20191674 Ver 1_SAW-2018-00707 Draft Mitigation Plan IRT Comments_20210114

Strickland, Bev
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 4:52 PM
To: Davis, Erin B; Leslie, Andrea J; Wilson, Travis W.; Hamstead, Byron A; Bowers, Todd
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Kim Browning; Haywood, Casey M CIV
(USA)
Subject: [External] RE: SAW-2018-00707 RS French Broad UMB - Blue Star Congen Mitigation
Site Draft Mitigation Plan IRT Comments
Attachments: SAW-2018-00707_RS Response to Comments_RSFrenchBroad UMB-
BlueStarMitSite_DraftPlanComments.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to Report Spa m.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Good afternoon,
I heard back from just a few of you regarding a Blue Star Congen Mitigation Site discussion next week. RS will
be sending out a Microsoft Teams calendar request to meet next Friday, January 22nd at 9:30am for those
able to join. We will be discussing their proposed design changes to address draft plan comments for the site.
Feel free to contact me prior to the meeting if you would like to discuss further . If you are unable to attend,
feel free to send me any comments to discuss at the meeting.
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
(828)-933-8032 cell
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 our website at
https:Hurldefense.com/v3/_http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0_;! !HYmSToo!PVdpN9
UwoycMw6ktylYsXlMoFfgU70Q20tAAQX7_WEr2Y16iTonAAv4ZxHAyN-NtZU$ to complete the survey online.
-----Original Message -----
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 12:00 PM
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Andrea Leslie (Andrea. [e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; Hamstead, Byron <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>

Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: SAW-2018-00707 RS French Broad UMB - Blue Star Congen Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
IRT Comments
Good Morning,
RS has put together a draft comment response for the RS French Broad UMB- Blue Star Congen Mitigation Site
(SAW-2018-00707) and is seeking feedback prior to finalizing their comment response/design/mitigation plan.
They provided the attached submittal for reference. Particular emphasis will include discussion of
proposed/modified buffer widths (and resulting credit ratio), presence of trails within the CE, potential
wetland loss within the former pond impoundment and proposed plantings. Let me know if you are available
for a discussion via Teams January 20-22. 1 anticipate this being an hour or less and once I have received
feedback regarding availability, RS will send out a Microsoft Teams schedule invitation for those joining.
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
(828)-933-8032 cell
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 our website at
https://urldefense.com/v3/_http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0_;!!HYmSToo!PVdpN9
UwoycMw6ktylYsXlMoFfgU70Q20tAAQX7_WEr2Y16iTonAAv4ZxHAyN-NtZU$ to complete the survey online.
-----Original Message -----
From: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 2:22 PM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] FW: SAW-2018-00707 RS French Broad UMB - Blue Star Congen Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan IRT Comments
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
tel:[phone] cell:919.604.9314 1 fax:[phone]
email: [e-mail]

-Original Message -----
From: Ray Holz
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 3:41 PM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Grant Lewis ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Wes Newell
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2018-00707 IRS French Broad UMB - Blue Star Congen Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
IRT Comments
Steve - I am attaching RS' response to IRT comments from CBS' Draft Mitigation Plan. Our response includes a
few figures to aid in our response regarding the easement size/stream preservation ratio and the wetlands
behind the dam post -restoration. I hope we can find some time between now and the end of the year to
schedule a virtual IRT meeting to discuss the project and our revised approach in greater detail. Please let me
know if you have any questions and what steps I can take to facilitate a virtual meeting with the other IRT
members.
Best,
Raymond H.
Raymond J. Holz I Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 1 Raleigh, NC 27604
tel:[phone] cell:919.604.9314 1 fax:[phone]
email: [e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 11:30 AM
To: Ray Holz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>;
Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Andrea Leslie
(Andrea. Leslie@ ncwildlife.org) <[e-mail]>; Gledhill-earley, Renee <renee.gledhill-
[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2018-00707 IRS French Broad UMB - Blue Star Congen Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan IRT
Comments
Raymond,
Attached are the IRS French Broad UMB - Blue Star Congen Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-00707) Draft Mitigation
Plan IRT comments. You may proceed with developing the final mitigation plan for the Blue Star Congen Site
provided you adequately address all comments/concerns in the enclosed memo. Please ensure that each
member of the IRT is provided a copy of the comment response and Final Mitigation Plan. In addition, please
submit your Nationwide Permit 27 application with the submittal of the final plan, for review and approval
prior to discharging fill material into waters of the United States.
Feel free to contact me with questions as you preparing the final plan submittal. This electronic copy is your
official Department of the Army Notification; no paper copy will be mailed, unless specifically requested.

Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
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 our website at
Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.miI/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
November 11, 2020 Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
SUBJECT: Draft Plan Comment Memo for RS French Broad Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument — Blue Star
Congen Mitigation Site
Restoration Systems' (RS) Response to Draft Plan Comment
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-00707
DWR Project No. 0000-0000
French Broad River Basin 06010105, Henderson County
IRT comments received are in black text, and Restoration Systems' responses are provided in blue text.
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN INTRUM RESPONSE FROM RS TO GENERATE A VIRTUAL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT
FURTHER. ALL COMMENTS WILL BE ANSWERED UPON RE -SUBMISSION OF THE MITIGATION PLAN.
Mac Haupt & Erin Davis - NCDWR:
Table 2- the mitigation ratios for the preservation are shown at 7.5:1. Given that the buffer is only 50 feet wide
and a couple of trails run adjacent to portions of the reaches, the credit ratio would be 10:1 at best, perhaps
higher.
We appreciate the feedback. In working with the Camp, we have expanded the conservation easement by 14.24
acres, an 87% increase, to a total size of 30.46 acres (See attached Figure). The revised easement would preserve
a vast majority 100-foot riparian buffer, and in many cases, expands well beyond the 150-foot mark. Existing
topography was used to aid the preservation of ephemeral draws entering the preservation portion of Mud
Creek. With the additional area and Mud Creek's classification as a 303d listed stream, we are continuing to
seek a 7.5:1 ratio.
Section 5.4- in the second paragraph DWR would like further clarification how the wetlands will disappear or
reduce in size over time. Currently, wetlands are shown and there will be channel built through much of the
wetland. DWR must see that the wetland functions will be increased or maintained by the project work.
RS and Axiom have worked to re -design the stream restoration portion of the project within the old pond bed
to minimize the risk of wetland loss behind the existing dam. The new design (see attached draft sheets) will
eliminate the cut previously proposed within the existing wetlands. RS anticipates this approach to have a de
minimis impact on the hydrology of the existing wetlands. Our goal would be to establish a mountain bog
wetland habitat in the former pond's lower reaches.
Trail system -page 20 and Figure 6- for the trails shown on Figure 6, what kind of trails are these? Obviously, if
they include horse trails, that would affect the preservation ratios even more.
Trails within the easement area for hiking and do not carry horses. They are minimal in size, +/- 5-feet and are
earthen. These trails will be further surveyed in RS' resubmittal of the Mitigation Plan, including photographic
evidence of their existing condition. Their condition will not change, and expansion of the trail system within
the easement will be prohibited. RS expects to discuss this further during a virtual conference call with the IRT.
4. Stream preservation, page 22. For preservation reaches, buffer widths should extend much beyond the
minimum. While the buffer widths in the mountains is currently 30 feet, DWR believes a minimum appropriate
buffer width for preservation should be at least 100-150 feet. The wider the buffer the more it improves the
ratio.
Understood — Please see RS' response to Comment 1.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

5. Section 10.6-this project will have a 7 year monitoring period.
Correct.
6. Section 13- DWR questions whether sixteen thousand dollars is enough to initiate the fund for the Site's long-
term management.
IRS will continue to work with the proposed long-term manager, Conserving Carolina. It should be noted that IRS
does not establish or have anything to do with determining the fund amount. The amount was independently
calculated by Conserving Carolina.
7. Table 15-Proposed Mitigation Units- DWR believes the preservation ratio should be at 10:1, and for those
reaches with trails adjacent, it should be at least 12:1.
With the additional easement area and the system being a perennial 303 (d) listed stream, IRS feels a 7.5:1 ratio
is justified. Since DWR and others have mentioned the preservation ratio multiple times, IRS plans to further
discuss this ratio during a virtual conference call.
8. Design sheets overall comment- it appears from the design sheets that the channel either has a structure or the
rip rap riffle. DWR does not want a channel that is entirely lined with rock (Brushy Mountain). In addition, the
riffle typical shows stone being placed on the bank as well, DWR does not want to see a lot of stone/rip rap on
the streambanks.
Understood.
9. Design sheet 36- it appears from the sheet that the lower portion of this reach on stream left is right at the toe
of slope, which essentially goes straight up. DWR requires there to be at least a minimal bench width of 15-20
feet from the top of the channel bank.
This slop is a natural bedrock outcropping. IRS will provide as much of a bench as possible, but please note, this
area is peppered with natural bedrock outcroppings, and it is not IRS' intent to construct a bench into bedrock
defined valley.
10. Design sheet 15- it appears that there are more soil paths or trails than appear on Figure 6. The soils paths not
only cross at the permanent crossing but just below across the stream as well. In the future please label the
stream stationing on the plan view so we can compare more easily to the longitudinal profile.
Will do.
11. Please provide a map showing all the trails that go through or are adjacent to the project. DWR would need to
see this map before a final recommendation can be made on the ratios, not only for the preservation, but also
for the enhancement and restoration reaches.
Will do.
Steve Kichefski — USACE
Please update UMBI to the newest March 2020 version. Also, update the IRT agency contact names for the
Corps, DWR and WRC in the UMBI. Correct the bank name in the headers of the agency signature pages.
Will do.
Section 1.3 - Table 1 (page 2): The preservation ratio of 7.5:1 should be higher. More like 10:1 due to the buffer
width, topography, presence of trails/roads/camp infrastructure within and surrounding the CE Areas with trails
within CE may need to be higher depending on distance to trail and type of use. Wider buffer widths should be
offered for bank with such a high volume of preservation, especially considering the development pressure and
steep topography of the area.
Please see IRS' responses to DWR comments. IRS would like to discuss this during a virtual conference call with
the IRT, given the proposed expansion of the Site's conservation easement.
Page 2 of 5

Section 6.1 — Table 6 (page 11): The upstream preservation reach is used as a reference reach, but the cross
sections are listed as 157% of the regional curve used for the restoration design. No problem with utilizing an
upstream preservation reach on the same channel as one of the reference reaches, but is it typical to have it
157% of compared to regional curve? Please discuss why difference and considerations reflected in the design
as a result.
To be discussed during the virtual conference call or in RS' official response/resubmittal of the Mitigation Plan.
4. Section 6.2 (page 12): The reference forest ecosystem in Table 7 is listed as a Montane Alluvial System. Do you
really see that much floodplain alluvial on these smaller stream channels in the project area besides the
manipulated pond bottom? What distinguishes it from not being more of a cove forest (acidic) or something
drier considering the abundance of oak/hickory/sourwood present in the reference vegetation listed?
To be discussed during the virtual conference call or in RS' official response/resubmittal of the Mitigation Plan.
5. Section 10.1 (page 20): Are all trails existing? Are any hardened? What is the condition of trails within the CE as
far as rutting/drainage/etc.? Can they be moved out of the CE? Who will be responsible for maintaining the
trails within the CE in perpetuity and is there additional money in the endowment if it is the long-term steward?
Please see RS' response to DWR comments above.
6. Section 10.5 (page 24/25): The Acidic Cove Forest mentioned seems more appropriate than the Montane
Alluvial Forest discussed in Section 6.2, but seems to contradict each other... please update. Substitute or limit
the percentage of sugar maple and eastern hemlock planted in the slope planting areas due to concerns for
mortality. Limit the percentage of green ash to <5-10% in the stream -side assemblage due to mortality concerns.
Any substitutions should consider the preservation area species (oak/hickories/etc.) or the less successional
Acidic Cove Forest climax species including the midstory/shrub species (Rhododendron/Leucothoe). If there are
concerns over the success of certain species a lower percentage could be utilized.
To be discussed during the virtual conference call or in RS' official response/resubmittal of the Mitigation Plan.
7. Section 13 (page 29): If the $16,942.78 is an endowment for long term management, please detail what the
$20,000 is for. Additional long-term steward comments are in the Appendix H comments.
The $20,000 payment is for Conserving Carolina to hold the conservation easement.
Section 15 (page 30): Who is the bond oblige?
Conserving Carolina will be the bond oblige.
Appendix C: Review the updated CE template changes from March 2020 and provide comment regarding
whether Restoration Systems would have issues with the update.
Will do.
10. Appendix H: Has Conserving Carolina been the long-term steward for other compensatory mitigation projects
besides Wash Creek? In the Wilmington District? The information provided in Appendix G & H do not provide
enough information regarding the process Conserving Carolina follows for the annual inspection and reporting
in the long-term management of the CE and the financial management of the endowment. Please answer the
following questions:
RS will work with Conserving Carolina to answer these questions after RS and the IRT can discuss RS proposed
project revisions, and if at that point, RS is still able to move the project forward.
a. How big is their staff?
b. How do they monitor these sites (frequency, staffing, on -site or remotely)? Do they monitor
themselves or contract it out? Provide a site inspection SOP, report template and/or example if
available.
c. Do they contact neighboring landowners?
d. Will they be monitoring any trails or marsh treatment areas that remain within or immediately adjacent
to the CE?
e. How do they handle violations?
Page 3 of 5

f. Are the projected annual violation costs ($42.38) and the $3000 allotted for defending the easement
the only separate funds set aside for legal defense if necessary and if so, would it cover all legal fees in
the case of an encroachment? This seems too low! Would this CE have any additional coverage to aid
in legal defense (such as part of a legal defense fund)?
g. Do they hold the easement themselves or are they just the land steward? If so, approximately how
many mitigation bank easements (and/or stream/wetland restoration sites do they currently hold in
NC. or other districts? If other District, please provide the name of the district and a contact person.
h. Are any employees of the company affiliated with mitigation banks or their sponsors?
For endowments:
i. Do they manage the endowments, or are they funded through a financial mechanism for these sites?
j. How will the endowments be funded (up front in a lump sum or throughout the monitoring period)?
k. If they do manage the endowment (type of account, cap rate, etc.)? The Endowment Assumption of
7.8% is too high. Are there restrictions on the level of investment risk for nonprofit land steward
endowments?
I. Is the endowment put into a combined fund or kept separate for each Site?
m. Are the funds used for anything other than stewardship of the Site?
n. What is the name and location of the financial institution that holds their accounts?
11. Appendix I — Financial Assurances: What is the planned time period for each phase of the Bond or are they set
to official approval (credit release/monitoring review) for that phase? Provide repair and replanting
contingencies in the monitoring/construction estimates (only a footnote provided and seeking a %).
RS will respond to these comments after it is determined if the proposed project revisions are acceptable to the
IRT, and a consensus is reached on project mitigation ratios.
12. Appendix J: Have any T & E results been coordinated with USFWS? Any trout surveys (verified presence) in the
preservation or reference reaches or coordinated with WRC?
RS, Axiom, and Three Oaks Engineering performed extensive terrestrial and aquatic T&E surveys of the property
(Appendix J of the Draft Detailed Restoration Plan). RS will continue to coordinate with FWS during the
development of the project. During the survey work, no trout were found within Site tributaries.
13. What are the wetland impacts of the project in the old pond bed, and how much wetland is project to
remain/return in the long run?
Please see RS' response to DWR comment number 2. Given the new proposed design approach in the old pond
bed, RS has not quantified any potential loss to wetlands within the old pond bed. If the project moves forward,
RS will answer this question in detail upon its submission of the revised detailed restoration plan.
Plan Review
14. Relate the structure locations to the station # for so that the IRT can compare and show the structures on the
profile drawings. Also please add slope approximations to portions of the profile sheets in the design (especially
restoration reaches).
Will do.
15. The road improvements shown outside the CE are appreciated to help maintain the integrity of the project,
however, we have no mechanism for ensuring they will be maintained. In some areas the road is very close to
the stream such as Station 29+00 on Mud Creek and Station —0+50 on UT2. How do you propose minimizing the
risk of these areas being a detriment to the project in the long term (possibly include them in a wider CE to
ensure maintenance)?
To be discussed during the virtual conference call or in RS' official response/resubmittal of the Mitigation Plan.
Page 4 of 5

16. Figure 6D shows a soil path extremely close to or possibly within the CE but not shown on Plan Sheet 7. Add to
the plans so that the location can be evaluated in better detail.
17. Why not move a small portion of the trail away from Mud Creek at Station 29+00 and UT2 where it encroaches
within the CE and then capture the first 80 feet of UT2? The trail encroachment shown on Plan Sheet 17 is not
depicted on Figure 6C.
To be discussed during the virtual conference call or in RS' official response/resubmittal of the Mitigation Plan.
18. Plan Sheet 12 shows a CMP and existing fence line being retained within the CE, please explain or remove?
Will do.
19. Will the marsh treatment areas ever need maintenance since they are located within the CE in several places?
Rip rap dissipator with the CE is not ideal.
The proposed marsh treatment facilities do not have an C&M component and are intended to naturalize along
with the project. We understand a rip -rap dissipator within the CE is not ideal and will reevaluate during the
final design.
20. Justify why or remove the trail across the stream on Station 10 (Sheet 15) of UT1 since it is within 100 feet of a
road crossing.
We will evaluate during the final design and work towards removing the trail at this location.
21. Figures call most crossings bottomless, but the plan details (Sheet 2C) seem to show a pipe design. If this is just
for the one crossing provide a detail for the other crossings.
To be discussed during the virtual conference call or in RS' official response/resubmittal of the Mitigation Plan.
22. Verify that the dock on Sheet 15 is to be removed and the soil path within the CE will be returned to a natural
vegetated state, since I did not see verification of this in the plans. Sometime things are noted to be removed
but did not see it in this example.
The dock will be removed. RS will update plan sheets to add clarity.
23. Also verify that the road on the dam will not remain as a crossing within the CE after construction.
The road across the dam will not remain as a crossing within the CE after construction. RS will update plan sheets
to add clarity.
Page 5 of 5

i ` \ � ' - i i -��i: � _ ' i I �: \ � `�. \ \ \ \ �- '�/. '' � � - ''. e` � I `''• �1 ` ' ' � I1+�fiIlfJl1 1/1/ILf1 % � ✓ \\\ \ ` .. / � j ] - - ,'�� � \n.. � � �]`- � �,�
• - • ! '` �:�� 1�l`'.��\ 1 1 1 � �:1 y, ,';, lllrll�_�111/�>�{V�\' 1�� ���� `����:\� � ��., � � y ,. t � �
1
ar,sTaea.TiaN
SYSTEMS LLC
AV
JO)
r .
k\lk
F/RX �
NAK
%i�/�'^✓ �j'; I elf \ 0 1 \��. � � `.i � i\f l� ` ����y �0�1
� , - -y �� • � / �J���� r�� - - �_., ..\-.fir �... 1 ����_� � qr ��
r � r
��� 1( - '� y`y `��' � .� ) `.�J} . '� ` L'y (~ �`, �� /� �r� ��� �F V � 1 � 14" �•� ' �� - :."k�L f 14 _

—
�� a \ �\ — \ -- ✓ /// / / ao^ — zz
ri
��
MW
tDATH — --Tz-
-
,353�'
= %r1
„-moo\
j aC
4 /3 yl� 2
2 3:t
ti �! i °ie rltxist= M
�N
\ y,
ae 41`
ie into es�ng
� �2 I i
—sse c 3 �Iz 4 �23
\ 1
vv�vv��esez� �v �N 414I���
12:1 ALONG PATH
\ \ J
ICI I 1
�q2�6\\
47

.I
-MUD -STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
STEP POOL
562,245.17
941,573.86
2,334.42
STEP POOL
562,240.68
941,615.56
2,332.15
LOG CROSS VANE
562,259.25
941,646.01
2,330.48
STEP POOL
562,272.11
941,657.29
2,329.28
STEP POOL
562,296.86
941,661.36
2,327.79
LOG CROSS VANE
562,327.01
941,676.99
2,325.58
STEP POOL
562,346.33
941,685.57
2,323.65
SILL STEP
562,360.57
941,717.58
2,321.69
D
�O` �1? \ /
CHATNEL �,NKF'L
m
M�4/
M e
mwA7411
cn
+
e i /
�I
0 0 L
,l QZS� OISS
VANE-(TYP)
STEP�POL (TYPI/
EXST GROUND
AT PROP THALWEG
END
STA 1
TOPOGRAHY OUTSIDE
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
OF SURVEY LIMITS BASED ON
NC FLOODPLAIN MAPPING
BARE EARTH DATA
12� SCALE: 1"=50'
'BRI[)CE
TAR LANDCO LLC`;�
5ZI6110101
SHEET NAME SHEET NUMBER
PLAN/PROFILE
PROJECT NAME: CAMP BLUE STAR STREAM RESTORATION SITE
COUNTY: HENDERSON I DATE: 2019
SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
�10 ■. 9051O11ES FRANKLINROAD
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27606
TEL [phone]
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
J o
'\STEP POOL (TYP) P�`��
LOG CROSS VANE (TYP) / /// �/ Z� V
8/T �jTY, S
7
nicN /%11��./
i �� �• / �/, '/ / Vi/ '/ i�R °�� /�' X��,
d i /�/��S'L G CROSS i i° Q ��� SEE SHEET 03B FOR
-- ','Q�G ///j;� NE (TYP),.,; �/���c�� DAM REMOVAL GRADING
�' , �'�
'� / //�L/ i �ii%'Vie /�/�� ////;i'
SILL STEP (TYP)
- P
REMOVE
3 END RESTORATI--------------
OI)L'
�I STA 18+50 -U,T1-
HA EL BANKFULL STA 38+44 MUD- � %
-MUD-STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
LOG CROSS VANE
562,369.00
941,732.87
2,320.50
SILL STEP
562,390.99
941,750.86
2,318.72
LOG CROSS VANE
562,407.90
941,774.59
2,316.63
STEP POOL
562,424.25
941,787.78
2,315.42
LOG CROSS VANE
562,455.00
941,791.67
2,313.31
STEP POOL
562,475.63
941,799.89
2,312.26
STEP POOL
1 562,495.51
941,829.32
2,310.00
SILL STEP
562,519.00
941,849.16
2,307.88
LOG CROSS VANE
562,530.47
941,863.92
2,306.62
Open water restored
44 to wetland surfaces
rTr-f PROP THALWEG
232
Probe Refusal/
Rock
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
N C
5� \o
;CL 20W Ir,
DATE:
Proposed redesign channel to mimic the historic \
channel location to the maximum extent practicable
Min
U)
ww
zU�
a 2325
1 - 1 1 - • •
j�il�'��.i r�� �.���Zarrnl,6
Prop Bevation
,■■■■■ ■ LOG CROSS VANE
■■■■om ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■:.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■ — ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1►■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I - • •■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�.■■�.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I........
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.�.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I...■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I • - •■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■\\■■■■■■■■■■■
i " • '■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii......iiiii■ .iii■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ILOG CROSS.� ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■\--
1■iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�...� .. �iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
1 1 •• . •• -- 1 I 1 1 � 1