginning channel construction. Take care with vegetation marked for trans lant from the old
9 P 9 P 9 9 9 P
channel to the new channel. Do not disturb transplant vegetation until time of trans lant.
P 9 P
5. Construction of all channels is to be done in the dry. Construction should generally progress from upstream to downstream to prevent sediment runoff from upstream construction
affecting completed downstream reaches. Use a pump -around system as shown on the plans and discussed in the General Notes.
6. Where feasible, multiple off-line sections may be constructed concurrently. Off-line sections shall be tied on-line sequentially from downstream to upstream.
7. As work progresses, remove and stockpile the top three (3) inches of soil from the active grading area. Stockpiled topsoil shall be kept separate for on -site replacement prior to
floodplain seeding.
8. Construct the proposed stream channel to the grade specified in the cross sections and profiles. Transfer coarse material from abandoned channel riffles to new channel riffles utilizing a
pump -around system when doing so.
9. Install permanent stream crossings according to the details and specifications.
10. Sod mats can be used in lieu of coir fiber matting, where available, to stabilize all stream banks on site as the preferred stabilization method. Coir fiber matting may be used where sod
mats are not available or if coir fiber matting is preferred at the discretion of the Designer. Material used for sod mats must be approved by the Engineer.
11. Install in -stream structures (constructed riffles, log sills, log J-hooks, lunker logs, log vanes, and boulder sills) and bank revetments such as brush toe and sod mats after channel grading
is completed according to the details and specifications.
12. Pond BMPs located above UT3 and UT4 shall be installed per the elevations defined in the plans. Outlet swale material is defined in the plans and shall be installed and stabilized as
specified.
13. Seed (with specified temporary and permanent seed mix) and straw mulch areas where coir fiber matting is to be installed.
14. Grade the adjacent floodplain areas according to the plans.
15. Backfill abandoned channel sections with stockpiled soil according to the grades shown on the plans. Non-native and invasive vegetation (e.g. Chinese privet and multiflora rose) shall
be removed from the existing channel prior to backfilling.
16. Prepare the floodplain for seeding by applying stockpiled topsoil to the floodplain between bankfull elevation and the grading limits, ripping, and raking/smoothing. All haul roads and
other areas of compacted soil must be thoroughly ripped or disked. Seed with specified temporary and permanent seed mix and mulch. Any areas within the conservation easement that
have not been graded shall be treated according to the planting plan.
17. If at any time circumstances should arise where water has been turned into newly -constructed channel and additional work must be done on the floodplain, erosion control devices will
be installed to protect the newly -constructed channel from sedimentation.
18. Once all phases of channel and floodplain construction are complete, any remaining fence lines shall be staked according to fencing plan. Install fence outside of the conservation
easement according to the fencing plan, details, and specifications.
19. Prepare the floodplain areas for planting per the specifications.
20. Install bare root plants on the floodplain and live stakes and herbaceous plugs along the stream banks according to the planting plan, details, and specifications.
Construction Demobilization
1. Remove temporary stream crossings, stockpile areas, and erosion and sediment control devices. Note: Permanent vegetation must be established before measures can be removed.
2. The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of equipment from the site.
3. Complete the removal of any additional stockpiled material from the site.
4. Demobilize grading equipment from the site.
5. All rock and other stockpiled materials must be removed from the limits of disturbance and conservation easement unless otherwise directed by the Engineer.
6. All areas, including but not limited to pasture areas, roads, and entrances outside the conservation easement shall be returned to pre -project conditions or better.
7. Seed, mulch, and stabilize staging areas, stockpile areas, haul roads, and construction entrances. Pasture seed mix is to be applied to areas of disturbance outside of the conservation
easement and where shown on the planting plan.
PROPOSED ANGLED LOG RIFFLE
PROPOSED CHUNKY RIFFLE
PROPOSED LOG -ROCK CASCADE RIFFLE
PROPOSED NATIVE MATERIAL RIFFLE
PROPOSED WOODY RIFFLE
PROPOSED STREAM BANK GRADING
PROPOSED FORD CROSSING
PROPOSED CHANNEL INFILL
PROPOSED FARM ROAD
PROPOSED BRUSH TOE
PROPOSED TRANSPLANTED SOD MAT
PROPOSED VEGETATED SOIL LIFT
Erosion Control Features
-
LODLOD- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
SAF SAF SAFETY FENCE
[X] [X] SILT FENCE
® SILT FENCE OUTLET
PUMP
TEMPORARY CROSSING
STAGING/STOCKPILE AREA
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
PROPOSED HAUL ROAD
rei
�1
� J
O
TEMPORARY CROSSING
STAGING/STOCKPILE AREA
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
PROPOSED HAUL ROAD
rei
�1
� J
O

1160
115
1150
1145
NG
1143 4-
100+00
E
100+50
101+00 101+50
102+00 102+50
103+00
103+50
-- ---------------------------
--- CHANNEL INFI
— -- --: -- ---------------------
G 18" CORRUGATED ---------------------------------------------
PIPE TO BE REMOVED. --------------------------------------
------- -------
-----------
----- ------
----
---- EXISTING FARM ROAD
------
-----
-----------
1160
1155
1150
1145
I I 1 F 1143
104+00 104+25
--- - - - -------------------------------------- ----- ------ -------------
IVE EXISTING FENCE :--jjo ------------------------------------------- -- TO BE REMOVED. -------
--- -------
----- ---- ---- -------
VVI WITHIN EASEMENT (TYP) ------------ --- --------------- --- -----------
- ---- ------------ ----------------- -------
-- -- - ------------------------------------- ----------
CE—CE
1165 CE E "'A
rr — (1 CE, ------ -C —
CE—r. CE ----/--CF-
CE EXISTING FARM ROAD CE IE
—
INTERNAL CROSSING CE
SNP REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
------- 16s WITHIN EASEMENT (TYP).
STA.806+93
x ------
UT5 REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
, --- -------------- ---------- --i165 S--
--
�j -
-
--f,RKSC-----R
------- ------ ------
------------- -- iv --- --------- I
- - ------- -
A -------- ------ - - ---------------- -
3:)---
101+00 ---------
------ - ---
-- - ---
- - - -------- -
Opx002*00
—104+00
13
- ---------- ------
- -- -- - ----------
-----------------
116 ==--- --- -----
------- ��===7 - ------------ ,03+
----------------------
------ 00
BEGIN SPARKS CREEK ------------
REACH 1 (ENHANCEMENI 11) -----------
- ---------
160—
STA. 100+61 -------
SPARKS CREEK (ENHANCEMENT
1165, STA. 101+12 ---- --------
-�ll ---- - -------
60
In END UT5 --- ------- -
REACH 2 (RESTORATION) SPARKS CREEK ------
------------------ -
,ramSTA.808+00 REACH 1 (ENHANCEMENT 11)
--------- --- --- -------- - V) T' -----------------------
BEGIN CREDITS
t ---------
STA. 102+75
--------------
--------------
3j. ....
3D 1
33 3:)
3:) 3:1— 33 3-1 3:)
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
ol 2' 4- 6-
(VERTICAL)
ol 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
(1)
u
A's E2

s
1160
1155
1150
1145
--r--I-- + - -I-—
1160
1155
1150
1145
1142 ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 F 1142
104+25 104+50 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50
----------------------
CE E
-- '
s� CE CE CE
- 4QI\+
C----CECE�
-
E�CE
E CE CE CE - ----- -- 6_- ----
�CE—REMOVE EXISTING FENCE - `- =I x
---
,, ___;= SFHA WITH INEASEMENT(TYP) SP CREEK '` -"
T� ARKS I PROPOSED (FORD CROSSING. r
x—x SEE DETAIL 4 SHEET 6.07. _ \- - \11S = --
------------
- _ -
- -____
`X_ -- - ---
105+00 _ _ - - CHANNEL INFILL� g - - X- _ _ • - " - -,
N1 Lr)"Y` _ - - - - 106+06 X - W D ° D D D ° D 1pg+00 ` �_ , " O
.+�,\ `\ U._ DD DDDDD p. m /may, - l�-,.
;O1155 D 107+00>D X _ _
_
i
__ O,
"= =_ - __ -_ -
r 1r
_ t
= ___-' INTERNAL CROSSING U ° / '1155' - `_ -r 1� -'
o - = --_ -- - - = -I'In
\ I EXISTING PROPERTY LINE , �' -\ - SPARKS CREEK - -- "o D DD D ° / _ _ `\-," , ' _ -- __ _-- -- - \
__ INTERNAL CROSSING - - --
-- _ -- ---- - d '^ (ENHANCEMENT 1160 W
Z - 1150 - z� D D D ° SPARKS CREEK
s J I - x STA. 106+80 o D DDDD Z
Q u°.o D ° _� �n (ENHANCEMENT II) =
_
STA. 107+22 r
d
I
,
_
J
-3Jt-=-3J-3J-3J-3J - �\,,_1160 IG
3J I 3J ,
8 —3J—3J-3J-3JT-3J-3J-3�1, 3J-3J�-3J --- --- -�3�`� J�3a+-3:) 33,, —3J�3J
,
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
v

1160 1160
s
Q Fl
�lw oz °z
1155 1155 M
EXISTING GROUND
1150 - -- ---- -- - - __ 1150
1145 1145
�-I
� � v
� U w
O
1140 1140
108+50 109+00 109+50 110+00 110+50 111+00 111+20 t O
(.�
PROPOSED APPROXIMATE u i �+
FLOODPLAIN BENCH I I m
ill Q
CE-CE-CE-CE-CE-CE-CE-CE
c
STING FENCE ; REMOVE EXISTING
WITHIN EASEMENT (TYP)
-
- ;
a
- - --
--- -- —— _
11 _. ARKS CREEK___==_- _== ____= o m —_
` - - PAR ""=__ __- _-.,s - - - _ _ END SPARKS CREEK
'� _ 'S- _ _ - _ _- _ REACH 1 (ENHANCEMENT II)
---------- ----- - 1150=---' J =_
-- = - STA.110+54
1
109+0�
_
--- -
\ / \
' SPARKS CREEK -_115 1150 _
_ REACH 1(ENHANCEMENT II)
STA. 110+12 - y �-J;,F�.,
END HANKS BRANCH -----
e
- REACH (
---- 3 ENHANCEMENT I -
=,00 " = ,- ; STA 233
t " +87 11 Jm'
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
1y� 1160,=' WITHINEASEMENT(TYP) 115 \
0- - \ te
o u
'40�30�3 ��� '�•��'`�`,\, i� 0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
30
E9Y330 3 0' 20' 40' 60' z v F� x ,.
(HORIZONTAL) p;� Q y
Q

s
1210
1210
1205
1200
1195
EXISTING GROUND
1
1
1
1
1
1205
1200
1195
1190
200+21 200+50 201+00
--- — — -----
-- -- - _
"1
-
2
1 2
i
= — — — =
35
---------- — — _
_ _ — — -_-
_
"1
�2
r _ 3 ,1'
,
12
,
— --- _
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE�_� —= - ____ - -
_- -- ----- --'- -' ----'
30
1
--' 5 --- --- -- -_ " _
- - 2 — `
----- - -
_
_ = — —
' -_ - - - ------ 1 - ' -
122
-- -- -
_
--'
_
o_
R
- '
NEIMO VE EXISTING FENCE ; % -',- ' o0
—' -- —
EA ' S EMENT (TYP)
5- —
- = ----
-- BEGIN HANKS BRANCH—'------' =1220 _ _ --- -------- _ 121 - - ----- --- _ - __- _----- - = 1215--
-- _ - — -
- - - ------ ' ;;: - - ---
---" "
1
1 ENHANCEMENT II -- 21 - -"=— ' -- w, ---------
REACH
-- - - --'------" EXISTING 4" CAST IRON -----' i ; _ " \`-� `'- -_--------------------- - - -------- _-- - - - •\'�
_ STA.200+21 , _ __ - --- --- _—i
ELECTRICAL CONDUIT -- -- - HANKSBRANCH
ANCH ,
i - 0"\---- - ---- - --- = " 'x �� (ENHANCEMENT ) a
:121U- --- _ 121 CEM TO BE REMOVED --- — = — — _ _ — TA. 203+08 H
,
�— __�
—E� EE �E,,-"C�--C-� ---------�-- x `--- —'" END UTl _CCf'—" x II 1
`. 5 -
_ 20 + w - -- - REACH 1(RESTORATION) ! l -
z �� 08+93 '
I ---= �120 x
Y _ ---
/ — — - J
5 N 5 BRANCH =
_ _ / STA 3
A K
210
'
X- -----------
GRADE BACK T 3.1 SLOPE
_
U_ -' _ _ _
---------
-----------
SMOOTH IN -CHANNEL \ _ _- --~ 'y- _ --1200-_
O
BED MATERIAL \ `. ' ;\ , \ 201+00 �� -_ � _ -y "— ____ __ - ,_______
'
\
0�
\ ---- -----
`;. 121"
REMOVE TREE q�`�
'
GRADE BACK AT 3�1 SLOPE/
_
` N
rye,
— ��
110�.
3
- - - 0 -O'rr �0 ---
----- 3D ANNE ILL .1ti
r i I _-- �\ l
1
L � A'
'—33y�30-- 1215'� __"--"—" �SMOOTHIN-CHANNEL, `_`_- '�`, �, � � � - --- -- ___-- 0' 2V 4' 6'
_ � � CH LINF
3- — 4
1
— BED MATERIAL
—
_ �M1ei
_ — — _ _ __—
' iI
_
VE CAL
..\rr—_________ - — _ _
— 2-------""_--------
,y 'ti,
'
(HORIZONTAL)
--1220
r r! ti~ /
it
r
%i
, r r r
,
1190
5
v

s
1200
iT -
1195
1190
1185
1183 4-
204+50
205+00
1235 __
1215
-�� 12p5
Q
i
l,r
' HANKS BRANCH
REACH 1 (ENHANCEMENT II;
i C STA.205+21
ENDSPSC7
STA.900+91
--------------
"r _zu=
_ ---- - ----__
_ j 1200 __ ___
--_ __----- -_ -
------- 1205 -, -
ROU
+--
205+50 206+00 206+50 207+00 207+50 208+00 208+50
- 1235 - - _ -� C123p '��- C�1235__ - - 1240 - _
-- -
_ _ - - -
---- - - -
- - `- 1230" - - _ - - - - _
25 - 0
12 �22S - 235 _ '
_ -„__ _ _
123
1215.- - _ - - / = 'lz - - - - 11230 -
20
)VE EXISTING FENCE ,_ - 1220_ -
-=� - - _ '"
IIN EASEMENT (TYP) -== - -,� ; ,_ _ _ _ 1215_ - ' - - - - -
1210 =---- = -- _- 1210 _ =_ _ - - -- - ll
_ --- -
--- -- -
?2
_---- - r _ _ - +
:- _ _
-
- - -- J�Oo - ---- - 121 -- ON
HANKS -BRANCH � 1
' - - ;- - - ---
` _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
206+00'-- - - - - - --- _
12U0 _
_ 1210 �-
'- - _- - -
- ---
119 = t
07 - +pp nr' - -- - T=
__ I +� _
---- -
-------------------1210--------
= ----- ; 11 -
1200
` `---�
31
00
431.
I20S-------------� ------� ----------.- --------12-\ _p ----_ --
- -- -
-
- ---�
- - --
-
-tF_ J' n -
121ll
g
---
00 ---------------- _=-------------
- -- --- 1210-1210
----------- ---------- _ _
--- ---- - - -\---
--------------- - -- - -3-
--
'=
--- ------------ -- 1 -- ----——--- -_-------------- - - — --------------------
--------- ---------------------------------------- ----- _--------------
- ------------------ -_ --------- _1---------
--;----_----------------------------
1200
1195
1190
1185
-41183
209+00
o�
0' 2' 4' 6'
VERTICAL
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
v

s
1195
1190
EXISTING GROUND
1185
1180
1176
209+00 209+50 210+00
210+50
211+00
211+50 212+00 212+50
- - --
--- '
'-
I-
-- -
-- __ ___„
--
- ;;
- -_ -_; -
-- -
1230 - - -
--- -
--- - -
-
" o
_, --
- - ---
lzza � ��
_ -1225
-
f- -122
_ _
,0 -1215-
- -
,1
I
- _=
-- — _ — _
= — —
1210 " iz15 '-12 - -
lzos
_ o
1z1 . HANKS BRANCH
1200 - - - - -_ ; - -
1205
-
- - 1200- - - - _ --
Z2os
--111190_ _ _ -- �_ ""- i -
`c`
5 OTHIN-CHANNEL
1 19 1200
t _, .__
-- MATERIAL
-- _
211 _ pp
9g l 119,
GRADE BACK AT 3:15LOPE �� K +00 v 1$y_
1�
_
+
_
-' --- --- ------1195-, f I Q
------ REMOVE PRIVET/ I N
LU
►�
' N - `-
�< ---
'-------- k
-- - - -`� J
--_„_
- -
3J —
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
_ 3 3D — 3J
` WITHIN EASEMENT (T P) U
--- 3J 3� �— �V—— 3J 3J �- 3J 3J BJI�
_ - __ - __ ---- J 3J 3-��-3J- 3J 3J ' 3J 3� —�— - I Q
- - ---- - _
z9s �100
1195
1190
1185
1180
1176
213+00
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
v

1190
1190
1185
—EXISTING GROUND
1180
1175
1170
213+00 213+50 214+00 214+50 215+00 215+50 216+00
---------------------------
BEG N UT2
------- ------------------------ ----
(ENHANCEMENTII)
'
---- -------- ---------- 1245--STA.400+12
----------------- --------------------------- -------
-- — ----- ------------
-------------------------------------
--- - - - ----------- ----- ---
y--------------
----------
- -- -- ------------ ----------
------- -- --- ---
------------------------------------
23 0 -------------
1225
-------- ----
REMCVETREE
- ----- -- ----
- --- - ------
- — ---- fl
--- --- ------
- -- - --- ---- -- ----- ----- --
.10 -- ----
225-=
--- -- - ------ --
---- -------- - ---
-------- - ----
1215 1220
--- - ------ --- -
--- - -----------
C-E -------- CE ------ - ----------
A' 1195-
­120oRPN -- ---------- -----
--- -------- ------ -------
A --1195- --- ------
__1195 ---- — -------- - '100 -- -------
216+0­'
-1190 �1190_ -- ---- ------------ ----
00
------ ------ ------- --
1185
1180
1175
1170
216+50 217+00 217+50
C"�
00 -2'
-------- - - - -
+ 0Cr
------------ ------
END HANKS BRANCH
REACH 1 (ENHANCEMENT 11)
BEGIN HANKS BRANCH
�X4
REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT 11)
STA.216+99
END UT2 (ENHANCEMENTII)
STA.400+90
--------------
0
oo----
------- -------- -------
---------------------
1185-
-- --------------- -------------------------------- ---
------------- -- -------- ------- '118S ---------------
214+00
-------------
-------------------- --------------
-- - ---- ------
A Q)
-- ---- :�:�REIVIOVE EXISTING FENCE 33
x 3,3
47141� WITHIN EASEMENT (TYP)
x 30
-v
REMOVE PRIVET 30 33
30
>
GRADE BACK AT 3:1 SLOPE 30 41
33
3:) 3 33 33' 30 9D 33
33-33— 3D — 33
F 00 A
ol 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
ol 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
(Id

1185 1185
s
Q Fl
�lw oz °z
1180 1180 M
EXISTING GROUND 4�'S
1175 -- - -- - _- -- _ 1175 O�g�c�QL
1170 1170
�-I
++ Q
� � v
w
O p
1165 1165
217+50 218+00 218+50 219+00 219+50 220+00 220+50 221+00 221+50 222+00 ft iw
-- - - -- - - - - =
----- - ---' -' _
- ------ - -- - : - - --- -- "-- ------
.
_
+J
— — —"" — — — — - — — -- --
;- _ — -
- - - L ------------------ -- -'---- - - - -
- -_-- -- - -
.
0-----'-- ---- - - --- _ - --- -----'------- -- -
- "; '---
.
5
j..
v�
-- = _ - - --
.
"� 0
--' -
-
_a I
�Z00------- - --
_
- -" --- _ -
- -
-- -
'1
- = - ----- --- - --- - _ - -
-> 1i95
-
- -
--'1205-------"-`--' ; -- . -----' -' -� - '' -'�----"""� -----_ ----- _ - --���E'"-=--CE -�. -- -- _ _ -----_ --- 1200 _ - , `^--------- -----' _-'
�.12
. ---- --- ----- = - - - _ --- -
- -
_-- -- - - - -- - - -
t�_
v
E C
- -----
;" _
-
�-r C " ,
CE'
� c/1
\ �E1190
- 00" I\ - - - -- - G�x-
%.i
CE
CE
'- CE ---------- - ----- GN 1 SMOOTH IN -CHANNEL
i:: Or: CE, " z, Zlas------ PN -- I90 - "__ - t Y
`1ti9;,, , ----- - :- = - , -- -- - - --
rlV
,, ,
--- ---
-� - -----------
REMOVE""/CE;!;' ''; may%;=' - -' �P - �\ TREE - - - - ` _ "BED MATERIAL- �� �^/
R
E.
- - ' "" '---- ,' „-, - - 1185 0-
_
-
i----- -
,
--_ ' _ =- ---- ---
SMOOTH IN CHANNEL BED MATERIAL,
8 `(
S,
y1$Os- _ -` - ,3
v,:
-
- - -
.
--- -
' x
11
-- --- '
219+0071j` � 1�a0 �
,
"
-- - ' REMOVE DEBRIS
REMOVE TREE M/r
— - 1175 x
h
" REMOVE �Voo_
_ GRADE AT 3:1 SLOPE
- -- - DEBRIS
�,� _ � p-
b
d ------ — --' IS - a
�� �30,30
3D 30 INSTALL LOG SILLS WITH SHADE` \ �9
�(n� _3J�TOLERANT LIVE STAKES TO y
�31�'- STABILIZE OVERFLOW CHANNEL
�
�� - I�'� �j \ \\ \ +- (VERTICAL) ..
0' 20' 40' 60'
u �f° REMOVE EXISTING FENCE " " (HORIZONTAL) ?, w
`po WITHIN EASEMENT (TYP) �;

s
1175
1170
1165
1160
1156
\
EXISTING GROUND
222+00 222+50
223+00 223+50 224+00 224+50 225+00
225+50
_ _
_
121 0
1
---- - - - F.
-.-:
__
�9e O __ _�,�_ ,
HANKS BRANCH
-= /
- ----'
_
E
REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT II)
-_ - '
-- - j -
S
_------ ____ __ _
- . . --'___
E ND 4 REA H 3
,, \ ,;;`; _,` ` -_- : -
-00
(RESTORATION)
Y, - - _ 1195 _ _ _ _
G� 11a
_ --- - _ _, __
,_ __ ,' -_E �ti
- - - --- ---- -� ----- '- CE �� �' HANKS BRANCH REACH 2
1 16
m - _ r-�E --- --_; - _ ENHANCEMENT II)
__ _� ZE -�� - - - ( STA. 225+25
- __ _ _1190 ==,_.- - END UT3 REACH 4
- - - - - -- „--; - (ENHA11 NCEMENT
-
- 11)
-- -- ---- - _ -
__
-- -- = = . - - -- --
-- -- --
_ ------ - ---------------- -- - - 1170 _ - 65 _
-- - �5 -- = J _ 11 1165�'
223+pp - -- ----- — -
226+00
1165----
\ROCK OUTLET
SEE DETAIL3._- _+
- PAGE
------INTERNAL CROSSING
UT4 REACH 3
(RESTORATION) �\b
___ i 519+�'--11b5-- - x / STA. 607+36 c ,'
_UT3- - " "/ PROPOSED FARM ROAD PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING..
SEE DETAIL 1SHEET6.12.�
AL CRSSING
\NGFPR a INTERNUT4 REACH 3
(RESTORATION)
;= --- REMOVE EXISTING FENCE a0 EXISTING FARM ROAD STA. 606+96
i WITHIN EASEMENT (TYP) _ TO BE REMOVED
1175
1170
1165
1160
1156
226+50
ii
ti
�-9 "
7 CHANNEL
INFILL = sO
r
EXISTING 12"
CORRUGATED PLASTIC i
PIPE TO BE REM\OVVED \
0' IN
4' 6'
11
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
5
a"
v

1220
1215
1210
1207
506+00
N
O
`+
O
p
O
N
N
w
w
II
�
In V
+ 6
�
w
II
II
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
---
-
- -
--
3.8%
m
i
PROPOSED
GRADE
> o
N
W
II +
O
Q
~
^
w `
ei
N O
\
----
EXISTING
GROUND
w Q
oo
u—+
aci
O—
I
F
j
\
to W
STA = 507+65
\
ELEV = 1211.14
STA = 507+72
\ \
ELEV = 1210.17
STA = 507+79
ELEV = 1209.19
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED
GRADE
506+50 507+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 5.9'
2.1' 1.7' 2.1'
_...._...
}_.... .... T...._...._..... .... ....
3.1 0.7' Dmax = 0.7' 3;1
~— 2 95'
507+50
BANKFULL WIDTH =7.4'
TOP OF BANK 2.0' 3.4' 2.0'
_ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ ...._ . }.._ ..... .... ...._ ...._ .. .
PROPOSED GRADESED Dmax-1.0'-1.5'
PROPO
BANKFULL 1 5' 2,1
I
UT3 - REACH 1 UT3 - REACH 1 ­11 1 1 1-11
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA: 500+00 TO 506+55 STA: 500+00 TO 506+55
SCALE:1" =1' SCALE:1" =1' g 7'
CF CE CE
OF�C� CE
F- _ --- - "
.UT3 REACH I (RESTORATION)
wo '
0
kN
0,
ni
{ �Y titiy~ti \_yyS
-----------------
�'
-- -
, T _ ---'
---- - `' ----
---- — ;
1220
1215
1210
1207
508+00
-------------------
.. I _
II _' 15
O
.,
. �. �..
`, i
Lfl
_
_ I
----
_
"
i
_-------__-- ;
ENDUT3� % ;; -`-- -- - J
REACH 1(RESTORATION) -_ � -- - ---------------------
BEGIN _-� ' CHANNEL INFILL --- -- - ---�-,-
UT3 _ - -' _ -------------- -
-1220 - ---_ 2
REACH 2 (ENHANCEMENT II) - `-- ----'------------=-----'- _; : �__ _ ---- --------------- �--_
-- '
"
STA. 506+55 - - --_,-- - ___ 0
Iz2
-------
3O
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL(
0' 10' 20' 30'
(HORIZONTAL)
�lw
oz °z
�W
3

s
1215
1215
1210
1205
1200
1195 4-
508+00
\
508+50 509+00
------------------------
-------- - CE
C E
- CE ----------------------------
E��C �,� - -- - -
- CE—CEO
509+50
---------------- 1215-------------
-'-
---
-------------
1 .,..
" ----It- --- ----
CI ti�yy'/ _ E-CE— ------ E�cu.I
;= �(
( _----------- - -
C CE
1 C E _
00 1210--
O--- - -- _----------- ---- _ =
1 -
= = ----
I
- _ - -
------------------
--,-'tip ---- - - - - -- - -
QCC�--5' --........�\ w
+00
/ �. - --- \�_'•, -_ - ---,y; :.: -�� . GRADE BACK AT 3:1 SLOPE 12
�`, - ---. �� -2p5-sue,•",__ •,, I
REMOVE DEBRIS _ :V. ' ' _ - - _- U _ _ �.'H
"
-
j
aye �'�3a --- -
------
JS 01�3
3
I O11
3 \
-1205 ----------- 1
1210
1205
1200
-41195
510+00
5
\q0 4
65�
w
N > E
0 2' 4' 6' N1
(VERTICAL(
0' 10, 20' 30' ro x
z v �
(HORIZONTAL)
y

ry ti
N
ry
M
+
1�
N
M
+
+ O c-I
Ca0 +
Ol
m
V
W
'm
,T
^
c-i
+
.a -I
rj
tO
l0
oo
a
ti
'-I
1185
w
W
r
nw
w
vi
G
ti +
vaO
�N
1185
„ �'rc°
JQ
II
Nw
W
Vl
+ Ot
>
.`-'-I
I
Vf
A ti
N
+
O0
o0
.,
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
ti
u
I�
w
W
u iI
5,
F
is
m
H
w
W
_
IA
1180
-
3.6%
-
W
a
`~"
II
rn
o0 1180
In W
Ii
II
v m
�
-
-.
w
+ 00
/
rn EXISTING
GROUND
r J
�*
PROPOSED
GRADE
1175
w
n
1175
m
'I
00
N n
^
II
H
to
J
W
n
II -M,.
O
M
M
V
Ol
tO
I I
u1
c-I TIn
Q w^
n
11
Q
�
II
QJ
F
I
F
N
J ¢
W
J
1171
�+.+ 1171
514+00 514+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 6.8'
TOP OF BANK
2A 2.0' 2.4'
31 .. .... .... ....31 ..
Dmax = 0.8' PROPOSED
PROPOSED GRADE BANKFULL
0.8'
3.4'
UT3
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA: 511+02 TO 517+34
SCALE: 1" = 2'
CE�CE-
ti op
CE -� C
cE
CE
-
cE
h
- "- -��----
"
-=
-_ --------__-1195-
---''=CE%�CE��kE
yy0
--
---�----zE
CEO'"
-
CHANNEL INFILL
w�3
C)t--"
0 -
=
1190 '�l
/r
-4I - "�
" �-'
"
VIA
/ it y�'••���c`•��� �► e
��`
515+00 515+50 516+00
BANKFULL WIDTH =8.8'
2.2' 4.4' 2.2'
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED
PROPOSED ZI 1.1' 1 7 Dmax=1.1'-1.7' 1ti
GRADE BANKFULL
iTT3
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL — 20' —�
STA: 511+02 TO 517+34
SCALE: 1" = 2' i 4 4'
'-�----------I- - -
-------- --- -------
--------------
�=0-----------------
"- -,
/
--�C
------------�
---------------- Cf
------
-----------
EXISTING FARM ROAD /Ci"
TO BE REMOVED - X
4)
-
_ �
30�-30�30��3j P
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 10' 20' 30'
(HORIZONTAL)
O

s
Q �
u�
�lZ oz z
Q�
1170 1170
- - - - EXISTING GROUND
1165 - - - - - - - 1165 O\ O��O¢
CP
1160 1160
�-I
U�
1155 1155 U
p w
1154 1154 ++ 4�-1
518+00 518+50 519+00 519+50 520+00 520+10 a
4-1
-
----------------
- - --
--- — --- -- f� ++
--- ---- UT3 -
- - - = -- "
--------------_ - ----- - ----------- ,-----1165-- A I+TT
'"
- ---- ---- '
00
------------------------ ---------- =- ""-- _ - - -
"
\ ---------------- - - / ,----------- _
---- -
1165
,- - - - - - - - � - - - - - - t _____ _ _ ___ -- "------i_____--___-_-_-_'-- - _ - _ __-__ __________ i " " " _ "" _END
,_ ,1165--------- - - -------------------- - END ; "REACH ( H -------------- -- _-------- 4 EN ANCE----
- - — - - - - - - - STA
a --0--HANKSBRANCH
-- ---- --_-- ' - -----�
---_---- - ------- -
- = REACH (ENHANCEMENT
p---------------------------------1170-----------. -- -- 2II)
I STA.225+25 — x
+ ----X- x x x
S �I x—f—x x x
�
(1 I x x x x ,) EXISTING FARM ROAD 5
1 i TO BE REMOVED
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
WITHIN EASEMENT (TYP)
t
� ,=I /1 ' EXISTING FARM ROAD
N
UI /' j7-37 (VERTICAL( l�
PROPOSED FARMTm
w v
C i 30-33 ROAD 0' 10, 20' 30' z
X ' 30 - 3 (HORIZONTAL)
_303

s �
/ I
I
/
/
I
I
I
FF�MP X5 i
� FEMp X5 1
\ CEI
u �
I /
I /
o O / 40' SURRY-YADKIN E.M.C.
C C UTILITY LINE EASEMENT
BEGIN UT3 / Q / _
REACH 1(RESTORATION) Q�
STA.500+00 �' I O /
�o OQ CC
w
I �
I yQ �
\ / I
\ �F
1�
I I I
w
m u
LCE—CE p/I' UT5A
F —� I BEGIN UT4BMP Ix r^
STA. 598+89
30 J33
co
I
END UT3 BMP
STA 500+00 00
BEGIN UT3 BMP /
STA.498+30
I
I
TO S.R. 1749
BEGIN SPSC1
STA.900+00
qt Wm co I
END UT4 BMP
— ssN STA. 600+00—
\ L4 q J m BEGIN UT4 u 11' J I /`
REACH 1 (RESTORATION) I
S,c
P A J \
sFNA
ct-
i �FEMAXS v P CF�k
\�FEMA-XS--FEMA-XS YEMAXS MA-X.5
I /
01
I
I
I
—TBTg { CE
--30-30-30
/ U
— I
TI
il
/ I I
/ I
I
I
END SPSC1
STA.900+91
/
/
/
I
0' 150' 300' 450'
(HORIZONTAL)
0
5
v

s
Zone 1- Streambank Planting - Hanks Branch
i
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting - UT1-UT5
(See Detail 3, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 3 - Buffer Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
� I
Zone 4 - Wetland Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
� I
Zone 5 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated
and will be planted as needed to achieve target density.
Buffer planting will occur within the Limits of Disturbance
/
I
I
I
FF�MP X5 i
�FEMpXS 1
\ CEI
u
LUT5A
L� CE—CEO
n x
- - - - -� 3.10 / 1) 3D
\ SPN
S,e
F
3.05 S'SFNq
a
/ J \
I }
�FEMA-XS—
I I
I
3.0 1 9
j
i
/ �30
3J
zZ $� O
v2 xU
40' SURRY-YADKIN E.M.C. ►a z o z ' z
UTILITY LINE EASEMENTd)
/
c o / `aZaN3
O I
— 8 /
—_
'TQ Q L TO S.R. 174 3.06
O r ti
� OZ
W
O 3'
Z &Ir
�O`4z
3.03�
/ 1`n
I
r\,pp,
AMA I01
�o\.0 4�x04G�0
/ LO
/
0' 150' 300' 450'
(HORIZONTAL)
N

s
\ 0
200,
MATCHLINE - STA 308+00
Zone 1- Streambank Planting - Hanks Branch
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting - UT1-UT5
(See Detail 3, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 3 - Buffer Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 4 - Wetland Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone5-Per anent Seeding Outside Easemen'
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated
and will be planted as needed to achieve target density.
Buffer planting will occur within the Limits of Disturbance
I
I
� I
HANKS BRANCH
GE
' 2�0 31 —81-----81 _8
I—_212+00
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)

I \
,
I 400+pp \ / ,
- `
�E F—CE — H ANKS BRAN
i_ff Ef
21 op 1---- / \
r—�ziz+pow �
o
2�
ti
�I F
X /91�2
\ ti
+
Zone 1- Streambank Planting - Hanks Branch
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting - UT1-UT5
(See Detail 3, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 3 - Buffer Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 4 - Wetland Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated
and will be planted as needed to achieve target density.
Buffer planting will occur within the Limits of Disturbance
0' 40' 80' 120'
IMM
(HORIZONTAL)

i
of
+I
NI � \
NIO \\\
II
zI w
Ln
JI=
Q I o
�I o
I�
Z
I�
Z CE /
o
/ CE
I CE
CE/ 01--
_ CE L F 22
FE_CE� /CE/
CE - 81 i - IMy^/
UI-)
k-------------------
k�
\ I
Zone 1- Streambank Planting - Hanks Branch
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting - UT1-UT5
(See Detail 3, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 3 - Buffer Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 4 - Wetland Planting Zone
- - - - - - - - - - (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone5-Per anent Seeding Outside Easemen'
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated
and will be planted as needed to achieve target density.
Buffer planting will occur within the Limits of Disturbance
�sy
� sk
s� \
�/ �
SFNA
S BRANCH =-j
ManMan7_CE
40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
m
x

s
I P
/ W
W �-
W
X
Q
VHJS
x a� All
W�S __ tlHiS VHJS a' I
IVHJS �V
Zone 1- Streambank Planting - Hanks Branch
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting - UT1-UT5
(See Detail 3, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 3 - Buffer Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 4 - Wetland Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone5-Per anent Seeding Outside Easemen'
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated
and will be planted as needed to achieve target density.
Buffer planting will occur within the Limits of Disturbance
SFHA
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
O
O U
bA O
�z
x O
U
__44

s
Zone 1- Streambank Planting - Hanks Branch
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting - UT1-UT5
(See Detail 3, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 3 - Buffer Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 4 - Wetland Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone5-Per anent Seeding Outside Easemen'
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated
and will be planted as needed to achieve target density.
Buffer planting will occur within the Limits of Disturbance
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)

s
Zone 1- Streambank Planting - Hanks Branch
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting - UT1-UT5
(See Detail 3, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 3 - Buffer Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 4 - Wetland Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
VA Zone 5 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated
and will be planted as needed to achieve target density.
Buffer planting will occur within the Limits of Disturbance
o�" L\
O
0' 40' 80' 120' °
�u`imv
(HORIZONTAL) Z v u
o�wci�

Zone 1- Streambank Planting - Hanks Branch
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting - UT1-UT5
(See Detail 3, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 3 - Buffer Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 4 - Wetland Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone5-Per anent Seeding Outside Easemen'
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated
and will be planted as needed to achieve target density.
Buffer planting will occur within the Limits of Disturbance
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
cn
0
x
0
a
0
0
z
4
0
U
x

s
Zone 1- Streambank Planting - Hanks Branch
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting - UT1-UT5
(See Detail 3, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 3 - Buffer Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 4 - Wetland Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone5-Per anent Seeding Outside Easemen'
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated
and will be planted as needed to achieve target density.
Buffer planting will occur within the Limits of Disturbance
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)

GE�
CF
CF
�J 70i+00-
.�foo, OF
\dj V\ \
9 \CECE
�; moo• r j�
r �30-
�
G4, r r 30
/33--�30�
i 9
rr
r ,
r
19
�J✓
Zone 1- Streambank Planting - Hanks Branch
(See Detail 2, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting - UT1-UT5
(See Detail 3, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 3 - Buffer Planting Zone
(See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
Zone 4 - Wetland Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 1, Sheet 6.07)
VA Zone 5 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated
and will be planted as needed to achieve target density.
Buffer planting will occur within the Limits of Disturbance
Y
U.J
LU
()
SX-bW3J -
� Q.J
I ~
1 I �
O
S-I
O
z
0
Hys I
b,S,
Sk b
X-tlW33 43-71
S\ I
— l i Skk-b4y3j
I
� sk bW�y
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)

s
I
I
/
/
I
I
1
I
PROPOSED WOVEN WI
2' OFFSET FROM CE WI
SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET 6.
PROPOSED 5 WIRE FEN
1' OFFSET FROM ROAD BED WHERE SHOWN
SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 2X2" TUBE STEEL GATE
SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 2X2" TUBE STEEL GATE
SEE DETAIL4, SHEET 6.14
\ lA
va
Q �
Z
b-��
�lw oz °z
/
� M
�
LO
0' 150' 300' 450'
(HORIZONTAL)

L+
Q
t~
Lu
CST
�\ rP
CIE I I
-=�\ CEO m
CE CE CE/ I x
R ~m y CE CE HANKS BRANCH
CE
CE CE
CE CE x
�CE� /Ct' 0
CECC
CE E _C/9T�—\
/ W x
— vlz�
"4' \
{ dJC3
81IW J
24+00
\ e 3 -- ti6
\ 81—
< \-TB
\_91 yi�g ��,, '-TB� TSB / 1� c� �• '^ /�
y X� 519+00 S x
B--- - - TB__ x J
---TB----- — — — —
x T _ 7_
— j
r'
x z
x x x a
J
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE INSIDE
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TYP)
3D AJ—
�(\ \ x OUTSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
•�J `x TRIM EXISTING FENCE APPROXIMATELY
\ \ 30 FEET AND LEAVE THE REMAINING FENCE.
x
PROPOSED WOVEN WIRE FENCE
2' OFFSET FROM CE WHERE SHOWN
SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 5 WIRE FENCE
1' OFFSET FROM ROAD BED WHERE SHOWN
SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 2X2" TUBE STEEL GATE
SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 2X2" TUBE STEEL GATE
SEE DETAIL4, SHEET 6.14
EXISTING FARM PATH TO BE
RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
607+50'
�X 91
5
tiAo�
�o\�0 �po4G��0
GO�
O
/
�
U
+
O
rl �
bA O
r•-ti
0
U
O �
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
x W.

s
O/ \
MO/ \
4111/
UT1 \\
/ 2 -12' STEEL GATES \
v/ SEE DETAIL 3 SHEET 6.14 \
4 CIE
CE m \
F �
�. .3
4' STEEL GATES \�
SEE DETAIL 4 SHEET 6.14 /
#
4 2 -12' STEEL GATES
\�J 4 / ^ /JO / SEE DETAIL 3 SHEET 6.14
/
/
/
/
PROPOSED WOVEN WIRE FENCE
2' OFFSET FROM CE WHERE SHOWN
SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 5 WIRE FENCE
1' OFFSET FROM ROAD BED WHERE SHOWN
SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 2X2" TUBE STEEL GATE
SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 2X2" TUBE STEEL GATE
SEE DETAIL4, SHEET 6.14
-O
\ � m
/ I
W I I
0
Z 5
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)

CE
C
CEO
CE ,
E�CE _
CE CE CE CE CE — C CE EXISTING FARM PATH TO BE RELOCATED
CE E—CE CE_ WITHIN INTERNAL CROSSINGS AND
CE OUTSIDE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CF
.. .. _.... �. \ _.... _.... --513+0B• .. .
_.... _
.. . ...... _.515+00••_ .... —.
CF
_ II •. \REMOVE EXISTING FENCE INSIDE OF F
3J 3D T 3J CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TYP) �C
I 3J
3J
3J �.
Ln LnI 3J 33
— ♦ S��x
c-i 3J-3J 3D 3
�I 3J _
Lu
r
QI 4' STEEL GATES
C I SEE DETAIL 4 SHEET 6.14 }
G L�
�J
2 - 14' STEEL GATES
I SEE DETAIL 3 SHEET 6.14
� PI
I 1
I OUTSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
TRIM EXISTING FENCE APPROXIMATELY I
I 30 FEET AND LEAVE THE REMAINING FENCE. I
I I x
PROPOSED WOVEN WIRE FENCE
2' OFFSET FROM CE WHERE SHOWN
SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 5 WIRE FENCE
1' OFFSET FROM ROAD BED WHERE SHOWN
SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 2X2" TUBE STEEL GATE
SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 6.14
PROPOSED 2X2" TUBE STEEL GATE
SEE DETAIL4, SHEET 6.14
k
k
7
1
I +
1 /I +
2 - 14' STEEL GATES
SEE DETAIL 3 SHEET 6.14
REMOVE
EXISTING FENCE /
CONNECTTO +
EXISTING FENCE
(SEE SHEET 5.05) 0y
m
1
ool
x m
/ t
m
/
/
1
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
x
0
I-�
r
y

RECOMMENDED RIFFLE MATERIAL TABLE - ALL RIFFLE TYPES
REACH
BOTTOM
WIDTH (FT)
RIFFLE
THICKNESS (IN)
RIFFLE MATERIAL STONE SIZE EQUIVALENTS
(%OF MATRIX)
UT1
2.4
12
CLASS A (45%), CLASS B (45%), ABC STONE (10%)
UT3 - REACH 1
1.7
12
CLASS A (45%), CLASS B (45%), ABC STONE (10%)
UT3 - REACH 3
2.0
12
CLASS A (45%), CLASS B (45%), ABC STONE (10%)
UT4 - REACH 1
1.0
12
CLASS A (45%), CLASS B (45%), ABC STONE (10%)
UT4 - REACH 3
1.3
12
CLASS A (45%), CLASS B (45%), ABC STONE (10%)
UTS
1.4
12
CLASS A (90%), ABC STONE (10%)
NOTES:
1. ALL RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED IN LIFTS AT A THICKNESS NOTTO EXCEED DMAX.
1 Riffle Material Table
0 Not to Scale
LENGTH VARIES PER PLAN CLASS 1 STONE OR SALVAGED
`ONSITE BOULDERS MIN
TOP OF BANK (TYP) F— B / 0.5'x1'x1.5'
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE POINT PER PROFILE
FLOW A A'
1 B'
Plan Vinci
CLASS 1 STONE OR SALVAGED
6" SALVAGED ONSITE ONSITE BOULDERS MIN 0.5'x1'x1.5'
COBBLE/GRAVEL BED FLOW r 3" MAX 6" SALVAGED ONSITE COBBLE/GRAVEL
MATERIAL 1 BED MATERIAL
CLASS 1 STONE OR SALVAGED RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
ONSITE BOULDERS MIN 0.5'x1'x1.5' r TOP OF BANK (TYP)
T ' 3" MAX j
Section A -A' {{'
r—tinn R-R'
3 Chunky Riffle
\k-_OV Not to Scale
va
Q
�
TOP OF BANK BURY INTO BANK 3' MIN. (TYP)
THALWEG FLOW
0.5' MAX.
NORMAL WATER SALVAGED AVELONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
►�
SURFACE
z
TO BE APPROVED BY THE
Q
16
N
ENGINEER. \ \
w
3
5MIN.,
55° TO 65° (TYP)
r-
3
(TYP)
DEPTH 1.5x
12" DIAMETER OR
NONWOVEN
RIFFLE DMAX BANKFULL
GREATER (TYP)
FILTER
FABRIC
Section A -A'
THALWEG 0.1-0.2' DEEP
EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL THAN REST OF RIFFLE'
0.3' UP BANK PROVIDE LOW FLOW PAl
TOE OF
SLOPE (TYP) TOP OF BANK
2% - 4%
Log Section B-B'
��M=i
�—Sm 10-1
THALWEG
FLOW
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT PER
PROFILE
LOG STEP VARIES
0.5' MAX. TOP OF BANK
NORMAL WATER
[IF SURFACE
16" (MIN)
ROCK STEP
FILTER FABRIC (TYP) (VARY)
cn1ti n Vin­ n-A,
PLACE LOG SILL AT END OF RIFFLE WF.�..�
THERE IS A DROP OVER DOWNSTREAM
POOL. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 6.05.
n Angled Log Riffle
\Q-0y Not to Scale
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
TO BE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER.
CAVATE SMALL POOLS
3' IN DEPTH DOWNSTREAM
IMBEDDED LOGS.
Plan View
NOTES:
1. RECOMMENDED STONE SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION
NOTED BY REACH IN RIFFLE MATERIALTABLE.
2. MINIMUM LOG DIAMETER 12".
3. MINIMUM THREE LOGS PER STRUCTURE.
4. IF NECESSARY, SALVAGED ONSITE ROCK MAY BE
SUBSTITUTED WITH QUARRY ROCK OF SIMILAR
SIZE.
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
BOULDER OR LOG STEP- LOGS 12" DIA OR
GREATER, BURY INTO BANK 2' MIN. (TYP)
KEY PIECES (TYP)
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
L ROCK STEP (VARIES PER PLAN)
GLIDE ARMORING WITH RIFFLE
MATERIAL TO 16" OR DEPTH OF
POOL, WHICHEVER IS DEEPER
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT GRADE DROPS IN CASCADE BASED ON ROCK AND LOG STEP DETAIL.
2. VARY THE SEQUENCE, TYPE AND ORIENTATION OF STEPS (DROPS). USE ROCK STEP
DETAIL AS A GUIDE FOR VARIATIONS IN ORIENTATION/CONFIGURATION.
3. KEY PIECES ARE LOWER MOBILITY STONE THAT PROVIDE GRADE CONTROL AND
TOE PROTECTION. USE CLASS 1 STONE OR SALVAGED ONSITE BOULDERS MIN
0.5'x1'x1.5'. HABITAT LOGS SHOULD BE WORKED IN AS EQUIVALENT OF KEY PIECES.
4. ROCK/LOG STEP BOULDERS AND LOGS TO BE EMBEDDED MINIMUM 3' INTO
STREAM BANKS.
5. ROCK STEP OR LOG STEP AT END OF CASCADE RIFFLE PAID SEPARATE. THESE ARE
DEPICTED ON PLAN VIEW.
6. NUMBER OF INTERNAL STEPS (INCLUDING STEPS AT THE BEGINNING OF A CASCADE
SEQUENCE) VARIES BASED ON LENGTH AND SLOPE. RIFFLES SHALL BE 1.2 - 1.8
TIMES THE AVERAGE CHANNEL SLOPE. STEP DROPS SHALL BE BETWEEN 0.2-0.5'
MEASURED AT THE WATER SURFACE.
7. FOOTER ROCK OR LOG SHOWN. FOOTER ONLY REQUIRED WHEN MINIMUM
UNFOOTERED DIMENSION OF ROCK OR LOG IS NOT MET. A MINIMUM OF 16" OF
RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED OVER FILTER FABRIC TO PROTECT.
8. REFER TO RIFFLE MATERIAL TABLE ON THIS SHEET FOR RIFFLE MATERIAL SIZING.
KEY PIECES
(TYP)
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE (INVERT OF ROCK OR
LOG STEP - ROCK STEP SHOWN)
�A
70° TO 90° (TYP)
BANKFULL
POOL WIDTH PER
TYPICAL SECTION
BOULDER OR LOG STEP
/
HABITAT LOGS/BRUSH
RIFFLE MATERIAL
SEE DETAIL 1 SHEET 6.01
ROCK STEP (OR LOG
STEP PER PLANS)
O/
�L A'
T
v
Q
Plan View 3 N J
O
4 Log -Rock Cascade Riffle
6.0Y Not to Scale �` v
A °4C5

HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATI
POINT PER PR01
FLOW
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
TO BE APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER.
FLOW
NOTE:
1. RECOMMENDED STONE SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION
NOTED BY REACH IN RIFFLE MATERIAL TABLE.
2. IF NECESSARY, SALVAGED ONSITE ROCK MAY BE
SUBSTITUTED WITH QUARRY ROCK OF SIMILAR
SIZE.
SEE PROFILE
EXTEND RIFFLE
MATERIAL
0.3' UP BANK
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL TO
BE APPROVED BYTHE ENGINEER.
n Native Material Riffle
6.0 Not to Scale
RIFFLE BOTTOM
WIDTH PER
TYPICAL SECTIONS
i
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
Section B-B'
REFER TO TYPICAL SECTION
FOR THALWEG OFFSET
RIFFLE ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
Q TOP OF BANK (TYP)
EXTEND RIFFLE
MATERIAL 0.3' UP BANK
NOTES:
1. WOOD SHALL COMPRISE 20%TO 50%OF THE RIFFLE SURFACE AREA.
2. BRUSH SHOULD BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO CHANNEL UP TO A
15° ANGLE DOWNSTREAM.
3. ANY MATERIAL GREATER THAN 1" DIAMETER THAT IS NOT
PERPENDICULAR TO THE CHANNEL SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT
THE EXPOSED END IS POINTING DOWNSTREAM.
4. WOODY MATERIAL SHOULD NOT PROTRUDE GREATER THAN 3"
ABOVE RIFFLE BED.
5. BRUSH CUTTERS OR OTHER DEVICE MUST BE USED TO ENSURE
PROTRUSION LIMITED TO TOLERANCE IN NOTE 4.
6. IF NECESSARY, QUARRY ROCK OF SIMILAR SIZE MAY BE
SUBSTITUTED.
MICRO POOL HABITAT DOWNSTREAM
OF LARGER WOODY DEBRIS
3" TO 6" DIAMETER WOODY
DEBRIS WORKED INTO RIFFLE SUBSTRATE
HEAD OF RIFFLE
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
HEAD OF RIFFLE SALVAGE ONSITE GRAVEL/COBBLE
ELEVATION POINT MATERIAL TO BE APPROVED BY ENGINEER
PER PROFILE B
A A'
1 GLIDE RIFFLE RUN 1
RIFFLE BOTTOM FLOW
WIDTH PER
TYPICAL SECTIONS
3"T06" DIAMETER WOODY
DEBRIS WORKED INTO RIFFLE
B'
SUBSTRATE, PREDOMINANTLY
PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW
MICRO POOL HABITAT
DOWNSTREAM OF LARGER
WOODY DEBRIS
�s.,um
5' MIN NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
Section A -A'
REMAINDER OF ROCK
TO RIFFLE ELEVATION
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
— TAIL OF RIFFLE
RUN
SEE RIFFLE MATERIAL
TABLE FOR DEPTH OF
RIFFLE MATERIAL
LAYER OF WOOD
THALWEG 0.1-0.2' DEEPER
THAN REST OF RIFFLE TO
LOPE (TYP)
PROVIDE LOW FLOW PATH
REMAINDER OF ROCK
SANK (TYP)
TO RIFFLE ELEVATION
3" TO 6" BRUSHY MATERIAL
TOP OF BANK
WORKED
INTO ROCKY SUBSTRATE
ANCHOR 5'
INTO STREAM
BANK
LOG EXPOSED 1" TO 3"
TOE OF SLOPE
ABOVE FINISHED
MAX 3" PROTRUSION
RIFFLE ELEVATION
Woody Riffle
\LOY Not to Scale
V?
Q
�
�lw
oz °z
z
y`ebrn �
QZ
��N3
�W
3
u

Y
m ° 3�
� O
° ° A
OF
5'
B' A' B
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE k7�
Plan View
TOP OF BANK -
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
2' MIN,
IF FOOTERED
NOTE:
1. REFER TO TABLE FOR SILL MATERIAL SIZING.
OF
SOP Opp,-
0 1 S
,\oE 0114
OQE
F 5�-
�o�o
OF
Section B-B'
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
`FILTER FABRIC
EXTEND FILTER
FABRIC 5' MIN.
UPSTREAM
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER ROCK
EMBED 5' INTO
BANK (TYP)
Woulder Sill
ot to Scale
BOULDER SIZE TABLE
MIN. BOULDER
REACH
DIMENSIONS (FT)
HANKS BRANCH
3.0 x 2.0 x 2.0
UT1-UT5
2.0 x 2.0 x 1.0
NOTE: BOULDERS SHALL BE RELATIVELY
FLAT ON THE LONG DIMENSION SIDES.
DENSELY PACKED WOODY DEBRIS
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
v?
Q
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
HEADER ROCK
�
z z $ ~
BED MATERIAL
OFFSET HEADER
u o
TOE OF SLOPE
0.25'TO0.5'
UPSTREAM OF FOOTER
�aw gza0z
NONWOVEN
CHANNEL BED
w N 3
FILTER FABRIC s
ry 3
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
PLACE HEADER BOULDERS
FOOTER ROCK
WITH V TO 2' CLEAR SPACE
BETWEEN ROCKS
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
INVERT ELEVATION
Section A -A'
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
B PER PR0F_1L_E___ EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
�5
FLOW A, SCOUR
POOL
0S
;'
---- —
o\o%i,
qo O
--' B
Z
7��
ELEV. 3" ABOVE
DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE INVERT
3'
6" ®ems
BRUSH MATERIAL TO BE ELEV. 6" BELOW J
4 INSTALLED FLUSH WITH BANK POOL DEPTH NATIVE SOIL
3 Brush Toe
\6_OY Not to Scale
Section A -A'
VANE ARM
LENGTH
(Y)
TOP OF BANK
2 Rock Vane
6.0Y Not to Scale
WIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS
BACKFILL
- EROSION CONTROL MATTING
DENSELY PACKED BRUSH,
WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL
17
�\
TOE OF SLOPE
STRUCTUREINVERT
ELEVATION PER PROFILE.
HEADER ROCK
Section B-B'
TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL)
NOTES:
1. OVEREXCAVATE T OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).
2. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH
SHALL CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS
COLLECTED ONSITE AND SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE.
LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.
3. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY
PARALLEL AND POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
4. INSTALL MATTING OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.
5. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER BRUSH/WOODY LAYER
ACCORDING TO TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
6. SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING
AND BANK STABILIZATION PER PLANS.
FOOTER ROCK
m
Q

TOP OF BANK
TRANSPLANTED SOD
AND ROOTMASS
Section A -A'
NOTES:
1. PREPARE THE BANK WHERE THE SOD MAT WILL BE
TRANSPLANTED BY RAKING.
2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT SOD MATS WITH A WIDE BUCKET
AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE.
3. PLACE TRANSPLANT ON THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED. (SOD
MAT ONLY TO BE TOUCHED ONCE.)
4. SECURE WITH SOD STAPLES.
S. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
6. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
7. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT
THEY TOUCH.
8. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ABOVE TRANSPLANTED
SOD MATS.
EXISTING
ERODED BANK
HEADER ROCK(
EXCAVATE EXISTING BANK T
INSTALL BOULDERS, AS NEEDE
FOOTER RC
NOTE:
1. FOR STREAM BEDS WITH COARSE
SUBSTRATE, PROVIDE FOOTER ROCKS.
Transplanted Sod Mats
0 Not to Scale
A'
BOULDERS
INSTALL ADDITIONAL VEGETATION SUCH
AS LIVE STAKES, ROOTED SEEDLINGS, ETC.
COMPACTED SOIL 12" TO 18" THICK `m
LIVE CUTTINGS
BIODEGRADABLE EROSION
CONTROL FABRIC (SEE INSET "A")�
HEIGHTVARIES
DENSELY PACKED
BRUSH OR ROCK BASE
i
BASE FLOW =
STREAMBED
Vegetated Soil Lift
6.04 Not to Scale
26 OZ / YDZ
COIR MATTING
EMEMEEMEMENI\\
Inset "A"
Matting and Blanket
2'
2" \ '44�PHILL
16 PENNY NAIL
18" TO 36"
LT
Typical Stakes
NOTES:
1. ROOTED/LEAFED CONDITION OF THE LIVING
PLANT MATERIAL IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.
2. BOTTOM OF FIRST COMPACTED EARTH LIFT TO
BE PLACED 6" ABOVE NORMAL BASEFLOW.
3. NUMBER OF COMPACTED EARTH LIFTS TO
VARY DEPENDING ON DESIGN TOP OF BANK
HEIGHT. LIFTS NOTTO EXCEED 18" THICKNESS.
va
Q
�
�lw
oz °z
z
�ebrn�
QZ
��N3
�W
3
T
v
Q
N > E
O
3 Boulder Toe ..
6.0 Not to Scale m
w v
o�wA�

Y
O �
20°-300 / B
/ j SCOUR
i POOL
5' OF LOG J
BURIED IN BANK B'
Plan View
NOTE:
STABILIZATION BOULDER TO BE USED ON
HANKS BRANCH ONLY, AND MAY BE
REMOVED PER ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.
INVERT ELEVATION -
PER PROFILE
FLOW
B
A
12" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
HEADERLOG
STREAMBED
NONWOVEN o FOOTER LOG
FILTER FABRIC
I_
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
S' MIN. UPSTREAM
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE TOP OF BANK HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
3%-SM
TOE OF SLOPE
STABILIZE VANE WITH
ONE BOULDER ON
EACH SIDE Cartinn R-R'
EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
1 Lo Vane
6.05 Not to Scale
N�
Q
Q
a�
HEADER LOG
TOP OF BANK (TYP) TOP OF BANK
FLOW
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
--------------
6" SALVAGED ONSITE FOOTER LOG
SCOUR COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
POOL Section B-B'
EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
PLACE HEADER BOULDER J \VARIES ! OFFSET HEADER LOG
6" SALVAGED ONSITE 0.25' TO 0.5' UPSTREAM
TO PREVENT LOG FROM SHIFTING B' COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL OF FOOTER LOG
Plan View TOE OF SLOPE
5' OF LOG BURIED
IN BANK _
NOTE:
1. HEADER BOULDER MAYBE
ELIMINATED AT DISCRETION
OF ENGINEER.
3 Log J-Hook
6.05 Not to Scale
�HEADERLOG
NONWOVEN FOOTER LOG
FILTER FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC
EXTENDS 5' MIN.
Section A -A'
A'
SILL ELEVATION —
PER PROFILE (TYP) \
FLOW
A-
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
T
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
FLOW
STREAMBED
FILTER FABRIC a > G
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
S' MIN. UPSTREAM
Profile View
HEADER LOG
EMBED LOG SILL ELEVATION FOOTER LOG
3' (MIN.) PER PROFILE (TYP)
2 Lo Sill
6.05 Not to Scale
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
EXCAVATED
SCOUR POOL
FILTER FABRIC TO BE
INSTALLED TO TWICE
THE RIFFLE DEPTH OR
A MINIMUM OF 3'
va
Q
�
�lw
oz °z
z
�ebrn�
QZ
��N3
�W
3
T

FLOW
CASCADE BOi
MIX CLASS 1 AND A/B EQUIVALENT
NATIVE OR RIVER STONE - 30% OR
GREATER STONE SIZE MUST BE 10"
OR GREATER
VARIES PER
SLOPE VARIES PER PROFILE
PROFILE
(MAX 50%)
EXISTING CHANNEL
CASCADE HEIGHT
VARIES PER PROFILE
HEAD OF RIFFLE (TYP.)
FLOW
NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC
LINED CASCADE BOULDERS
1.5' MIN
MIX CLASS 1AND A/B
EQUIVALENT NATIVE OR
1.5' MIN
RIVER STONE - 30% OR
FOOTER BOULDER
GREATER STONE SIZE MUST
BE 10" OR GREATER
EXISTING SOIL
Profile
CONNECTTO W
EXISTING
GROUND
2'7 D tit
Section A -A'
CONNECTTO W
EXISTING
D GROUND
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
MIX CLASS 1 AND A/B EQUIVALENT
NATIVE OR RIVER STONE - 30% OR
GREATER STONE SIZE MUST BE 10"
Section B-B' OR GREATER
1 Rock Cascade
6.0 Not to Scale
CLASS A/B MIX
RIP RAP (TYP)
HEADER BOULDER
B
FOOTER BOULDER LENGTH
PLANS
MIN 12
d\�
A
MIN 12"
STREAMBEDF
NONWOVEN
Fri
SALVAGED ONSITE
LENGTH
LENGTH FILTER FABRIC
LENGTH
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL TO
PER PLANS
PER PLANS
PER PLANS
BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
Section B-B'
WIDTH �J
A'
PER PLANS
DEPTH PER PLANS
NONWOVEN y\,
FILTER FABRIC
HEADER BOULDER
>
FOOTER BOULDER
B'
Section A -A' NOTE:
Plan View
1. MINIMUM 2'x2'x1' BOULDERS TO
BE USED FOR HEADER AND FOOTER
ROCKS.
Rock Step Pools 2. BOULDERS MUST BE INSTALLED
n SUCH THAT THEY EXTEND INTO THE
6.0
Not to Scale CHANNELBANK.
NGTH VARIES
E PLAN SHEETS
I.
NOTES:
1. MINIMUM SIZE FOR BOULDERS
SHALL BE2'x2'x1'.
2. VOID SPACES BETWEEN BOULDERS
ON CASCADE SHALL BE FILLED
WITH SMALLER RIVER STONE.
3. ALL SMALLER ROCK SHALL BE
HETEROGENEOUS AND WELL
MIXED.
CONNECTTO
EXISTING
GROUND
TABLE
W
D
WP
DP
SPSC1
s
os
15
2
UT4
4
PER PROFILE
5.2
PER PROFILE
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
TO BE APPROVED BY THE
222Z
ENGINEER.
FLOW
W
LENGTH VARIES
SEE PLAN SHEETS
VARIES PER PLANS
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL MATERIAL
TO BE APPROVED BY THE
NONWOVEN
ENGINEER.
Section B-B' FILTER FABRIC
Rock Floodplain Outlet
\k-Oy Not to Scale
v?
Q
�
Z
N o
�lw
oz °z
z
y`ebrn �
QZ
��N3
w
3
T
v
Q
NOTE:
o
O
1. IF NECESSARY, SALVAGED ONSITE
ROCK MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH
=
QUARRY ROCK OF SIMILAR SIZE.
�u�imv
o�wci�

PLANTING PLAN
Section View
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT
DOWN INTO THE SOIL
TO THE FULL DEPTH OF
THE BLADE AND PULL
BACK ON THE HANDLE
TO OPEN THE PLANTING
HOLE. (DO NOT ROCK
THE SHOVEL BACK AND
FORTH AS THIS CAUSES
SOIL IN THE PLANTING
HOLE TO BE
COMPACTED,
INHIBITING ROOT
GROWTH.
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE
SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP
INTO THE PLANTING HOLE.
PULL THE SEEDLING BACK
UP TO THE CORRECT
PLANTING DEPTH (THE
ROOT COLLAR SHOULD BE
1-3" BELOW THE SOIL
SURFACE). GENTLY SHAKE
THE SEEDLING TO ALLOW
THE ROOTS TO
STRAIGHTEN OUT. DO
NOT TWIST OR SPIN THE
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE
ROOTS J-ROOTED.
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, SEVERAL
INCHES IN FRONT OF
THE SEEDLING AND
PUSH THE BLADE
HALFWAY INTO THE
SOIL. TWIST AND PUSH
THE HANDLE FORWARD
TO CLOSE THE TOP OF
THE SLIT TO HOLD THE
SEEDLING IN PLACE.
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR
CROSS SECTION AND SHALL
BE 12" LONG, 4" WIDE, AND
1" THICK AT CENTER.
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED
TO AN APPORIATE LENGTH
TO PREVENT 1-ROOTING.
O
PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, DOWN TO
THE FULL DEPTH OF
THE BLADE.
(T)Bare Root Planting
07 Not to Scale
LIVE STAKE OFFSET 1-2'
FROM TOP OF BANK
7-1 6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
6' SPACING FOR HERBACEOUS PLUGS
Plan View
ZONE 2 (UT1, UT3, UT4 & UT5)
EROSION CONTROL MATTING LIVE STAKE OFFSET 1-2'
FFROM TOP OF BANK
HERBACEOUS PLUGS BETWEEN
NORMAL BASEFLOW AND TOP
OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE
Section View
ZONE 2 (UT1, UT3, UT4 & UT5)
� Zone 2 Streambank Planting
07 Not to Scale
PULL BACK ON THE
HANDLE TO CLOSE THE
BOTTOM OF THE
PLANTING HOLD. THEN
PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE
THE TOP, ELIMINATING AIR
POCKETS AROUND THE
ROOT.
NOTES:
O
LJ
<\
1/7
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND
FIRM UP THE OPENING
WITH YOUR HEEL. BE
CAREFULTO AVOID
DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
1. ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER PLANTING AREA
SHALL BE DISKED, AS REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PLANTING.
2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY HANDLED PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION TO INSURE SURVIVAL.
BUDS (NODES)
POINTED UPWARD
z-lZ"DIAMETER
2-3' LIVE STAKE
BASE CUT AT 45°
TAPERED AT BOTTOM
Live Stake Detail
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TO FOLLOW PLAN VIEW
DETAILS BY REACH SHOWN ABOVE
2. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPER STORAGE,
HANDLING AND INSTALLATION.
3. FORM PILOT HOLE IN HARD SOIL OR STONY
CONDITIONS TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO LIVE STAKES.
4. LIVE STAKES TO BE INSTALLED TO A DEPTH AT LEAST 3
THE LENGTH OF THE LIVE STAKE, PLANTED IN AREAS
AS
SHOWN ON PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
S. INSTALL DORMANT PRIOR TO LEAF OUT. DEPICTED
CONDITION WITH LEAVES NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF
STAKES AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.
6. ZONE 2 HERBACEOUS PLUGS TO BE PLANTED ALONG
OUTSIDE BENDS WHERE BANK REVETMENT
STRUCTURES ARE NOT SHOWN AND PLANTED ABOVE
AND BELOW LOG AND ROCK SILLS AS SHOWN.
A
LIVE STAKES PLANTED IN
EROSION CONTROL 2 STAGGERED ROWS AT
AMATTING AND INSIDE TOP OF BANK
HERBACEOUSPLUGS
AT NORMAL BASEFLOW
TOE (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE �
BASE
_4' SPACING FOR HERBACEOUS PLUGS
6' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
3' SPACING FOR HERBACEOUS PLUGS
3' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES, 2 ROWS BUDS (NODES) POINTED UPWARD
LIVE STAKE (TYP) Live
1 ROW, 6' SPACING (RIFFLE)
2 ROWS, 3x3' STAGGERED SPACING (POOL)
Plan View
Zone 1 (Hanks Branch)
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF STREAM BANK SLOPE (RIFFLE),
Stream Bank View OR EDGE OF WATER (POOL)
Zone 1 (Hanks Branch) HERBACEOUS PLUG (TYP)
1 ROW, 3-4' SPACING
2 Zone 1 Streambank Planting
6.07 Not to Scale
Section View
Zone-1—(Hanks Branch)
NOTES:
q-1Z"DIAMETER
2-3' LIVE STAKE
TAPERED AT BOTTOM
BASE CUT AT 45°
C—Le flat- 0
1. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TO FOLLOW PLAN VIEW
DETAILS BY REACH SHOWN ABOVE
2. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPER STORAGE,
HANDLING AND INSTALLATION.
3. FORM PILOT HOLE IN HARD SOIL OR STONY
CONDITIONS TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO LIVE STAKES.
4. LIVE STAKES TO BE INSTALLED TO A DEPTH AT LEAST 3
THE LENGTH OF THE LIVE STAKE, PLANTED IN AREAS AS
SHOWN ON PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
5. INSTALL DORMANT PRIOR TO LEAF OUT. DEPICTED
CONDITION WITH LEAVES NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF
STAKES AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.
WIDTH TO WIDTH TO
WIDTH TO CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AS SHOWN IN
PLANS, 20' MIN g" BASE CLASS A/B STONE
_ CAPPED WITH 3" #57 STONE
12"
THROUGH CROSSING° ^ ..
WIDTH TO CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AS SHOWN IN
PLANS, 20' MIN
S1MPx
FILTER FABRIC
4 Permanent Ford Crossing
07 Not to Scale
N
NOTE:
1. FORD CROSSING SHALL BE
INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO
CHANNEL BANKS.
v?
Q
�
u�
.aw
oz °z
z
y`ebrn �
QZN3
,mow
3
V
5
T

RIFFLE MATERIAL/
NATURALROCK
HEAD OF RIFFLE (TYP.)
NATIVE ROCK EQUIVALENT
FLOW TO CLASS I RIPRAP OR
SLOPE VARIES HEAD OF POOL (TYP.) ON -SITE STONE MEETING
PER PROFIT c � BOULDERS CLASS 1 GRADATION
FILTER MEDIA
WELL -GRADED MIX OF BALLAST
AND CLASS A/B RIPRAP
FILTER FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC
EXISTING SOIL
TERRACE EXISTING
SLOPE
DOUBLE STACK BOULDER /
ROCK MIX. FILL ALL GAPS
BETWEEN LARGE BOULDERS
OVER EXCAVATE BY A MIN OF 1.0' AND
BACKFILL WITH WELL -GRADED MIX OF
S BALLAST AND CLASS A/B RIPRAP
IOp
F
FgpRoFRIFs
F CASCADE HEIGHT
VARIES PER
PROFILE
VARIES PER
TYPICAL SECTION VARIES PER
TYPICAL SECTION
DEPTH VARIES CONNECTTO
Z:7 PER PRO'IL EXISTING GROUND CONNECTTO
1.0' MIN RIFFLE 3• DEPTH ARIES 1 EXISTING GROUND
MATERIAL I PER P OFILE 3
2.5' (TYP.) 1.5'
FILTER FILTER
MEDIA �40'� MEDIA
I-- 4.0'
FOOTER BOULDER
HEAD OF POOL (TYP.) -,
MIX OF NATIVE ROCK EQUIVALENT
TO CLASS 1 RIP -RAP
HEAD OF RIFFLE (TYP.)
Step Pool Stormwater Conveyance
6.08 Not to Scale
FLOW
C ,--- D
CASCADE
EXCAVATE POOL
LA B' PER PROFILE
Riffle Sequence Plan View
FOOTER BOULDER
- - SOP OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
CONNECTTO
EXISTING GROUND
Q
�
u
.aw
oz °z
z
�ebrn�
Q 7
,mow
3
Section D-D'
NOTES:
fB
1.
FILTER MEDIA SHALL BE WELL MIXED AND CONSIST OF 90% SAND AND 10% WOODCHIPS COMPACTED IN 6" LIFTS.
—
2.
MINIMUM SIZE FOR BOULDERS SHALL BE 2' x 2' x 1'.
atel)
3.
VOID SPACES BETWEEN BOULDERS ON CASCADE SHALL BE FILLED WITH SMALLER NATIVE ROCK.
L
4.
IF NATIVE ROCK IS NOT AVAILABLE, QUARRIED ROCK MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN THE SAME SIZES.
N
i6
5.
ALL SMALLER ROCK SHALL BE HETEROGENEOUS AND WELL MIXED.
U
6.
WHERE HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE, LIVESTAKES AND/OR JUNCUS PLUGS MAY BE PLANTED ON
O
BANKS AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.
a-
i
ro
to
"�
O
z
=
O
U
�
N
O
W

TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
TYPE 2 WOVEN FILTER FABRIC TOP 4" ABC STONE MINIMUM 12" COVER
OVER PIPE
\ S
EXISTING GRADE 50/50 MIX CLASS A AND
CLASS B RIP RAP PER
GRADES SHOWN ON \
PLANS \ a" nniti nFnnitin
u
�CE-IXCE-IXCE-IX CE-IX
/
u
u I
I
u
� � I
I
u
—� CE-IX CE-IX -
#57 STONE i
CMP PIPE ARCH CULVERT
42" SPAN, 29" RISE
INV. EL: 1207.1' U/S
INV. EL: 1206.1' D/S
CREST EL. 1210.6'
//,\ �� SELECT FILL AS APPROVED
�- BY THE DESIGNER/ENGINEER
EMBED CULVERT
SHOWN ON PROFILE. BACKFILL
WITH 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP
MATERIAL
1 UT1 Sta 307+67 Culvert Crossing
e.10 Not to Scale
CE-IX 4- CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX
OUTLET STATION _
307+85
MAXIMUM 2(H):1(V) SIDE SLOPES
RED IN MINIMUM CLASS B STONE
I
I
I
I
I
I
CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX
MIN. ROAD CREST ELEV.
21' OVERFLOW CHANNEL TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
*1�.
RFLOW EL. 1209.6' _ _ —
'DEEP 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP
LEVATIONS PER GRADES SHOWN ON PLANS
CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IX CE-IXCE-IX
PLUNGE POOL OUTLET EMBEDDED
WITH CLASS A/B RIP RAP
,.
INLETSTATION
1
TOP WIDTH 22'
OVERFLOW CHANNEL (TYP.)
SEE CROSS-SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS
CE-IX CE-IX —CE-IX
m
m
I
i
/
/
/
i
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
i
/
/
/
/
/
i
/
/
i
/
i
/ / / / /
/
/
/
/
i

TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
16' OVERFLOW CHANNEL
6" OVERFLOW EL. 1176.2'
1' DEEP 50/50 MIX CLASS RIP RAP. \ i EX G
ELEVATIONS PER GRADES SHOWNN O ON PLAN \� `
u
u
i
i
OVERFLOW CHANNEL (TYP.)
SEE CROSS-SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS
XI-3D XI-3D XI-3D
ROAD CREST 20'
TOP 4" ABC STONE MINIMUM 12" COVER CREST EL. 1177.8' TYPE 2 WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
OVER PIPE
/ SELECT FILL ASAPPROVED
1' BY THE DESIGNER/ENGINEER
6"MIN. BEDDING, EMBED CULVERT6"AS
50/50 MIX CLASS A AND. #57 STONE,
CLASS B RIP RAP PER SHOWN ON PROFILE. BACKFILL
GRADES SHOWN ON CMP PIPE ARCH CULVERT WITH 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP
PLANS 42" SPAN, 29" RISE MATERIAL
INV. EL: 1174.3' U/S
INV. EL: 1173.3' D/S
1 UT3 Sta 516+38 Culvert Crossing
6.11 Not to Scale
113DXI-3D I "' XI-3D XI-3D XI-3D "XP3D—
PLUNGE POOL OUTLET EMBEDDED
OUTLET STATION WITH CLASS A/B RIP RAP
516+58 \
i
ROAD TOP WIDTH 26'
w 42" x 29" CMP PIPE ARCH CULVERT
INV. EL.: 1174.3' U/S
u INV. EL: 1173.3' D/S
u �� 1
�XI-3DXI,30XI-3DXI-3DXI-3D XI-3DXI-31, XI-31--�X1-
I i
w
MAXIMUM 2(H):1(V) SIDE SLOPES
ROAD CREST ELEV. 1177.8' COVERED IN MINIMUM CLASS B STONE
n
i m
INLET STATION I
516+18
XI-3D XI-Jp XI-3D XI-3D XI-3D XI-3D XI-3DXI-3D m
m
TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
i
i
r
r
r
i
r
r
r i r
r i r
r i r
� i r
r i r
r i r
r r i r
i r
r i r
i r
it
it
o
WE

i • I I • I I I I.pI • • I • • • • • I I .
SH0000000MOM
000�0l0000000000000000000000000000lOOOY00
O •O • O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M i
• •O ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� .• ���IOHOHO/O/OHOHO/OIOIOHO/O/OHOHO/OlIHOeO�
• . 0000000000000000000000000000000000001OOJO�
.� ��OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOi01
��0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100�
Oam,O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�OfI��
�IF�OOOMO0US O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�O�0�0�000�1
�000000000000000Y0000000000000000000000000000000000Y00
:��000101OHOIOIOI��OIOIOIOHOIOIOIOHOIOIOIOHOIOIOIOHOMOH
R�yH0000000000000000100000000000000000000000_000000001UO�
�OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOi►��
�O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-H-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O�O�O�O�O�O�l�O�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�'=�0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001i00�
:�000000000000000000��00000000000000000000000000000�1�
v?HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYH�
i. a�HOIOIOIOHOIOIOIOHOI��IOIOHO�O�OHOHOIOIOIOHOIOIOHOeO�
���OHOHOIOHOIOHOIOHOIOf�IOHOIO�O�OHOIOHOIOHOIOHO�OH�►H�
[.��OHOIOIOIOHOIOIOIOHOI�IOIOHOIO/OIOHOIOIOIOHOIOIOHel�

TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING 13' OVERFLOW CHANNEL
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
------- -. M.-I
6"-1 OVERFLOW EL.1162.6'
1' DEEP 50/50 MIX CLASS A/B RIP RAP.
ELEVATIONS PER GRADES SHOWN ON PLANS
ROAD CREST 20'
TOP 4" ABC STONE MINIMUM 12" COVER
OVER PIPE
— —� ---- —
50/50 MIX CLASS A AND
CLASS B RIP RAP PER
GRADES SHOWN ON \
PLANS 6" MIN. BEDDING,,
#57 STONE\
CMP PIPE ARCH CULVERT
35" SPAN, 24" RISE
INV. 1 11609' U/S
INV. 11160.4' D/S
CREST EL. 1164.0'
SELECT FILL AS APPROVED
eEMBED
BYTHEDESIGNER/ENGINEERiLVERT 6" ASN PROFILE. BA"RAP,
0 MIX CLASS
MATERIAL
1 UT5 Sta 806+74 Culvert Crossing
6.13 Not to Scale
TYPE 2 WOVEN FILTER FABRIC
TIE ROAD INTO EXISTING
GRADE PER GRADING SHOWN
ON PLANS
EXISTING GRADE
'�=-•�-r=•��r=•fir=•�'
-.-x •i _x
►y1�1�,1�1�1
•%4•%
ti I, VI.'v.,�VI,
Vim►
�•lffllff•llffll•fft
Etll!!!tltl!!!!lltlff!!!ltlltltl!!®f!!��
i-� : i 3�}�f i 3f� . i•!•f•!•!•!•f•!•!•I'if•!•!•!•fb•!•!•ff•!�
�L•_�1 �4i� ���•_�1 �4i� ���•21 �4i� ���•21f1tl!!!!l/tltltl!!!!!�!A!!!lltltltl!!Nl/tltltl!REM
If•A•f� �•!•!•f•!•!.!•f•!•!•!•f•!•!•!•f•!•!•!•f•!•!•!•f•!•!•!•f•!•!•!•f•!•!•!•!•!��•�
�lAtl!!011tltltl!!!l/tltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!!!!!tltl!!�f!!tltl!!
! PN-
�tlflffl�1l�f!!!!!!!
►!!'tltltltlllltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltl�
►tlNfNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNNNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlN�
►NtltltltltlllNtltltltltlltltlftltltltltltltltltltltltl�
'tlNtlNtlNtltldtlNtlNtlNfNtlNtlNtltldtlNtlN�:;�
!tltl!!!lltltltllll��ltllN!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!w!�
•Z fµ�P •Z fµ�P •Z fµ�z• •Z I�Atltltltltltltltltltltltl�ltltltltlltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltlbtl�
;tl :P ;tl`=:P�f1:.•;A :P�=f1 ;tl:PtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlN�iNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlN�
Y•;_i�III .-•;yam o.-•:`zAs o.-�.e� - - - tltlNltltlNtlNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlrNNI
.-->S? , •• tl�tltltltltltltltltlftltltltltltltlftltltltltltltltltlNtlNtll
-
f!!!!!!! f!!!!!!! f!!!!!!! f!!!!!!! f!!!!!!!
►tlNtl!llftltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!lltltltl!!!!!!!tltl!!!a>!!tltl!!!!!!tltl!!!!!!•P•
/tlftltltltltlOtltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltlNwowwwwtltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltl!llGNtltltl!lltltltltltl!lltltltltltltltltl•P�
ININtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlN=-N-N-N-N-N-NtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlw
�Ntl�tlNtlNtl/fNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNININI►NtlNININtlNtlNININtlNtlNININtlNtlNtlNi`
Atl/Ntltltltltl,�tltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltlGIM"i
f!!!!!!! f!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!N� • _
0 a'INtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNONtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlN• _
tltltltltltltltli►tltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltltlN�
iN�NitliN�NitlitliNitlitlitlitlitlitlitli�i�=.1'�
/ftltlltltltlfltltllltl�„-,��
• . . 15NitlitlitlitlifitlitlitliNitlitlitlitliN��i�
fl/
itletlitlOff iN�NitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitlitliN�NiNitliN=NitlitlililitlitlililitlitliN9N
•tltltl••/tltllltltllltltllltltl1050205454541111lltltllltltltl/r,tltlltltltlltltltlltltltll
�fNfNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNNNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlN�i
AtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlN/NtlNtlNtlN!NtlNtlN•":1Z='fµ
i�� �Iii..,o'. �.- : i...o"- -_ is ..o_, ^�•. ^ tltlNtlNlNtl . • . r • �y���f�t:�.��]�[ �N�/1-�
�tlANlNtltltltltl,�! Ai A AAiAtlNtlNtlw 4 U 52555
►tlrtlNtlNtlNtlNI� '1 NtlNtlNINtlMMERNtlNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNlNtlNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNtlNtltli�tlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtltli
NtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNIN�YNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNI
ltltltlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlltlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlN�=tl);P:.!Ip=tl):P:•��p=tl):P:•�Ip=tl):P�tltltlNlNtltltltltl,�tltltltltltlltllNtltltltlANlNtltltltltlNlNtltltlA
A tl tl l ltltltl
;�tltltltltltltltltltltltltltltlltlltltltltltl!lltltltltl�iY•i��-•'�l�iY•i��-•'�l�i�Yi��,"hiY:3�+;ftlNtlNNN-NtlNNNtlNtlNtlNININtlNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNINtlNiNI
ltltltl l
tl f
1�%'.�:1Z='Nµ 1�"_ :1Z=' %1•._ :1k='f fA�NitliNtlNtlNINtlN f'�T�'fTri•� a-.
r.-f;����o._N;`i��o._N;`i��o._N;`i tl -Dip tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl tl
.. . • .
ItltlflNtltltltllN/. • tltltltllNlNtltltltllNlNtltltltltlNlNtltltltltlNlNtltltltllNlNtltltltltltltltltl�AtltltltltltltltltltltllNtltltltltltllNtltltltltltl�
1 1 tl tl tl tl tl O • f tl ltltltl l tl tl tl l tl tl
Al�lNtlNtlNI�INtlNtlNININtlNtlNtlNlNtlNtlNtlNlNtlNtlNsNNNtlNtlNtlNNNtlNtlNtlNNNtlNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNtlNtlA�NtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNINtlNtlNtlNI
tl l tl tl tl l tl tl tl l l
tl tl l l tl tl l l tl tl l l tl tl f
.Nl/•tltltltll•!tltltltltltltlltltltltltltltlltltltltl���;�.�`N;,.;�y::
f tl tl tl l tl f
•�1•-tl�l•/N/N��.�•`f`�s'`f`�s'_'`e�s'W
f l l f f l
�N�N������GN�Ni�:�u•"�;1`:-�i:.9`:1
l f f;vr_�r_..:r!%'1C'$`�i�1C:8```
L•:f--,•y�!,�.::N,..�y::�,a AtlN/l/ltltltltltltlloltltltltltlltlNNtllll//NNtlN/tl/tlNNutl�
"Ntltltl/lltltltltll!ll/tltltlllllltlNAl/lltltltltlllllltl/tl�
%. �:1`: tltltl!/ltltltltltltlltlNwtltltllltltltltltlll/ltltltltlltlltltltlNtl�
tlNININ/NtlN/N/N/tloN/NtlN/NIN�N/NtlN�N/N/N/tlNN�
tltlwltltltltltltl�tltltltltltltltlltlNNtlNltlltlNNtlN/l//NNtlN/l//NNtlN/l//NNtlN/tl//NNtlNltlltltltltltltltlltlNNAtltltlltlltltltltltlltlltltltltltlltlltltltltls,
I.//►/NNtltltl/fllltltltll/!!!tltltl!!!!!tltltll/!!tltltltll/!!tltltltll/lltltltltllllltltltltlllllltlltltltllll(••ltltltlllltlltltltlllltlltltltll/ltlltllf
�tlbltltltltltltlbltltltltltl/lltltltltltltltlltltltltltl/l/ltltltltl/l/ltltltltl/l/ltltltltlltlltltltltltltltlltltltltltltltlltlNNAtltltlltlltltltltltlltlltltltltltlltlltltltltl9
►l/lNlNtlNIbIN/N�N�N/N/NtlN/N/N/NtlN�N/NtlNtlN�N/NtlN�N�N/NtlN�N�N/N/NtlN/N/N/N/NtlN/N/tli►NtlN/N/N/NtlN/N/N/NtlN/N/�iNtl°
•• • •• . •
9llltltltltlf/lltltlbtltltltlltltltltltl
�lNltliNfNlNltl/NfNIN/N/NfNfN/N/Nf�::��5
�lfltltltltlflfltl,,tltltltltlltltltltltlltlltltltltl�;�aa,L`c�}`'Z�"eT�`'t�``�.
ffllltl ff fflll/ ff ff
�ftltlfftltl
NN/NtlNfNfN/NtlNftltlNlNlNfNfN/N/NfNf��Ec!f
7lfltlftlftll®Ntlftlflftllltltlftlfllltltlf�•Oyu.1��;:I:•�yu.1��;::•�yu.1��;:I%�.
/ltltllltltltlltltltlltlf�•
AN/NtlNtlNtlN/
tlNlNINtlN/N/N/Ntl�r_•�i"������i`���_���i"��__it�.,_.�
ftlltltltltl��Y;��
fllltlf ff f/l/tlf
Otlltltlllf
tlNtl�:z��N.��i
f �..•_•►_�_r�,�-•�.
�:°z1�N.�ri ° tlNtlNlNtlNtlNtlN/NtlNtl�tlNANtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlN/N/NtlN�AA
NtlN/N/N/NtlN/N/N/NtlbONAN/NlN/N/NtlNtlN/N/N/NIN//NJN/NtlN//N/NtlN/N/N/NtlN/N/N/NtlN/N/N/NtlN/N/NtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlN/N/N/NtlN/N/N/N/NfN/N/NtltltltltltltltllfltlNtltltllfltltltltltllfltltltltltllf�NtlN/N/N/NtlN/N/N/NtlN/N��tlNI
n: �L�Y.i•�� n: ��Y.:�� nl �A�Y. tltl ftlltltltltltl ftlltltltltltl f�Ntltltlltl fl/ltltltltlltlltltltltll
!N-,�!• !2.!N-,�!•::�2;!N-.�wil fNfNIN/NfNfN/N/NfNff.MNlNfNfN/NtlNfNfN/N/NfNf�
tlN fNlNtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlN •NtlNtlNtlN fN/NtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlq
i_•�°f`1i_•°' f`1i_•„f`� tlN fN/NtlN fN fN/N/N fN fNININ fN fNINtlN fN fNININ fp
�_r�.�-•�. �_r�, flltltllltltltlltltltlltltllltl
3� 7s�Ec!f 3�?s�Ec!f 3� 7s�k NfN/N/NfNfN/N/NfNfN/NtlAONfN/N/NfNfN/N/NfNINA
NtlN/N/NtlNtlN/NtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtl�tlNtlNtlNtlNtlN/N/NtlNlNll
•-a•-•..-�• •-a-•..-�• •-a-•..-�• tltlltltltlltltltlltl• tlltltltlltlf
►tlNSNtlNtlNtl��lNtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlNtlNlNtlNtlNtlNlNtlNtlNtlN/NtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlNtlNlNtlNtlNtlNlNlNIINtlNIN/NtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlN/Nf
f/ ftltltltltltltlllNtltltltltl/!!tltltltltl ftlltltltltltl ftlltltltltltl fl/ltltltltl/l/ltltltltlltlltltltltltl
�NNN/NffIN/N/NfNfN/N/NfNfN/N/NfNfN/NtlNfNfN/NtlNfNfN/NtlNfNfN/N/NfNfN/N/NfNfN/N/N
f� �NNNtlNtltlotlltltltltltl/!!tltltltltl fl/ltltltltl/l/ltltltltl/l/ltltltltl/l/ltltltltlltlltltltltltl
f� ►Nib/N fN1►N/N/N fN fNININ fN fNINtlN fN fNINtlN fN fNINtlN fN fNINtlN fN
Nf•tltltltltltltlfftltlfftltlfftltlfltltllltltllltltllltltlfltltlfftltltlftltltl�tl
►lllN fN f�1lNlN fN fNlNlN fN fNlNlN fN fNlNlN fN fNlNlN fN fNlNlN fN fNlNlN
ItlNtlNtlNf�tlNtlNtlNtlNtlN/NtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlNlNtlNtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlN/N/NtlNtlNtlN/NtlNINtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNtlNl�tl�
f/ /tltl,••tltltl•tltltl•tltltl•tltltl/tltltlltltltlltltltlltltltllltltllltltllltlf•
NtlNI
ftllDNA
ffNlNlNfNfN/N/NfNfNlli/Nf�
ftlltltltltltltltllfltlr,�ltltllfltltltltltllfltltltltltllfi►tlN�
fNINtlN fN fNININ fN fNlNltli� fNININ fN fNININ fN fNlli►Nii
fN fNIN/NtlN fN fNlNtl1NN fNINtlN fN fNINtlN fN fN f /tlI
f
ffllltl ff ff®tltl fflf
INd/NtlNtlNtlNlNtltloNtlNlNtlNtlNtltldtlNtl���;!��:����;!��:����;!��:��C����►��tl�tllltlN�tl�tltlltltltltltltltlltltltltltl��tlltlN�tl�tll/ltltltltleli
I�l�l�tl�f�l�l�tl�f�f�l�tl�tl�f�l�tl�tl�'�a0�=r.t.}=L.s'�=r.'t1}.
- -
I,��I��I
fllltlf ff fllllf
f,S���.ny�N�t� NA ff fllltlf ff f/lllf ff fllllf f! fllltlf ff f/lllf ff+l�
L.''� c i1}. L.Y c �tl�tl�l�tl�f�f�l�tl�f�f�l�tl�f�fwl�tl�f�tl�N�tl�f�O��
flglf f/ fllllf ff fllltlf ff fllltlf ff fllltlf ff fllltlf ff fllltlf ff
�NutltltlNtltlltltltltltltltlllN�tl�tll/lN�tl�tllltlN�tl�tll/lN�tl�tll/lN�tl�tltlN�N�tl�tll/ltltltl�tl�llN�tlultltllfltltltltltllfltltltltltll�/N�
�lOtl�f�/f�l�tl�f�f�N�tl�tl�tl�N�tl�tl�tl�l�tl�f�tl�N�tl�tl�tl�N�tl�tl�f�l�N�tl�tl�N�tl�tl�tl�N�l�tl1�
fllltlf ff f/llltl ff ffllltlN.l ffllltl ff ffllltl ff ffl��I
ffllltl ff ffllltl ff ffll I�
-tl •••tltltl/► •
�ltllltltlll
•
Y �dltlfl�
w•ftlf�►
w.
�1��1��1��1��1
. . .Iy. . . . . .1�1�1�1�1�1��.1�1�1�1�1�
�I�I�.I__.I�I�.�L��L��L��L��L��L��L��L��L��L��L��L��L��L��L��L��L���..�►y.����.���.��y.•�.�.•�.�.•�.�.•�.�.•�.�.•�.�.•�.��
►�0�I�I�I�Iy1yI�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�1y1y1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1•
��.���_� !_.� :1_:1_:1_�_:�_�_�=.�_.
-

4"x4" HORIZONTAL
TOP BRACE
I I I 3'-1"
II II 114
Li Liu
8'-0" MIN 8'-0" MIN
LINE BRACES
(MAXIMUM SPACING 330')
I
GATEPOST ANCHOR
Bolt Hinge
(2 Required)
4 POINT BARBED WIRE
4"x4" HORIZONTAL
LINE POST
5" x 5" WOOD BRACE POSTS
4"x4" HORIZONTAL
TOP BRACE
— 4 POINT BARBED WIRE —
CORNER BRACE
USE WHEN CORNER ANGLE IS 15' OR GREATE
5" x 5" WOOD BRACE POSTS
4"x4" HORIZONTAL 1
M:
iiiiiiiiiiiiGGGGiiiiiiiiiii3iiiGGGGiiiiiiii5iiii
M
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1►I
iiiiiiiii��0d `����O��L7�
MIN..
L11111111111
1
TYPICAL SPACING ALL LINE POSTS �^ a -� '�"v T
END OR GATE BRACES
1 Woven Wire Fence - Permanent CE Fencing
.1 Not to Scale
CURVED TO FIT
DIAMETER OF FRAME �q
CURVED TO FIT
DIAMETER OF J tl
BOLT HING
Hinge Clamp
(2 Required)
Hinge Assembly
DOUBLE GATE POST SPACING
GATES
POST SPACING
2 - 8'
16'
2 -12'
24'
2 -14'
28'
2" PAINTED
,A I L YU� l
SEE TABLE
Access Gate n
Jul
5"
3' MIN
"
�18' IN�
Detail of Gate
Post Anchor
GATE POST:
USE CLASS "B" CONCRETE AT GATE POSTS OR
WHERE REQUIRED BY SOIL CONDITIONS. CONCRETE
MAY ALSO BE USED IN LIEU OF SETTING POSTS TO
THEIR MAXIMUM DEPTH.
3 Double 2" Tube Steel Gates
6.14 Not to Scale
GENERAL NOTES:
L-
R 1
MIN
ALTERNATE TYPES OF STAPLES
USE ONE #9 STAPLE OR TWO #16 STAPLES
AT EACH POINT OF ATTACHMENT.
ALL POSTS AND BRACES MAY BE EITHER ROUND OR SQUARE AT THE
OPTION OF THE CONTRACTOR, PROVIDED THE SAME TYPE IS USED
THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.
DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE THE DIAMETER OF ROUND OR EDGE
DIMENSIONS OF SQUARE POSTS AND BRACES.
ERECT LINE BRACES BETWEEN END, CORNER OR GATE POSTS. PLACE
LINE BRACES AT INTERVALS NOT TO EXCEED 300' AN D AT THE END
OF THE WIRE ROLL.
THE 300' INTERVAL MAY BE REDUCED BY THE ENGINEER ON CURVES
WHERE THE DEGREE OF CURVATURE IS GREATER THAN 3 DEGREES.
NOTCH BRACE POSTS 1" MINIMUM FOR HORIZONTAL BRACES.
PLACE TWO GALVANIZED 12d OR THREE GALVANIZED 10d NAILS AT
EACH END OF ALL BRACES.
PLACE THE BRACE WIRE AROUND THE POST. DRAW ALL BRACE WIRE
TAUT BY TWISTING BETWEEN EACH POST.
INSTALLTHE FENCE FACING THE PROPERTY OWNER EXCEPTTHAT ON
HORIZONTAL CURVES GREATER THAN THREE DEGREES (3") INSTALL
THE FENCE TO PULL AGAINST ALL POSTS. SEE NCDOT STD. 866.02
FOR FENCING AT DITCH CROSSINGS, BREAKS IN GRADES AND R/W
BREAKS.
USE LATCH DEVICE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. HINGE ASSEMBLY
AS SHOWN 15 SUGGESTED. SUBSTITUTION MAY BE SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. USED 2" PAINTED STEEL PIPE FOR
GATE FRAME EXCEPT AS SHOWN HERE.
ANY COMBINATION OF GATE AND FENCE TYPE MEETING THE
APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER IS ACCEPTABLE AND IS NOT LIMITED
TO THE EXAMPLES SHOWN HEREON.
4"x4" HORIZONTAL
TOP BRACE
BARBED WIRE
x x
x x
4'-11"
GROUND #9 WIRE
LINE TWISTED
I 1 T-1"
Y� 8'-0"MIN 8'-0"MIN
LINE BRACES
(MAXWOM SPACING 3307
4 POINT BARBED WIRE —\
4"x4" HORIZONTAL
5" x 5" WOOD BRACE POSTS
4"x4" HORIZONTAL
TOP BRACE
4 POINT BARBED WIRE —
8'_0" \ 11 r axe
Miy s
5" v S. CORNER I
WOODBRAC€POSTJW
CORNER BRACE
USE WHEN CORNER ANGLE IS 15' OR GREATER
F 5" x 5" WOOD BRACE POSTS
TOP BRACE�v
x x x x
10"
10"
x x x
4'-11" 10"
x x x
x
'_31"
10"
6 1 "
HIGH TENSILE WIRE #9 WIRE
TWISTED
g'-0
V/ GROUND
2'_7"I
I LINELi
II II II
16'-6" Li
8'_0"MIN
TYPICAL SPACING ALL LINE POSTS
END OR GATE BRACES
2 Five -Strand Wire Fence - CE Crossing
6.1 Not to Scale
GATE POS
4'- 2" PAINTED
iATE
E POST
GROUND LINE
GATE POSTANCHOR—/ 4
Access Gate
n
Jul
L�
5"
Bolt Hinge
(2 Required)
3' MIN
CURVED TO FIT
r
DIAMETER OF FRAME
18' IN
CURVED TO FIT / o yl
DIAMETER OF J t5
BOLT HING
Hinge Clamp
Detail of Gate
(2 Required)
Post Anchor
Hinge Assembly
GATE POST:
USE CLASS "B" CONCRETE AT GATE POSTS OR
WHERE REQUIRED BY SOIL CONDITIONS. CONCRETE
MAY ALSO BE USED IN LIEU OF SETTING POSTS TO
THEIR MAXIMUM DEPTH.
3 2" Tube 4' Steel Gate
6.14 Not to Scale
GENERAL NOTES:
Q �
zZ
Z
a��w
U
_
.aw oz °z
Z
�ebrn�
Bc
Q
ZN3
rJ/�
rtiw 3
FI
tiA
` o\� ,004.��0�
M N q� .QO�.�,��G
ALTERNATE TYPES OF STAPLES C9
USE ONE #9 STAPLE OR TWO #16 STAPLES
AT EACH POINT OF ATTACHMENT.
ALL POSTS AND BRACES MAY BE EITHER ROUND OR SQUARE AT THE
OPTION OF THE CONTRACTOR, PROVIDED THE SAME TYPE IS USED
THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.
DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE THE DIAMETER OF ROUND OR EDGE
DIMENSIONS OF SQUARE POSTS AND BRACES.
ERECT LINE BRACES BETWEEN END, CORNER OR GATE POSTS. PLACE
LINE BRACES AT INTERVALS NOT TO EXCEED 300' AN D AT THE END
OF THE WIRE ROLL.
THE 300' INTERVAL MAY BE REDUCED BY THE ENGINEER ON CURVES
WHERE THE DEGREE OF CURVATURE IS GREATER THAN 3 DEGREES.
NOTCH BRACE POSTS 1" MINIMUM FOR HORIZONTAL BRACES.
PLACE TWO GALVANIZED 12d OR THREE GALVANIZED 10d NAILS AT
EACH END OF ALL BRACES.
PLACE THE BRACE WIRE AROUND THE POST. DRAW ALL BRACE WIRE
TAUT BY TWISTING BETWEEN EACH POST.
INSTALLTHE FENCE FACING THE PROPERTY OWNER EXCEPTTHAT ON
HORIZONTAL CURVES GREATER THAN THREE DEGREES (3") INSTALL
THE FENCE TO PULL AGAINST ALL POSTS. SEE NCDOT STD. 866.02
FOR FENCING AT DITCH CROSSINGS, BREAKS IN GRADES AND R/W
BREAKS.
USE LATCH DEVICE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. HINGE ASSEMBLY
AS SHOWN 15 SUGGESTED. SUBSTITUTION MAY BE SUBJECTTO
APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. USED 2" PAINTED STEEL PIPE FOR
GATE FRAME EXCEPT AS SHOWN HERE.
ANY COMBINATION OF GATE AND FENCE TYPE MEETING THE
APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER IS ACCEPTABLE AND IS NOT LIMITED
TO THE EXAMPLES SHOWN HEREON.
T,