20120773 Ver 1_401 Application_20121012

Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Project
KCI Project Number — 20110675
EEP Project Number — 95024
ACOE Project Number —SAW 2012 -01006
cnNTFNTS
- PCN Form
- Attachment 1- Categorical Exclusion Report
- Attachment 2 - Mitigation Plan Approval Letter from ACOE
- Attachment 3 - Mitigation Plan Response Letter from KCI
- Attachment 4 - Final Mitigation Plan

O�OFW A r���F9QG
b
O <
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
2b.
County:
Rowan
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
China Grove, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
NA
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
NA
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Deal, Oscho Roy
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
DB 1122 PG 670
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
NA
3d.
Street address:
350 Saw Road
3e.
City, state, zip:
China Grove, NC 28023
3f.
Telephone no.:
(704) 298 -4181
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
circledbeef @roadrunner.com
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Jeff Jurek
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
4d.
Street address:
116 West Jones St., Suite G111
4e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
4f.
Telephone no.:
(919)715 -1157
4g.
Fax no.:
(919)715 -2219
4h.
Email address:
Jeff.Jurek @ncdenr.gov
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Timothy J. Morris
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
KCI Technologies, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
4601 Six Forks Road, Ste. 220
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27609
5e.
Telephone no.:
(919)783 -9214
5f.
Fax no.:
(919)783 -9266
5g.
Email address:
tim.morris @kci.com
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1 a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
234 025
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.5667 Longitude: - 80.6665
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1 c.
Property size:
Total Easement is 13.91 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Irish Buffalo Creek
proposed project:
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C, Water Supply III and Impaired
2c.
River basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee (CU - 03040105)
3.
Project Description
3a.
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 majority of the site is currently used for pasture. Past anthropogenic modifications have involved logging, grazing,
and channelization. Four separate streams make up the site: Tributary 1 (T1) begins in the northwestern project corner,
Tributary 1A (T1 A) flows south to join T1; Tributary 2 (T2) comes onto the site from the northeastern corner; and Tributary
2A (T2A) originates on the property from seep flow to then join T2. T1 and T2 come together just south of the project
boundary before joining another tributary to form Irish Buffalo Creek. The stream has been straightened and consequently
lacks the appropriate stream planform. The riparian zone has sparse to no vegetation and the banks are actively widening
and eroding. Livestock also have had access to the channel and they have further impacted the bank stability and rates
of erosion. The existing channel begins with a low width -to -depth ratio and high bank heights. Eroding slopes within the
valley have contributed additional sediment to the stream and further induced scour and downcutting. The channel has
tried to adjust by becoming more highly sinuous.The general land use in the local area is a mix of agricultural land and
forest land. The Cities of Salisbury, Mooresville, and Kannapolis are located within a 15 -mile radius of the site, and
commercial and residential development increase as you approach these three cities.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.08 acres
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
5024 linear feet
3d.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site is a full - delivery mitigation project being developed for the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The site offers the opportunity to restore and enhance a series of headwater
tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek. This project will return these tributaries to a stable stream ecosystem, lower the
sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek, and reduce incoming nutrients from livestock. This project also looks to
expand aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the Rocky River Watershed (03040105). The project is located in the Irish Buffalo
Creek Drainage (03040105020040), which the EEP has identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW).
3e.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
This project will entail stream restoration and enhancement activities. In restoration areas, the channel will be relocated in
areas where it is appropriate. In other restoration sections, the existing channel will have its bed and banks improved.
Enhancement reaches will have the bed and /or banks reshaped. Grade control and habitat structures will be installed to
provide additional stability and variability to the streams. This type of work involves equipment such as bulldozers, track
hoes, track trucks, and dump trucks.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments: JD Determination is ongoing. Application Date is
5 -1 -12
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
®Preliminary El Final
of determination was made?
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company: KCI Associates of NC
Name (if known): Steve Stokes, KCI, verification being
Other: Asheville Regulatory Field Office, USACOE
completed by Steve Kichefski, USACOE
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Application submitted on 5 -1 -12 to Steve Kichefski
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary (T)
W1 ® P ❑ T
excavation and
grading for
non -tidal
❑ Yes
® Corps
0.01
floodplain creation
freshwater marsh
®No
El DWQ
W2 ® P ❑ T
excavation and
grading for
non -tidal
❑ Yes
® Corps
0.005
floodplain creation
freshwater marsh
®No
El DWQ
W3 ® P ❑ T
fill
non -tidal
❑ Yes
® Corps
0.003
freshwater marsh
® No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P FIT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.018 acres
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Enh. /Restoration
UT1 to Irish
® PER
® Corps
7.1
1330
Buffalo Creek
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ® P ❑ T
Restoration
UT1Ato Irish
® PER
® Corps
4.2
294
Buffalo Creek
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ® P ❑ T
Restoration
UT2 to Irish
® PER
® Corps
7.5
2935
Buffalo Creek
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ® P ❑ T
Enhancement
UT2A to Irish
® PER
® Corps
6.3
465
Buffalo Creek
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
5024
linear feet
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number -
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number -
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
re uired?
B1 ❑P ❑T
F-1 Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
We are applying for a Nationwide 27 permit. This permit authorizes impacts to juristictional waters for the purpose of
conducting aquatic habitat restoration, establishment and enhancement activities. This project will provide stream mitigation
credits for impacts elsewhere within this 8 -digit HUC. The site offers an ideal opportunity to improve a series of headwater
streams.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Constructed riffles, grade control, and habitat structures will be used to maintain the stream bedform while transitioning the
stream down to the confluence with Irish Buffalo Creek. A pump around will be utilized to conduct all stream restoration work
in the dry. Sediment and erosion control measures such as silt fence, straw wattles, rock silt screens and daily stabilization
will be used to minimize impacts during construction. A significant portion of the restored channel will be constructed off -line
which should also minimize impacts to the existing resource during construction.
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?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: No impervious area will be created on
this project. This is a stream restoration project.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Rowan County
❑ Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
® Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
® Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
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
® Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments: A Categorical Exclusion report has been prepared and is included as
❑ Yes ® No
an attachment to this permit application. This CE Report is required by the Federal
Highway Administration for North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Projects to
demonstrate compliance with NEPA and SEPA for environmental mitigation
projects.
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
This is a stream restoration project. No wastewater will be generated.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
F-1 Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NCDENR, Wildlife Resources Commission. Carolina Wildlife Profiles.
http:// www. ncwildlife. org /fs_index_07_conservation.htm
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. North Carolina's Threatened and Endangered Species.
http: / /www.fws.gov/ southeast /es /county %201ists.htm.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http: / /www.saw.usace.army. mil/ wetlands /NWP2007 /specialwaters.html
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
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
See attached Categorical Exclusion Report and Correspondence with Renee Gledhill - Earley, Environmental Review
Coordinator, State Historic Preservation Office
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? HEC -RAS
Jeff Jurek
NC DENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
116 West Jones Street, Suite G111
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Raleigh NC 27603
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

Attachment 1
Categorical Exclusion Report

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
(dote: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Project Part 1: General • •
Project Name: Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Project
County Name: Rowan
EEP Number: 003984
Project Sponsor: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) 1 KCI Technologies, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Tim Morris
Project Contact Address: 14601 Six Forks Road, Suite 220, Raleigh NC 27609
Project Contact E -mail: I tim.morris @kci.com
EEP Project Mana gr: I Guy Pearce
Project Description
This project proposes to improve water quality and protect aquatic habitat in an agricultural area of Rowan County
that has undergone degradation from unrestricted agricultural activities and human induced disturbances. This
stream restoration project intends to restore approximately 4,700 linear feet of tributary stream draining to Irish
Buffalo Creek in southwestern Rowan County.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manage
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
—1. .
Date For Division Adminis rator
FHWA .
JILVERM
0(71 - s poll
(%
INC NHANCEMENT PROGRAM
6 Version 1.4, 8/18145

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Q . 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
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ 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
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit 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
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
[Z] No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
[Z] No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
[Z] No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] 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
[Z] No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
❑✓ Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Q . 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
❑ Yes
Cherokee
Indians?
[Z] 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
❑ Yes
Places?
❑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
[Z] No
2.
Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑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
[Z] N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1.
Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
2.
Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
❑ N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
❑ N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1.
Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and /or Designated Critical Habitat
❑✓ Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2.
Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
❑ N/A
3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑No
❑ N/A
4.
Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and /or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated
Critical Habitat?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
5.
Does the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
[Z] Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
6.
Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by
the EBCI?
❑No
2.
Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
3.
Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1.
Will real estate be acquired?
[Z] Yes
❑ No
2.
Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
[Z] Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3.
Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
[Z] Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1.
Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
❑ Yes
water
body?
❑✓ 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,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
[Z] No
2.
Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1.
Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
2.
Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
3.
Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
4.
Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
5.
Has consultation with NOAA- Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1.
Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
2.
Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Wilderness Act
1.
Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
2.
Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal
agency?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Appendix
Supporting Documentation for
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Contents
Limited Phase I ESA — EDR Report
SHPO Correspondence
SHPO Response
SHPO Response to Memo
Uniform Act Correspondence
USFWS Correspondence
Endangered Species Report
NHP Correspondence
NHP Response
NRCS Correspondence
NRCS Form AD -1006
WRC Correspondence
WRC Response
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Topographic/Watershed Map
Figure 3 — Land Use Map
Figure 4 — Existing Conditions Map
/_111roFi9[ O arm71N►re=-

Limited Phase I ESA

Jacobs Landing and Jacobs Ladder
350 Saw Road
China Grove, NC 28023
Inquiry Number: 3153396.2s
August 23, 2011
440 Wheelers Farms Road
® www.edrnet.comt.com Milford, CT 06461
CrEDR Environmental Data Resources Inc Toll Free: 2.0050
FORM- BPK -SXC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary
ES1
Overview Map
2
Detail Map
3
Map Findings Summary
4
Map Findings
7
Orphan Summary
8
Government Records Searched /Data Currency Tracking
GRA
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum
A -1
Physical Setting Source Summary
A -2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map
A -5
Physical Setting Source Map
A -14
Physical Setting Source Map Findings
A -16
Physical Setting Source Records Searched
A -19
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1- 800 - 352 -0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS ". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2011 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC3153396.2s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527 -05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
350 SAW ROAD
CHINA GROVE, NC 28023
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.562000 - 35° 33' 43.2'
80.658400 - 80° 39' 30.2'
Zone 17
530957.8
3935224.0
865 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 35080 -E6 ENOCHVILLE, NC
Most Recent Revision: 2000
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 2005, 2006, 2008
Source: USDA
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
TC3153396.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
FEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List
CERC -NFRAP CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non- CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA -TSDF RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA -LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA -SQG RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA -CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and /or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF /LF List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST Regional UST Database
TC3153396.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LUST TRUST State Trust Fund Database
LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
UST Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST AST Database
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill/ Solid Waste Disposal Sites
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI Open Dump Inventory
HIST LF Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US CDL Clandestine Drug Labs
US HIST CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA- NonGen RCRA - Non Generators
TC3153396.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DOT OPS
Incident and Accident Data
DOD
Department of Defense Sites
FUDS
Formerly Used Defense Sites
CONSENT
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD
Records Of Decision
UMTRA
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
MINES
Mines Master Index File
TRIS
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
FTTS
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
HIST FTTS
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
SSTS
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
PADS
PCB Activity Database System
MLTS
Material Licensing Tracking System
RADINFO
Radiation Information Database
FINDS
Facility Index System /Facility Registry System
RAATS
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
IMD
Incident Management Database
UIC
Underground Injection Wells Listing
DRYCLEANERS
Drycleaning Sites
NPDES
NPDES Facility Location Listing
INDIAN RESERV
Indian Reservations
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
PCB TRANSFORMER
PCB Transformer Registration Database
COAL ASH EPA
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
COAL ASH DOE
Sleam- Electric Plan Operation Data
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE____
Financial Assurance Information Listing
COAL ASH
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
EDR Proprietary Records
Manufactured Gas Plants_____ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC3153396.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped. Count: 16 records.
Site Name
LOIS SHINN RESIDENCE
GROVE SUPPLY SAWMILL
B P CONVENIENCE STORE
CHINA GROVE ANIMAL GROVE CLINIC
WISE MARINE SERVICE
KEITHS AUTO SALES
MR & MRS WORTH JOHNSON
GROVE SUPPLY CO. INC.
THOMPSONS GROCERY
L.L. GOODNIGHT & SONS. INC.
DOC LENTZ SERIVCE
FISHER AUTO SERVICE
DAINTY MAID FOODS
LEWISVILLE SHELL SERVICE
ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC
LOIS SHINN RESIDENCE
Database(s)
IMD, LAST
IMD, LUST
IMD, LUST
LUST TRUST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
RCRA -CESQG
IMD
TC3153396.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

OVERVIEW MAP - 3153396.2s
0 1/4 1/2 1 Mlles
0 Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines from USGS Disposal Sites
100 -year flood zone
500 -year flood zone
0 National Wetland Inventory
0 State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and /or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Jacobs Landing and Jacobs Ladder CLIENT: KCI Technologies, Inc.
ADDRESS: 350 Saw Road CONTACT: Tim Morris
China Grove NC 28023 INQUIRY #: 3153396.2s
LAT /LONG: 35.5620 / 80.6584 DATE: August 23, 2011 4:47 pm
Copyright ® 2011 EDR, Inc. ® 2010 Tele Atlas Ral. 07/2009.
Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
•
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/4 1/2 1 Mlles
0 Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines from USGS Disposal Sites
100 -year flood zone
500 -year flood zone
0 National Wetland Inventory
0 State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and /or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Jacobs Landing and Jacobs Ladder CLIENT: KCI Technologies, Inc.
ADDRESS: 350 Saw Road CONTACT: Tim Morris
China Grove NC 28023 INQUIRY #: 3153396.2s
LAT /LONG: 35.5620 / 80.6584 DATE: August 23, 2011 4:47 pm
Copyright ® 2011 EDR, Inc. ® 2010 Tele Atlas Ral. 07/2009.

t�
Q
G
r
G
Q` ti
DETAIL MAP - 3153396.2s
pitchie Rd
4
n
y
N
d
f
A
6
a
2
m/
SITE NAME: Jacobs Landing and Jacobs Ladder CLIENT: KCI Technologies, Inc.
ADDRESS: 350 Saw Road CONTACT: Tim Morris
China Grove NC 28023 INQUIRY #: 3153396.2s
LAT /LONG: 35.5620 / 80.6584 DATE: August 23, 2011 4:48 pm
Copyright ® 2011 EDR, Inc. ® 2010 Tole Atlas Ral. 07/2009.
Target Property
0 1/16
1B 1M Mlles,
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
0
Indian Reservations BIA
Hazardous Substance
•
Sites at elevations lower than
�
Oil &Gas pipelines from USGS
Disposal Sites
the target property
100 -year flood zone
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
500 -year flood zone
r
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
0
National Wetland Inventory
Dept. Defense Sites
0
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and /or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Jacobs Landing and Jacobs Ladder CLIENT: KCI Technologies, Inc.
ADDRESS: 350 Saw Road CONTACT: Tim Morris
China Grove NC 28023 INQUIRY #: 3153396.2s
LAT /LONG: 35.5620 / 80.6584 DATE: August 23, 2011 4:48 pm
Copyright ® 2011 EDR, Inc. ® 2010 Tole Atlas Ral. 07/2009.

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST 0.500
Total
< 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted
0
Search
Target
Distance
Database Property
(Miles)
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
0
Federal NPL site list
NR 0
NPL
1.000
Proposed NPL
1.000
NPL LIENS
TP
Federal Delisted NPL site list
0
Delisted NPL
1.000
Federal CERCLIS list
0
CERCLIS
0.500
FEDERAL FACILITY
1.000
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List
0
CERC -NFRAP
0.500
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
0
CORRACTS
1.000
Federal RCRA non- CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA -TSDF
0.500
Federal RCRA generators list
0
RCRA -LQG
0.250
RCRA -SQG
0.250
RCRA -CESQG
0.250
Federal institutional controls /
0
engineering controls registries
NR
US ENG CONTROLS
0.500
US INST CONTROL
0.500
Federal ERNS list
NR 0
ERNS
TP
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NR
NC HSDS
1.000
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
0
SHWS
1.000
State and tribal landfill and /or
0
solid waste disposal site lists
NR
SWF /LF
0.500
OLI
0.500
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST 0.500
Total
< 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted
0
0
0
0
NR 0
0
0
0
0
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
0
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
0
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
0
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
0
NR 0
0
0
0
0
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
TC3153396.2s Page 4

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
Search
US BROWNFIELDS
0.500
Local Lists of Landfill/ Solid
0
Waste Disposal Sites
0
Target
Distance
ODI
0.500
HIST LF
0.500
INDIAN ODI
Total
Database Property
(Miles)
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2-1
> 1
Plotted
LUST TRUST
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LAST
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN LUST
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal registered storage tank
lists
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
UST
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AST
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
INDIAN UST
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
FEMA UST
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
State and tribal institutional
control/ engineering control registries
INST CONTROL
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN VCP
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
0
US BROWNFIELDS
0.500
Local Lists of Landfill/ Solid
0
Waste Disposal Sites
0
DEBRIS REGION 9
0.500
ODI
0.500
HIST LF
0.500
INDIAN ODI
0.500
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
0
Contaminated Sites
NR 0
US CDL
TP
US HIST CDL
TP
Local Land Records
NR
LIENS 2
TP
LUCIS
0.500
Records of Emergency Release Reports
NR
HMIRS
TP
Other Ascertainable Records
NR
RCRA- NonGen
0.250
DOT OPS
TP
DOD
1.000
FUDS
1.000
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0
0
0
0
NR 0
0
0
0
0
NR 0
TC3153396.2s Page 5

Database
Target
Property
CONSENT
ROD
UMTRA
MINES
TRIS
TSCA
FTTS
HIST FTTS
SSTS
ICIS
PADS
M LTS
RADINFO
FINDS
RAATS
IMD
UIC
DRYCLEANERS
NPDES
INDIAN RESERV
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
PCB TRANSFORMER
COAL ASH EPA
COAL ASH DOE
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
COAL ASH
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance
(Miles)
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2-1
> 1
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
EDR Proprietary Records
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.000
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
Total
Plotted
0 0 0 0 NR 0
TC3153396.2s Page 6

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
TC3153396.2s Page 7

Count: 16 records. ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s)
CHINA GROVE 0001199014 WISE MARINE SERVICE RT 1 W 28023 UST
CHINA GROVE U001202839 KEITHS AUTO SALES RT 1 28023 UST
CHINA GROVE S103130628 LOIS SHINN RESIDENCE RT 1 IMD
CHINA GROVE S105807419 LOIS SHINN RESIDENCE HWY 152 NEARDEAL ROAD IMD, LAST
CHINA GROVE U003134152 MR & MRS WORTH JOHNSON RT 2 28023 UST
CHINA GROVE U003145218 GROVE SUPPLY CO. INC. HWY 29 N 28023 UST
CHINA GROVE S105764912 GROVE SUPPLY SAWMILL HWY 29 & 601ST IMD, LUST
CHINA GROVE U001197985 THOMPSONS GROCERY RT3 28023 UST
CHINA GROVE U001197991 L.L. GOODNIGHT & SONS. INC. RT 3 28023 UST
CHINA GROVE U003146571 DOC LENTZ SERIVCE RT 4 28023 UST
CHINA GROVE U001197932 FISHER AUTO SERVICE HWY 52 28023 UST
CHINA GROVE S106074756 B P CONVENIENCE STORE 2410 US HWY 29 S 28023 IMD, LUST
CHINA GROVE 1014393943 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC 800 STATE 152 E 28023 RCRA -CESQG
CHINA GROVE U003145377 DAINTY MAID FOODS USITY 29 N 28023 UST
CHINA GROVE S105219644 CHINA GROVE ANIMAL GROVE CLINIC 2001 USITY 29 S 28023 LUST TRUST
LEWISVILLE 0001199080 LEWISVILLE SHELL SERVICE RT 1 28023 UST
TC3153396.2s Page 8

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
JACOBS LANDING AND JACOBS LADDER
350 SAW ROAD
CHINA GROVE, NC 28023
11 r9 :lr]Nk d:j :1.1 »:ArK90161NQl01 rel9 *1
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Target Property Map:
Most Recent Revision:
35.56200 - 35° 33'43.2"
80.6584 - 80° 39' 30.2"
Zone 17
530957.8
3935224.0
865 ft. above sea level
35080 -E6 ENOCHVILLE, NC
2000
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components:
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the
geologic strata.
TC3153396.2s Page A -1

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site - specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
General Topographic Gradient: General South
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
o � _
w
m w
� W N
w. - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . -
North
ip
0
0
> W W W
TIP
OD
O W v N N A
m °D
OD
V
� m V
W
South
N
N
N N
West I East
TIP
0 1/2 1 Miles
Target Property Elevation: 865 ft.
Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated
on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified.
TC3153396.2s Page A -2

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
and bodies of water).
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
Target Property County
ROWAN, NC
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property:
Additional Panels in search area:
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
NWI Quad at Target Property
ENOCHVILLE
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
FEMA Flood
Electronic Data
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map
37159C - FEMA DFIRM Flood data
Not Reported
NWI Electronic
Data Coverage
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
AQUIFLOW®
Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION
MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW
Not Reported
TC3153396.2s Page A -3

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
move more quickly through sandy - gravelly types of soils than silty - clayey types of soils.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT
GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
Era: Paleozoic Category: Plutonic and Intrusive Rocks
System: Pennsylvanian
Series: Upper Paleozoic granitic rocks
Code: Pzg3 (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
TC3153396.2s Page A -4

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 3153396.2s
�O o
�o 0o a
� � O
0 o G
v o
0 o o c
O� w 3
° D
o o
> o o D o �� O
0 o O O�
0
O
° ° 0 o
oa o
° CD
O�
D O o
o O DO o O
O p °O
C) O O O n O
o
�o D
County Boundary
Major Roads
Contour Lines
W Airports
OO Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater
® Water Wells
© Public Water Supply Wells
Cluster of Multiple Icons
0 1/4 1/2 1 M Has
Groundwater Flow Direction Wildlife Areas
CG Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location 0 Natural Areas
Cc v) Groundwater Flow Varies at Location o Rare & Endangered Species
SITE NAME: Jacobs Landing and Jacobs Ladder CLIENT: KCI Technologies, Inc.
ADDRESS: 350 Saw Road CONTACT: Tim Morris
China Grove NC 28023 INQUIRY #: 3153396.2s
LAT /LONG: 35.5620 / 80.6584 DATE: August 23, 2011 4:48 pm
DODyrlaht o 2011 EDR, Inc. o 2010 Tole Atlas Ral. 07/2009.

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation
1
35 34 00
NNW
City Served:
1/4 -1/2 Mile
Higher
Untreated
PWS ID:
NCO 180527
Date Initiated:
7706 Date Deactivated: Not Reported
PWS Name:
RITCHIE BROS FARMS
CHINA GROVE, NC 28023
Addressee / Facility:
System Owner /Responsible Party
1/2 - 1 Mile
CHARLES KITCHIE OR MGR
RT 1
CHINA GROVE, NC 28023
Addressee / Facility:
System Owner /Responsible Party
RITCHIE BROS
EDGEWOOD S/D
RT 1
Pws type:
CHINA GROVE, NC 28023
Database EDR ID Number
FRDS PWS NCO180627
Facility Latitude:
35 34 00
Facility Longitude: 080 39 40
City Served:
CHINA GROVE
Treatment Class:
Untreated
Population: 00000050
Violations information
not reported.
2
East
NC WELLS NC2000000004367
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
Pwsidentif:
NCO 180161
System nam:
EDGEWOOD S/D
Pws type:
C
County:
ROWAN
City:
CHINA GROVE
Primary so:
GW
Water type:
GW
Facility n:
WELL #1
Facility a:
S01
Latitude m:
35.563356
Longitude :
- 80.647284
Availavili:
A
Well depth:
305
Well dep 1:
FT
Owner name:
CORRIHER WATER SERVICE INC
Site id:
NC2000000004367
3
North
NC WELLS NC2000000004448
1/2 - 1 Mile
Higher
TC3153396.2s Page A -16

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Pwsidentif:
NCO 180702
System nam:
OAK GROVE UMC
Pws type:
NC
County:
ROWAN
City:
CHINA GROVE
Primary so:
GW
Water type:
GW
Facility n:
WELL #1
Facility a:
S01
Latitude m:
35.575277
Longitude :
- 80.661388
Availavili:
A
Well depth:
200
Well dep 1:
FT
Owner name:
OAK GROVE LIMC_180702
Site id:
NC2000000004448
TC3153396.2s Page A -17

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
AREA RADON INFORMATION
State Database: NC Radon
Radon Test Results
Num Results Avg pCi /L Min pCi /L Max pCi /L
1 0.60 0.6 0.6
1 0.90 0.9 0.9
Federal EPA Radon Zone for ROWAN County: 3
Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi /L.
Zone 2 indoor average level — 2 pCi /L and — 4 pCi /L.
Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi /L.
Federal Area Radon Information for Zip Code:
28023
Number of sites tested: 2
Area
Average Activity
% <4 pCi /L
% 4 -20 pCi /L
Living Area - 1 st Floor
0.350 pCi /L
100%
0%
Living Area - 2nd Floor
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Basement
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
o/. >9n nCi /I
0%
Not Reported
Not Reported
TC3153396.2s Page A -18

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
EDR acquired the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds
to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000 -scale topographic quadrangle maps. The DEM provides elevation data
with consistent elevation units and projection.
Scanned Digital USGS 7.5' Topographic Map (DRG)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
A digital raster graphic (DRG) is a scanned image of a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map. The map images
are made by scanning published paper maps on high - resolution scanners. The raster image
is georeferenced and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection.
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2003 & 2011 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100 -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002 and 2005 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetlands Inventory
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
AQUIFLOWR Information System
Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has
extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table
information.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit
Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital
representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national
Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil
survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation
of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed ( SSURGO)
soil survey maps.
SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)
Telephone: 800 - 672 -5559
SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Services, mapping
scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to
construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic ( SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the
original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county
natural resource planning and management.
TC3153396.2s Page A -19

Agency Letters
and Responses

KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
August 23, 2011
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783 -9214 (919) 783 -9266 Fax
Ms. Renee Gledhill - Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4617
Subject: Cultural Resources Review
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
KCI Job# 20110675
Dear Mrs. Gledhill - Earley:
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential wetland and stream
restoration project on the above referenced site. The subject site, known as the Jacob's Landing stream restoration
site, is located west of China Grove, NC in southwestern Rowan County (Figure 1). Specifically, the site is
approximately 0.3 miles south and west of the intersection of State Highway 123 and Deal Road. It is situated
within the 03040105 (Rocky River) Watershed Cataloging Unit and the 03040105020040 Local Watershed Unit
(Figure 2). Land use in the watershed is primarily agricultural or forest land (Figure 3). Please accept the attached
information as a submittal for cultural resources review by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Office of
State Archaeology.
The planned stream restoration work aims to restore and protect the headwater tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek by
repairing isolated sections of bed degradation and bank erosion, restoring unstable reaches that have been
straightened or severely degraded by cattle, performing minor grading activities and stabilizing the site with native
vegetation. In addition, fencing will be installed to exclude cattle from the completed project. There will not be
any impacts to existing structures (buildings, barns, etc.) on the subject property. No architectural structures or
archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes.
In addition, the majority of the site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural purposes such as logging,
tilling, cattle grazing, ditching and draining.
Please feel free to contact me at 919 - 278 -2511, should you have any questions or require any further information
concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Morris
Senior Environmental Scientist
Ecosystem Dynamics Practice
KCI TECHNOLOGIES
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

SMT,, a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Birtos, Administrator
Beverly Flaws Perduc, Governor
Linda A. Carlisl(!, Sceretarp
.1 cffrcy J. CCOW, I)cpug' Secretary
September 23, 2011
Timothy Morris
KCI Technologies
4601 Six forks Road
Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
Office ofArchives an6 I liaory
Division of I listorical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration, KCI 20110675, Rowan County, EAR 11 -1676
Dean: Mr. Morris:
'T'hank you for your letter of August 23, 2011, 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. There£ ore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR.
Part 800.
'T'hank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill - Talley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 -807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above- referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
knv,Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 1Ut1 Fast Joncs Street, Raleigh IBC 27601 MailingAddrese_ 4617 Mad ServicC Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 'Telephone /Pax: (979) 807 -6570 /807 -6599

KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
August 11, 2011
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783 -9214 (919) 783 -9266 Fax
Mr. Oscho Roy Deal and Mrs. Martha Myers Deal
350 Saw Road
China Grove, NC 28023
Subject: Notification of Uniform Act Provisions
KCI Job Number — 20110669
Jacob's Landing Side (West of Saw Road)
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Deal:
As part of the environmental documentation process in preparation for the stream restoration project on your
property, this letter is to inform you of provisions in the Federal Highway Administration Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, referred to as the Uniform Act.
The Uniform Act was developed to 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 establishes
uniform and equitable land acquisition policies. The Act assures that such persons are treated fairly, consistently,
and equitably, and so that they will not suffer disproportionate injuries.
This act applies to any project which utilizes federal funds for the purchase of any interest in real property, including
conservation easements. A portion of the funding for this project is ultimately provided by the US Department of
Transportation, through the NC Department of Transportation for in -kind mitigation to offset impacts from
transportation projects in the area, and therefore we are required to inform you of the following provisions.
The provisions of this act require that we inform you in writing that this conservation easement transaction is
voluntary and that the project is being developed by KCI for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
( NCEEP), and as a result, KCI or NCEEP does not have the authority to acquire the property by eminent domain in
the event negotiations fail to reach an amicable agreement. In addition, the Act requires that we indicate the agreed
purchase price of $15,000 per acre.
This letter is for your information, and no response is necessary. Please feel free to contact me at 919 - 278 -2511,
should you have any questions or require any further information.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Morris
Senior Environmental Scientist
Ecosystem Dynamics Practice
KCI TECHNOLOGIES www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
August 12, 2011
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783 -9214 (919) 783 -9266 Fax
Marella Buncick,
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
KCI Job 4 20110675
Dear Ms. Buncick:
Please accept this information pertaining to the proposed Jacob's Landing stream restoration site for
natural area and rare species review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The subject site is located west
of China Grove, NC in southwestern Rowan County (Figure 1). Specifically, the site is approximately
1.3 miles south of the intersection of State Highway 123 and Deal Road. It is situated within the
03040105 (Rocky River) Watershed Cataloging Unit and the 03040105020040 Local Watershed Unit
(Figure 2). Land use in the watershed is primarily agricultural or forest land with some residential and
commercial development (Figure 3).
A portion of this property (Figure 4) is currently under investigation for a stream restoration project for
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The vegetation at this site is primarily pastureland
with small areas of both wetland and upland forest occurring within and adjacent to the project area.
Small portions of the parcel are situated within the floodplain of Irish Buffalo Creek. The planned
restoration work aims to restore and protect the headwater tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek by repairing
isolated sections of bed degradation and bank erosion, restoring unstable reaches that have been
straightened or severely degraded by cattle, performing minor grading activities and stabilizing the site
with native vegetation. In addition, fencing will be installed to exclude cattle from the completed project.
We have already obtained an updated species list for Rowan County from your web site. The threatened
or endangered species for this county are included in Attachment 1. We are requesting that you please
provide any known information for each species in the county. The USFWS will be contacted if
additional studies find suitable habitat for any listed species or if we determine that the project may affect
one or more federally listed species or designated critical habitat. Please provide comments on any
possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds or other trust
resources from the construction of a stream restoration project on the subject property.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list is correct, 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.
KCI TECHNOLOGIES
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
My phone number is 919 - 278 -2511 and my email address is tim.morriskkci.com
Sincerely,
�: 7 �- -, �- '�;' / J- -Z -/,, �
Timothy J. Morris
Project Manager
Enclosures
KC1 TECHNOLOGIES
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

Attachment I
Endangered Species Review for Jacob's Landing Stream Mitigation Site
Rowan County, North Carolina
A review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) listing of federally
endangered species, threatened species, species of concern and candidate species revealed
one endangered and five federal species of concern in Rowan County (Table 1).
Table 1. Species in Rowan County, North Carolina listed under the federal Endangered
Species Act.
Major
Common
Federal Status/
Taxonomic
Scientific Name
Name
Record Status
Group
Vascular Plant
Helianthus
Schweinitz's
Endangered /Current
schweinitzii
sunflower
Vascular Plant
Isoetes virginica
Virginia
FSC/Histori c
quillwort
Lotus
Prairie
Vascular Plant
unifoliolatus var.
birdsfoot- trefoil
FSC* /Current
helleri
Vascular Plant
Sym hum
ium
Georgia Aster
C /Current
gergia
orgi.a n
Invertebrate
Lampsilis
Yellow
FSC /Current
Carl osa
Lampmussel
Vertebrate
Etheostoma
Carolina Darter
FSC/Probable
Collis Collis
Vertebrate
Haliaeetus
Bald Eagle
BGPA/Current
leucocephalus
Vertebrate
Moxostoma
Robust
FSC/Histori c
robustum
Redhorse
*Federal Species of Concern
Species and Habitat Description (Endangered Species)
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont physiographic province of North
Carolina and South Carolina. The species is currently known from Anson, Cabarrus,
Davidson, Gaston, Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Randolph, Rowan, Stanly, Stokes, Surry
and Union counties in North Carolina and York and Lancaster counties in South
Carolina. It is believed that this species formerly occupied prairie like habitats or Post

Oak - Blackjack Oak savannas that were maintained by fire. Current habitats include
roadsides, power line clearings, old pastures, woodland openings and other sunny or
semi -sunny situations. Schweinitz's sunflower is known from a variety of soil types but
is generally found growing on shallow, poor, clayey and /or rocky soils, especially those
derived from mafic rocks. In the few sites where Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in
relatively natural vegetation, the natural community is considered a Xeric Hardpan Forest
(Schafale and Weakley 1990).
(Source: http:// www. fws .gov /nc- es /plant/schwsun.html)
Potential Habitat at the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Current habitats include roadsides, power line clearings, old pastures, woodland openings
and other sunny or semi -sunny situations. The project area is currently an active cattle
pasture subject to continuous grazing and cattle traffic. The species has not been
documented in the area, nor has there been Critical Habitat designated for the species.
The post construction condition of the site may create appropriate habitat for
Schweinitz's sunflower, however due to the grazing impacts and active disturbance of the
existing land use, the habitat for this endangered species is currently lacking.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.

Reference:
NCDENR, Wildlife Resources Commission. 2006. Carolina Wildlife Profiles.
httD: / /www.ncwildlife.orv/fs index 07 conservation.htm
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. North Carolina's Threatened and
Endangered Species. http: / /www.fws.gov /southeast/es /county %201ists.htm.

NO AGENCY RESPONSE RECEIVED

KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
August 12, 2011
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783 -9214 (919) 783 -9266 Fax
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Program Head
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27529
Subject: Natural Heritage Review
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Project
KCI Project Number: 20110675
Dear Ms. Pearsall:
Please accept this information pertaining to the proposed Jacob's Landing stream restoration site for natural area and
rare species review by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. The subject site is located west of China
Grove, NC in southwestern Rowan County (Figure 1). Specifically, the site is approximately 0.3 miles south and
west of the intersection of State Highway 123 and Deal Road. It is situated within the 03040105 (Rocky River)
Watershed Cataloging Unit and the 03040105020040 Local Watershed Unit (Figure 2). Land use in the watershed
is primarily agricultural or forest land (Figure 3).
A portion of this property (Figure 4) is currently under investigation for a stream restoration project for the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The vegetation at this site is primarily pastureland with small areas of
both wetland and upland forest occurring within and adjacent to the project area. Small portions of the parcel are
situated within the floodplain of Irish Buffalo Creek. The planned restoration work aims to restore and protect the
headwater tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek by repairing isolated sections of bed degradation and bank erosion,
restoring unstable reaches that have been straightened or severely degraded by cattle and stabilizing the site with
native vegetation. In addition, fencing will be installed to exclude cattle from the completed project.
Following the review of the included documentation, please provide a determination of the potential effects to
endangered species, wildlife, or migratory birds associated with this project.
Please feel free to contact me at (919) 278 -2511, should you have any questions or require any further information
to process this request. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Morris
Senior Environmental Scientist
Ecosystem Dynamics Practice
Attachments
KCI TECHNOLOGIES
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

4 7*r�)Av
A!C&D R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Conservation, Planning, & Community Affairs
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Linda Pearsall, Director
August 17, 2011
Mr. Timothy J. Morris
KCI "Technologies
Landmark Center I1, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Subject: Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Project, Rowan County
KCI Project Number: 20110675
Dear Mr. Morris:
Dee Freeman, Secretary
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservation /managed areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area.
Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the pro 'iect area, it does not
necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The
use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys,.particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural con munities, or priority natural
areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.ncnhp.org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map. Our
Program also has a new website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and
significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a given location:
<http: / /nhpweb.enr. state. nc. us / public /virtual_workroom.phtmi >. 'The user name is "guest" and the
password is your e -mail address (see instructions on log -in screen). You may want to click "help" for
more information.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919 -715 -8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry L. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 715 -41951 FAX: [phone] Internet: www.oneNCNaturally.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarohna
,,/ atumlly
Natural Resources Planning and Conservnhan

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 8/9/11
Name Of Project Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Project
Federal Agency Involved US DOT /FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream Restoration
County And State Rowan County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By NRCS 8/10/11
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). © ❑
Acres Irrigated
None
Average Farm Size
121
Major Crop(s)
Corn
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 286,887 % 85.7
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 173,687 %51.9
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Rowan CALES
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
8/24/11
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
19.5
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
19.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
7.9
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
0.5
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0048
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
85.7
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
46
0
0
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
15
15
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
10
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
20
20
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
15
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
15
10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
10
10
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
10
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
5
5
10. On -Farm Investments
20
20
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
10
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
10
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
125
0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
46
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
125
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260
171
0
0
0
Site Selected: Site A
Date Of Selection 8/24/11
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ■ No 13
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (10 -83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff •

Tim Morris
From: Tim Morris
Sent: Monday, August 22, 20119:48 AM
To: 'May, Kristin - Salisbury, NC'
Subject: RE: Farmland Conversion Rating Form - Jordan Property, Cabarrus County NC
Attachments: Jacobs_Ladder_soils.pdf; Jacobs_Landing_soils.pdf
Kristin — Here are the maps you requested. Sorry for the delay.
From: May, Kristin - Salisbury, NC [ mailto:kristin.may @nc.usda.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 20118:44 AM
To: Tim Morris
Subject: RE: Farmland Conversion Rating Form - Jordan Property, Cabarrus County NC
Hi Tim-
I am finally getting a chance to look at these this morning, Would it be possible to get a soils map of the project
boundary of the shapefile for the buffered stream boundaries? Which is ever more convenient for you. The rating is
based on the soil type and acreage being affected.
Once I get the maps I can finish up the rating form and get them back to you.
Thanks
Kristin
Kristin May
Resource Soil Scientist
USDA - NRCS
(704) 537 -2400 x 104
From: Tim Morris [ma ilto:Tim.Morris kci.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 20113:33 PM
To: May, Kristin - Salisbury, NC
Subject: RE: Farmland Conversion Rating Form - Jordan Property, Cabarrus County NC
Kristin,
Attached are the Farmland Conversion Rating forms for two stream restoration projects in Rowan County. I have also
attached some additional information to the form for your use. The projects are on two separate parcels owned by the
same landowner. The landowner is:
Mr. Oscho Deal
350 Saw Road
China Grove, NC 28023
1

If you need additional information, please feel free to email or call (919) 278 -2511.
Thanks,
Timothy J. Morris
KCl Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Office Phone — 919 -278 -2511
Mobile Phone — 919- 793 -6886
Fax — 919- 783 -9266
tim.morris @kci.com
www.kci.com
From: May, Kristin - Salisbury, NC [ailtg kristin may a nc,usda. ov
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 20112:05 PM
To: Tim Morris
Subject: RE: Farmland Conversion Rating Form - Jordan Property, Cabarrus County NC
Hi Tim-
Larry asked if I could coordinate with you to get your Farmland Rating Form completed. If you can send your
information to me I would appreciate it. My contact information is below.
Thanks
Kristin
Kristin May
Resource Soil Scientist
USDA - NRCS
530 W In nes Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704) 637 -2400 x 104
Kristin. May@n..usda.gov
From: Hendrix, Larry - Salisbury, NC
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:15 PM
To: May, Kristin - Salisbury, NC
Cc, Tim.Morris a kci com
Subject: FW: Farmland Conversion Rating Form - Jordan Property, Cabarrus County NC
Hey,
Can you email Mr. Morris and let him correspond directly with you regarding the reports he needs.
Thanks
2

1 1 PcC2
PcC2
Pa D
PcB2
Px D
PcB2
r
Pa
} ;.
PcC2
PcC2
1 crossing within
0' exception 1 ,
Y
`%
PaD
16' crossing within" 0\16' cr sing ithin
CeB2 50' exce tion 50' xception
PcB?
PcC2
PcC2
W
SaB
ScB2
S C
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site - NRCS Soils
Approximate Project Boundary (15.4 acres) J Project Parcels
0 NRCS Soils Project Streams
Project Sods — Other Streams
- Chewacla loam, 0-2% slopes (ChA) - 7.9 ac 1:4,800
1 inch = 400 feet N
KC 11 - Pacolet sandy loam, 15- 25% slopes (PaD) -7.0ac 400 200 0 400 knnnoaa�uwtecnao�oc�s
.wn Ccx+smucrgN.lrvc
- Pacolet sandy clam loam, 8-15% slopes (PcC2) - 0.5 ac Feet
Image Source: Rowan CountyOrthoimagery, 2009

KCI
TECHNOLOGIES
August 1, 2011
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783 -9214 (919) 783 -9266 Fax
Ms. Shannon Deaton
Habitat Conservation Program Manager
NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Subject: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
KCI Project Number - 20110675
Dear Ms. Deaton:
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission with
respect to potential fish and wildlife impacts associated with the above referenced project. The subject site, known
as the Jacob's Landing stream restoration site, is located west of China Grove, NC in southwestern Rowan County
(Figure 1). Specifically, the site is approximately 0.3 miles south and west of the intersection of State Highway 123
and Deal Road. It is situated within the 03040105 (Rocky River) Watershed Cataloging Unit and the
03040105020040 Local Watershed Unit (Figure 2). Land use in the watershed is primarily agricultural or forest
land (Figure 3).
A portion of the site (Figure 4) is currently under investigation as a stream restoration project for the North Carolina
Ecosystems Enhancement Program. The funding for this project comes from the USDOT Federal Highway
Administration through the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Land use at this site is primarily
pastureland and timber production. Significant portions of the parcel are situated within the floodplain of Irish
Buffalo Creek. The planned restoration work aims to restore and protect the headwater tributaries to Irish Buffalo
Creek by repairing isolated sections of bed degradation and bank erosion, restoring unstable reaches that have been
straightened or severely degraded by cattle, performing minor grading activities and stabilizing the site with native
vegetation. In addition, fencing will be installed to exclude cattle from the completed project. There will not be any
impacts to existing structures (buildings, barns, etc.) on the subject property. As part of the environmental
documentation process (Categorical Exclusion), coordination with the NCWRC and the USFWS is required for
compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Following the review of the included documentation, please provide any comments that you may have regarding this
project. 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.
Please feel free to contact me at tim.morris @kci.com, or 919 - 278 -2511, should you have any questions or require
any further information concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Thank you in advance
for your assistance.
KCI TECHNOLOGIES www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

Sincerely,
Timothy J. Morris
Senior Environmental Scientist
Ecosystem Dynamics Practice
KCI TECHNOLOGIES
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

North Carolina Wildlife resources Commiss'On
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
September 30, 2011
Mr. Timothy J. Morris
KCI Technologies
4601 Six forks Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
RE: Request for Information and Comments, Jacobs Landing Stream Site Restoration, Rowan County
Dear Mr. Morris:
This correspondence is in response to your communication of August 1, 2011. Biologists with the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) are familiar with habitat values in the area. The
NCWRC is authorized to comment and make recommendations which relate to the impacts of this project
on fish and wildlife pursuant to Clean Water Act of 1977, North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, US
National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act (16 U. S. C. 1531 -1543; 87 Stat 884), and
the Dish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 -667d) as applicable.
Your request is wide ranging. Specific restoration activities proposed for this site are not indicated in your
correspondence. Based on our in office review, there are no listed species, national wildlife refuges,
migratory pathways, anadromous fisheries, critical spawning areas or tidal areas present near the site.
Please be advised that we recommend you meet or exceed practices needed to meet state -of-the -art
natural channel design methodologies and techniques, including the use of native plant species. Stream
restoration work using public funds should include permanently restored riparian buffers and conservation
easements. Livestock exclusion should be provided as well as necessary long -term care and maintenance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this site. If you have any questions about these comments,
please contact me at 336- 769 -9453.
Sincerely,
Ron Linville
Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1ry721 Mail Service (C�entte+� (�(Ralleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone. (919) 101"0220 - Fax: [phone]

ierly Rd
� a
153 A
�a 3
a
c
c 150
0 y
G N�
m
;MILLER ER AIR PARK Bradshaw Rd
eF°���a
�a I.eQZer /
r
0
m
DAVIE
IREDELL DAVIDSON
ROWAN
CABARRUS STANLY
NI
BRADLEY OUTERNAI
d � r
V I
m o ti
N 3 J
A
1 °- � r. A
1
Wo 153
Deal Rd �a y
ENO HC VILLE
�Ra
�a
IGHT'
ff
N
ANAPOL
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
1W :E� — Major Roads
lllllllp Project Site Location
Other Roads
Major Rivers and Streams N
1 Cities and Towns 1:96,000
KCI � 1 inch = 8,000 feet
Airports within 5 miles 8,000 4,000 0 8,000
Feet

Sf
, f.�
JP
111 i n�r�f Ilia 4' �U�
jJy i l l}l
•1% ! C r' 7J r rl ILI ti
Fit
or
kR`ly�'i' /r��
.y L� ti f �} •f i � L � 'L
y l r�l Q• y mfg \ r���,�ti �, [ i5` RBI ��k. 14...f - +
/
All
4y�.
�k
k .)�=
Figure 2. Project Watershed
or mmw-&�
` Project Watershed (459 acres) "
1:18,000
Proposed Project Boundary 1 inch = 1,500 feet
KCT 1,500 750 0 1,500
it Feet
Source: USGS DRG, Enochville (1970)

CORRIHER SPRINGS RD
GA O
CO
U
J�
U
O
O
U Q
OZ C7
U Z
4
Y
W NC 152 HWY
O�
NC
s3 h'
wy
GARE1" CT
s
beG o
0
0 0
C, �0 2
D
0
Figure 3. Project Watershed Land Use
Cultivated (4.8 %) — Major Rivers and Streams
Managed Herbaceous Cover (60.1 %) Roads
Mixed Upland Hardwoods (35.1 %) 1:18,000
Water Bodies 1 inch = 1,500 feet —�
500 750 0 N 1500 i
1,,+�i NMF N W IFC -1
0� 111
Q Project Watershed (459 acres) ... ws w . N N
JKC .
III= Feet
Proposed Project Boundary Source: NCCGIA Land Cover, 1996.

2 M.'
v r-V
y.
T1 Wooden Fence T2
T1A Across Stream
b Blown -out �t _ " - - - _ , ,� A�, m•i „!`,;. -:S
ulvert
Culverted
Crossing -
Cult' }y t;.. Seep x .
c /Seep
Seep
Wooden Fence Tire Fence
Across Stream Across Channel
+ Wooden fen Severe
across stream Cattle Impact T2A
t
y Culverted
Culvert ed Crossing
Crossing �r
A
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
`. Approximate Project Boundary (19.5 acres)
Project Parcels
Existing Project Streams 1:5,400
1 inch = 450 feet
KCI Other Streams 450 225 0 450
Feet �
Image Source: Rowan County Orthoimagery, 2009

Affidavit of Public Notice

-T,a 601 ?f L /3/VV1 — -201166 -15"
Salisbury Post
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
LANDMARK CENTER II, SUITE 220
4601 SIX FORKS RD.
RALEIGH NC 27609
NORTH CAROLINA
ROWAN COUNTY
Before the undersigned a Notary Public of said County and State, duly
commisioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
appeared WINFRED MENTION, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says
that he is ASSISTANT ADVERTISING DIRECTOR of the SALISBURY POST,
published, issued and entered as second class mail in the City of Salisbury, in
said County and State, that he is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn
statement,that the notice or other legal advertisement a true copy of which is
attached hereto, was published in the SALISBURY POST , on the
following dates:
08/12/2011
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper documnet or legal
advertisement was published, at the time of each and every such publication,
a newspaper meeting all the requirements and qualifications of Section 1 -597
of the General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within
the meaning of Section 1 -597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
NO, 61735 NOTICE OF OPPOR
$69.44
Sworn and subscribed before me
This 18th day of August, 2011
"J/
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commision ExpiresO /

POST PUBLISHING COMPANY
AD INSERTION ORDER
Salesperson: Legal,s Printed at 08/18/11 09:35 by $LOGIN
Acct #: 140055
Ad##: 258633
Status: E
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA,
PStart: 08/12/11
Stop: 08/12/11
LANDMARK CENTER 11, SUITE 220
Tames Ord: 1
Times Run: 1
4601 SIX FORKS RD.
LEG 3.00 X
1.98 Words: 167
RALEIGH NC 27609
Rate: LEG
Class: 0510 LEGAL
NOTICES
Contact: TIMOTHY MORRIS
Descript: NO. 61735
NOTICE OF OPPOR
Phone: [phone]
Given by: *
Fax #: [phone]
Created: smoor
08/11/11 09:00
Email: Tim.Morris @kci.com
Last Changed: smoor
08/11/11 11:47
Agency:
--- --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 61735
Section:
Page:
Not Camera Ready
Group:
AdTyp:
Misc:
Color:
Proof:_
Pickup Date:
Changes: None Copy Art
_ Size _ Coupon:
_
Special Instr:*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUB ZONE ED TP START INS STOP
SMTWTFS
SP A 95 S 08/12
INT A 95 S 08/12
No. 61735
Notice of Opportunity for an Informational Public Meeting regarding the pur-
chase of easement rights in Rowan County for a stream restoration project:
KCI Technologies, Inc, proposes to purchase conservation easement rights on ap-
proximately 20 acres of existing farmland in Rowan County, NC. The properly is
located to the west of Saw Road and drains to Irish Buffalo Creek. The purpose of
acquiring the easement rights is to provide mitigation for impacts to streams that
have, or will, result from existing or future development in this area.
Anyone desiring that an informational public meeting be held for this proposed ac-
tion may make a request by registered letter to KCI Technologies, Inc, at 4601 Six
Forks Road, Suite 220, Raleigh NC 27609. Requests must be postmarked by
September 12, 2011. If additional information is required, please contact Tim Mor-
ris at 919-278-2511.
The project is being completed for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP). EEP reserves the right to determine if a public meeting will be
held.

Attachment 2
Mitigation Plan Approval Letter from ACOE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF 7 September, 2012
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Jacobs Landing Mitigation Plan (SAW 2012 - 01006)
Ms. Suzanne Klimek
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Ms. Klimek:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team ( NCIRT)
during the 30 -day comment period for the Jacobs Landing Mitigation Plan, which closed on 23 August,
2012. 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. However, the minor issues with the Draft discussed in the
attached comments 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 and a summation of the
comments addressed. 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.

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 us at
919 - 846 -2564.
Sincerely,
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW- RG/McLendon
CESAW- RG- A/Kichefski
Michael McDonald, NCEEP
Deborah Daniel, NCEEP

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW- RG /Crumbley August 24, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
Purpose: The comments listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal
during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(8) of the 2008 Mitigation
Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Jacobs Landing Stream Mitigation Site (EEP -IMS# 95024)
USACE AID #: SAW 2012 -01006
30 -Day Comment Deadline: August 23, 2012
1. 8/22/2012- N.C. Division of Water Quality; Eric Kulz: This project consists of a significant
amount of Priority 2 Restoration. Our mitigation study revealed a lot of problems with
P2 sites in the Piedmont, specifically related to vegetation survival and growth. The
Provider needs to provide more details on topsoil management and addressing
potential compaction and fertility /organic matter issues. 2) The plan shows a number of
drainage ditches entering the easement from pasture areas. The plan proposes to
stabilize with riprap and discharge directly to the stream. These discharges may include
cattle waste and have the potential to compromise water quality and reduce the
potential for the project to provide uplift. Routing of this runoff to floodplain wetland
pools for retention /infiltration should be considered, as NCEEP has been using these on
projects for a number of years.
2. 8/22/2012- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Jeffrey Garnett: I agree with both
points made by Eric Kulz. With the amount of excavation involved with Priority 2
restoration, the Provider should present a soil management plan. This should primarily
include the stockpiling of topsoil and redistribution of it on top of other fill. The mixing
of soil layers could prove detrimental to vegetative success. Additionally, the plan calls
for at least four reconstructed culverted crossings. I request that the Provider submit
detailed plans of culvert installations that adequately ensure that passage for aquatic
life is achievable. Finally, one of the goals of the project is to "reduce the sediment
supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek." Monitoring channel forms over the first five years
of the bank only serves as a surrogate that sediment loads are decreasing. The

assumption is being made that improving the channel will reduce sediment loads, but
no quantifiable way to test this is being presented. The Provider should develop a
quantifiable plan to directly measure success of the project goal. For example, simple
turbidity measurements could be taken on a regular basis (during base flows and bank
full events) both upstream and downstream of the site. These measurements should be
taken before restoration, during restoration, and for a minimum of five years post -
restoration in order to document achievement of the goal.
3. 8/23/2012 -U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Tyler Crumbley and Todd Tugwell:
a. Please ensure that the performance standards for channel dimension [(as described
in Sections 9 and 10 of the document (pgs. 34 -37)], are in accordance with the 2003
Stream Mitigation Guidelines (1 cross - section per 20 bankfull width lengths) and that
the performance standard for Bed Materials is instituted to show a change to a pre-
determined desired composition, rather than purely an evaluation of sediment
transport.
b. Where possible, easement crossings should be made at a perpendicular angle.
Exception 1 on easement B could be modified to reduce loss of the buffer.
Additionally, it appears that the dirt path crosses through the conservation
easement (Sheet 1 of 1, Final Plat).

Attachment 3
Mitigation Plan Response Letter from KCI

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLINA, PA
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 783 -9214 (919) 783 -9266 Fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 28, 2012 — Modified September 27, 2012
To: Deborah Daniel, EEP Western Region Project Manager
From: Tim Morris, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PA
Subject: Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Mitigation Plan Review
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin CU 03040105
Rowan County, North Carolina
Contract No. 4DO03984
EEP IMS 495024
Please find below our responses in italics to the Mitigation Plan comments from the Interagency Review
Team (IRT) received on August 22 -24, 2012, for the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site.
Jacobs's Landing Stream Restoration Site — Draft Mitigation Plan Review
Comments:
N.C. Division of Water Quality: (Eric Kulz) - This project consists of a significant amount of
Priority 2 Restoration. Our mitigation study revealed a lot of problems with P2 sites in the
Piedmont, specifically related to vegetation survival and growth. The Provider needs to provide
more details on topsoil management and addressing potential compaction and fertility /organic
matter issues. 2) The plan shows a number of drainage ditches entering the easement from pasture
areas. The plan proposes to stabilize with riprap and discharge directly to the stream. These
discharges may include cattle waste and have the potential to compromise water quality and
reduce the potential for the project to provide uplift. Routing of this runoff to floodplain wetland
pools for retention /infiltration should be considered, as NCEEP has been using these on projects
for a number of years.
➢ KCI recognizes the concerns associated with vegetation growth and the proposed areas
of Priority 2 restoration. Furthermore, due to cattle impacts, much of the pre - existing
topsoil has been lost from the site. Organic soil import is anticipated for significant
portions of the property. The farm is currently participating in a biosolids program.
They receive the bulk of their Class A residuals from the Salisbury WWTP. We have
spoken to Eric Helms who manages the biosolids program regarding the potential to use
biosolids on the property. As a result of those discussions we have also contacted Ellen
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

Huffman and John Risguard of DWQ. The Class A biosolids will be able to be used but
only on area outside of 25' from the stream channel. We intend to use this product on
many areas of unstable slope that contribute sediment to the stream. You can see many
of these areas on aerial photos of the property. As for the areas within 25' of the stream
channel that do not have adequate topsoil, KCI will import lime stabilized composted
topsoil to the site and mix it with existing subsoils. KCI is a distributor of a product
known as Nature's GREEN- RELEAP rm. We have used this product on several of our
stream and wetland restoration projects with great success. This material will be
stockpiled on site and mixed with inorganic soil to ensure appropriate growing media for
planted stems and seed mixes. Text changes to the mitigation plan were incorporated in
"Section 7.2- Design Parameters" on Page 27. Notes were also added to Sheet 22 of the
mitigation plan sheets (Appendix D).
➢ A detail for floodplain pools called Water Quality Treatment Area has been included in
the plans. We have used these in past projects and we have evaluated the use of them at
this site. One is currently planned for installation near Station 17 +00. We will evaluate
the other discharge points to determine if they are also suitable for installation of a
floodplain pool. This site does not lend itself to the widespread use of these because of
the adjacent steep slopes. Where it is feasible, we will include any new floodplain pools
in the final design plans. Text changes to the mitigation plan were incorporated in
"Section 7.2- Design Parameters" on Pages 26 -27. The new detail was added to Sheet 4
of the mitigation plan sheets (Appendix D). Four additional locations were identified
for creation of water quality features/floodplain pools. These locations are identified
on Sheet 6 (one location), Sheet 8 (two locations) and Sheet 10 (one location).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Jeffrey Garnett) - I agree with both points made by Eric
Kulz. With the amount of excavation involved with Priority 2 restoration, the Provider should
present a soil management plan. This should primarily include the stockpiling of topsoil and
redistribution of it on top of other fill. The mixing of soil layers could prove detrimental to
vegetative success. Additionally, the plan calls for at least four reconstructed culverted crossings.
I request that the Provider submit detailed plans of culvert installations that adequately ensure that
passage for aquatic life is achievable. Finally, one of the goals of the project is to "reduce the
sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek." Monitoring channel forms over the first five years
of the bank only serves as a surrogate that sediment loads are decreasing. The assumption is being
made that improving the channel will reduce sediment loads, but no quantifiable way to test this
is being presented. The Provider should develop a quantifiable plan to directly measure success of
the project goal. For example, simple turbidity measurements could be taken on a regular basis
(during base flows and bank full events) both upstream and downstream of the site. These
measurements should be taken before restoration, during restoration, and for a minimum of five
years post- restoration in order to document achievement of the goal.
➢ The soil management plan will be a component of the final construction plans and
specifications using the process outlined in the response to comment #1. Text changes
to the mitigation plan were incorporated in "Section 7.2- Design Parameters" on Page
26 -27. Notes were also added to Sheet 22 of the mitigation plan sheets (Appendix D).
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

➢ Culverts will be depressed a minimum of 12" below the channel bottom to ensure aquatic
organism passage. Culvert design is ongoing. A detail depicting this approach has
been included on Sheet 4 of the mitigation plan.
➢ Currently the type of monitoring you are requesting (grab turbidity samples) is not a
requirement of our Contractor any regulatory guidance cited within our contract. While
we agree that the monitored cross - sections and the channel assessment that will be
conducted on a yearly basis are only surrogates for a more detailed sediment study, the
result of these monitoring activities will illustrate whether or not there are changes
within the channel that could be causing excessive sediment to enter the stream. These
methods of monitoring follow the standard monitoring protocol for these types of
restoration projects. Furthermore we do not agree that simple grab samples during
storms and baseflow could generate statistically valid conclusions without more a more
detailed scientific study that would accommodate rainfall timing and intensity. While we
agree that this type of study is needed, it is currently not required or funded by the
Owner. We feel that by following the monitoring plan as proposed we can examine the
unvegetated and eroding banks of the current channel and the vegetated and noneroding
banks of the restored channel and make a determination based on a comparison between
the two that there is less sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek.
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Tyler Crumbley) - Please ensure that the performance standards
for channel dimension [(as described in Sections 9 and 10 of the document (pgs. 34 -37)], are in
accordance with the 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines (1 cross - section per 20 bankfull width
lengths) and that the performance standard for Bed Materials is instituted to show a change to a
pre - determined desired composition, rather than purely an evaluation of sediment transport.
➢ Currently the mitigation plan calls for 10 cross - sections. This will be adjusted to align
with the EEP Baseline Monitoring Report Template and Guidance Tier. 2.0 1 011 41201 0,
which was a part of the RFP for this full delivery project. This will be changed to 11
cross - sections to align with this guidance eve cross- sections on T1, six cross- sections on
T2, and visual monitoring for TIA and T2A.) We feel this distribution will adequately
represent the stream and capture the variability throughout the project. Page 36 of the
Mitigation Plan was modified to adjust the number of cross sections from 10 to 11.
➢ Due to the headwater nature of these channels, even though the channel is considered a
gravel channel, these are small gravels and pure gravel riffles should not be expected. It
is expected that the riffles will have coarser material in them than the pools. The pebble
counts will be evaluated based on this anticipated outcome. A strict distribution outcome
would not account for the variability found in this type of channel. It is also our
understanding that, while it does not apply to this project, the latest monitoring
requirements released by the NCIRT for EEP projects issued on November 7, 2011 does
not include pebble counts. That leads us to believe that this data has not been found to be
useful for evaluating stream restoration success in the past, except as a general
descriptive tool.
KCl ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

Where possible, easement crossings should be made at a perpendicular angle. Exception 1 on
easement B could be modified to reduce loss of the buffer. Additionally, it appears that the dirt
path crosses through the conservation easement (Sheet 1 of 1, Final Plat).
➢ The easement exception is a SO' exception. Within that SO' exception a 16' culvert
crossing will be installed. The crossing will be installed perpendicular to the channel as
desired. The dirt path shown on the CE plat will no longer be in use and will be
realigned to conform to the boundaries of the easement exception.
KC1 ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kci.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

Attachment 4
Final Mitigation Plan

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Rowan County, North Carolina
EEP Contract 003984
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
Prepared for:
'Isr-
Efinancement
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
September 2012

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Rowan County, North Carolina
EEP Contract 003984
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040105
Prepared for:
En a °me nt
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
mri
mmmmra�
KC1
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Mr
W411�
mmmro�
�s
ENVIRONMENTALTE
K C I AND CONSTRICTION, INC.
TECHNOLOGIES
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PA
4601 Six Forks Rd, Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 783 -9214
September 2012

Final Mitigation Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
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).
• NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
These documents govern NCEEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
The Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site is a full - delivery mitigation project being developed for the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The site offers the opportunity to restore and
enhance a series of headwater tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek. This project will return these tributaries
to a stable stream ecosystem, lower the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek, and reduce
incoming nutrients from livestock. This project also looks to expand aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the
Rocky River Watershed (03040105). The project is located in the Irish Buffalo Creek Drainage
(03040105020040), which the EEP has identified as a Targeted Local Watershed.
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
- Restore a diverse riparian corridor that connects forested stream systems upstream and
downstream of the project.
- Reduce the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek.
The project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
- Restore stable channel planforms to streams that have been straightened and modified.
- Reshape and stabilize eroding stream banks.
- Plant the site with native trees to help reestablish a diverse riparian corridor.
- Install exclusion fencing and alternative watering options to keep livestock out of the project
streams.
The majority of the site is currently used for pasture. Past anthropogenic modifications have involved
logging, grazing, and channelization. Four separate streams make up the site: Tributary 1 (T1) begins in
the northwestern project corner, Tributary IA (T1A) flows south to join T1; Tributary 2 (T2) comes onto
the site from the northeastern corner; and Tributary 2A (T2A) originates on the property from seep flow
to then join T2. T1 and T2 come together just south of the project boundary before joining another
tributary to form Irish Buffalo Creek.
The mitigation approach for the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site will focus on repairing isolated
sections of bed degradation and bank erosion, and restoring the unstable reaches that have been
straightened or severely degraded by cattle. Once site grading is complete, the stream buffers will be
planted as Piedmont Alluvial Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The site will be monitored for five
years or until the success criteria are met.

Final Mitigation Plan
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Table 1. Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site - Mitigation Summary
Reach
Mitigation Type
Priority
Approach
Existing Linear
Footage
Designed
Linear
Footage
Mitigation
Units
T1 -1
Restoration
P2
326
303
303
T1 -2
Enhancement II
158
109*
44
T1 -3
Restoration
P2
846
893
893
T1A
Restoration
P2
294
178
178
T2 -1
Restoration
P2
1,800
1,581*
1,581
T2 -2
Restoration
P2
1,135
1,060*
1,060
T2A
Enhancement
465
465
310
Total Stream Enhancement I
465
465
310
Total Stream Enhancement II
158
109
44
JIL Total Stream Restoration
4,401
4,015
4,015
Total Mitigation Units
4,369
*Mitigation units have been calculated to exclude the easement exceptions and water utility easements.

Final Mitigation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
1.0
RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................. ..............................1
2.0
SITE SELECTION ..................................................................................... ..............................1
2.1
Directions ...................................................................................................... ..............................1
2.2
Site Selection ................................................................................................ ..............................1
2.3
Vicinity Map ................................................................................................. ..............................3
2.4
Watershed Map ............................................................................................ ...............................
4
2.5
Soil Survey .................................................................................................. ...............................
5
2.6
Current Condition Plan View ...................................................................... ...............................
6
2.7
Historical Condition Plan View ................................................................... ...............................
7
2.8
Site Photographs .......................................................................................... ...............................
9
3.0
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT .................................................... .............................13
3.1
Site Protection Instrument Summary Information ..................................... ...............................
13
3.2
Site Protection Instrument Figure .............................................................. ...............................
13
4.0
BASELINE INFORMATION .................................................................. .............................14
4.1
Watershed Summary Information .............................................................. ...............................
15
4.2
Geology and Soils Information .................................................................... .............................15
4.3
Reach Summary Information ..................................................................... ...............................
15
4.4
Regional Curve Discharge ......................................................................... ...............................
21
4.5
Wetland Summary Information ................................................................. ...............................
22
4.6
Regulatory Considerations ........................................................................... .............................22
5.0
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ......................................................... .............................22
6.0
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ......................................................... ...............................
23
7.0
MITIGATION WORK PLAN ................................................................ ...............................
24
7.1
Target Stream Type and Plant Communities ............................................. ...............................
24
7.2
Design Parameters ..................................................................................... ...............................
25
7.3
Data Analysis ............................................................................................. ...............................
27
7.4
Reference Streams ..................................................................................... ...............................
28
7.5
Sediment Transport Analysis ..................................................................... ...............................
31
7.6
Proposed Mitigation Plan View ................................................................... .............................33
8.0
MAINTENANCE PLAN ........................................................................... .............................34
9.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .......................................................... ...............................
34
10.0
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................ .............................36
11.0
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................... ...............................
37
12.0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................... ...............................
37
13.0
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ................................................................. ...............................
37
14.0
OTHER INFORMATION ...................................................................... ...............................
38
14.1
Definitions ................................................................................................. ...............................
38
14.2
References ................................................................................................... .............................39

Final Mitigation Plan
TABLES
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Table 1. Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site - Mitigation Summary
Table 2. Project Information ........................................ ...............................
Table3. BEHI Data ..................................................... ...............................
Table 4. Bankfull Discharge ........................................ ...............................
Table 5. Determination of Credits ............................... ...............................
Table 6. Morphological Design Criteria ...................... ...............................
Table 7. Sediment Analysis ......................................... ...............................
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Conservation Easement (Preliminary)
Appendix B. Baseline Information Data
Appendix C. Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses
Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets
IPI
........ ii
......14
......18
......19
...... 22
...... 29
......31

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
EEP develops River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRPs) to guide its restoration activities within each of
the state's 54 Cataloging Units (CUs). RBRPs delineate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and
opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds are called Targeted
Local Watersheds (TLWs) and receive priority for EEP planning and restoration project funds.
The 2009 Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP identified population growth, urban stormwater and agricultural
activities as major stressors within the 8 -digit Cataloging Unit (03040105). Overall watershed restoration
goals for this CU include management of stormwater runoff and protection of aquatic habitat for rare
species (NCDENR, EEP 2009).
The 2009 Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP identified HUC 03040105020040 (Irish Buffalo Creek) as a
Targeted Local Watershed. Major stressors identified within the 46- square mile Irish Buffalo Creek TLW
include animal operations and impervious cover. Reduction of sediment inputs and protection of Water
Supply Waters serving the City of Kannapolis are primary goals of any stream restoration efforts
undertaken within this TLW (NCDENR. EEP 2009). The Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site was
identified as a stream restoration opportunity to restore and enhance headwater streams within the TLW
by addressing some of the local watershed stressors.
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
- Restore a diverse riparian corridor that connects forested stream systems upstream and
downstream of the project.
- Reduce the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek.
The project goals will be addressed through the following objectives:
- Restore stable channel planforms to streams that have been straightened and modified.
- Reshape and stabilize eroding stream banks.
- Plant the site with native trees to help reestablish a diverse riparian corridor.
- Install exclusion fencing and alternative watering options to keep livestock out of the project
streams.
2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions
The Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site is west of China Grove and north of Kannapolis, located off
of Saw Road. To reach the site from Raleigh: proceed west on I -40 for approximately 62 miles. Then
travel on I -85 south toward High Point /Charlotte for approximately 50 miles. Take Exit 68 toward China
Grove on US -29 south. Turn right on NC -152 on East Church Street for approximately 5 miles and then
turn left onto Saw Road. The site is located approximately 0.3 mile south on Saw Road (See 2.3 Vicinity
Map).
2.2 Site Selection
The site is part of the 03040105 Watershed Cataloging Unit (Rocky River). The Rocky River Watershed
as a whole is experiencing a large amount of habitat alteration due to population growth from Charlotte
and its surrounding metropolitan area. The drainage is expected to gain an estimated 950,000 new
residents by 2030 (NCDENR, EEP 2009). As a result, the focus in this watershed is on mitigating
impacts from stormwater and protecting existing habitat (NCDENR, EEP 2009).

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) assigns surface waters a classification in order
to help protect, maintain, and preserve water quality. The site is located in a water supply watershed; Irish
Buffalo Creek flows into Kannapolis Lake, which is the primary water source for the City of Kannapolis.
The section of Irish Buffalo Creek immediately below the project site (DWQ 13- 17- 9- (0.5)) is classified
as a Class C, Water Supply III (WS -III) (NCDENR, DWQ 2012b).
Class C Waters in North Carolina are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and
aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where
such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no
restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges.
Water Supply III (WS -III) Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes where a more protective WS -I or II classification is not feasible. These waters
are also protected for Class C uses. WS -III waters are generally in low to moderately developed
watersheds.
Downstream of Kannapolis Lake, Irish Buffalo Creek is listed as impaired on the 2012 North Carolina
303(d) list - Category 5 (Unit 13- 17- 9 -(2)) listed for turbidity and copper violations (NCDENR, DWQ
2012a). The Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009 report noted that several
animal operations existed in the Irish Buffalo Creek watershed and that there was potential for future
restoration projects to add to the ecological uplift in the watershed (NCDENR, EEP 2009).
Based on correspondence with the landowner, the site has been actively used for timber and cattle
production for over five generations. Historic aerials were examined for any additional information about
how the site hydrology and vegetation has changed over the last century. The reviewed aerials are
included in Section 2.7 Historical Condition Plan View. Historic aerials were obtained from Rowan
County NRCS and the USGS Earth Explorer for 1936, 1949, 1965, 1983, 1993, 1998, 2006, and 2009.
The photographs show that as early as 1936 the lower portion of the site had straightened stream channels
and by 1949 sparse riparian vegetation. In the upper part of the site, the western tributaries remained
partially forested, but were cleared close to the stream channels. The eastern tributaries were primarily
cleared at this time. By 1965, the upper western tributaries had regained denser forest cover while the
lower portions of the site remained cleared and straightened. The site condition did not change much by
1983. By 1993, the western tributaries had developed into mixed forest. In 1993 and 1998, the vegetation
remained sparse along the eastern side of the site. Moving into 2006, the site's vegetation cover stayed the
same. In 2009, the pines along the western side of the site had been logged and replanted.
2

Final Mitigation Plan
2.3 Vicinity Map
a�
�r
F / 7
7 //
N
7
a
A-- Deal Rd
w�Ra
c
a
m
m
m
a
1
r`
3
J
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
�a
N�
mr
C7 !
1
DAVIE f
KANNAP LIS '}
DAVIDSON
IREDELL Zg
136
ROWAN
CABARRUS �^
STANLY
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP rr
0 0 -7= - JACOB'S LANDING STREAM RESTORATION SITE
�` ROWAN COUNTY, NC
3
i
� a

Final Mitigation Plan
2.4 Watershed Map
I l
AA
f o 1`
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
•p. 7
w
C
a
g Conservation Easement
Project Watershed (459 ac 10.72 sq. mi.)
PROJECT SITE WATERSHED MAP N
0 1.000 2.000 JACOB'S LANDING STREAM RESTORATION SITE Source: USGS DRGs
Feet ROWAN COUNTY, NC I Enochville (1970) Quad.
4

Final Mitigation Plan
2.5 Soil Survey
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
ScB2
PcC2 tt SaB RnC -
VnB2' -
"Y
r
F
p - a 'a f ApB
PcC2
*r ! r
ApB W
PcC2, PcB2 % r
� � \ PaD
f
P PCC2
PcC2
CeB2 PCC2 p
L/ PaD
'a V
PcB2
PaD
5
PcC2 r`�
t W
SaB
W
'
ScB2
CsB2
PcC2
PcC2 SaB
Sac
PaD
PCB 2 PcC2
- PaD
PcB2 PaD
PcC2 .,PcB2
PcC2
�
g
Pc C2
PROJECT SITE NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAP
Source: NRCS SSURGO Data, N
C.
oa �,000
JACOB'S LANDING STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Rowan County; Orthoirrmagery
Feet
from NC 2010
ROWAN COUNTY, NC
Statewide Orthoimagery.
5

Final Mitigation Plan
2.6 Current Condition Plan View
Y�
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
M' P
,34£
Project Streams
Other Streams
Conservation Easement
PROJECT SITE CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
0 175 35o JACOB'S LANDING STREAM RESTORATION SITE Statewi NC2010
Feet ROWAN COUNTY, NC sacede o cno mass y
Ce
I

Final Mitigation Plan
2.7 Historical Condition Plan View
f
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
1949
'. APRWP.-
PROJECT SITE HISTORICAL CONDITION PLAN VIEW N
0 50o i,000 JACOB'S LANDING STREAM RESTORATION SITE Source: Rowan County NRCS,
Feet ROWAN COUNTY, NC USGSFarlhExplorer_
7

Final Mitigation Plan
Historical Condition Plan View
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
8

Final Mitigation Plan
2.8 Site Photographs
Looking upstream at the confluence of T1 -1 and T1A.
1/24/2011
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
,00king downstream at Tl -1. 2/21/2012
Looking downstream at T1 -1. 2/21/2012
v
y � E
Looking downstream at Tl -3. 2/21/2012
W
Looking downstream at Tl -2. 2/21/2012
Looking downstream at Tl -3. 2/21/2012

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Looking downstream at Tl -3. 2/21/2012
Looking downstream at the culvert on TI-3. 2/21/2012
Looking downstream at the end of Tl -3. 2/21/2012
Looking upstream at TI-3. 2/21/2012
Looking downstream at the beginning of T1A. 1/24/2011
10
Looking downstream at T1A. 1/24/2011

Final Mitigation Plan
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Looking downstream at the beginning of T2 -1. 1/24/2011
Looking downstream at T2 -1. 1/24/2011
Looking downstream at T2 -1. 2/15/2012
Looking downstream at a culvert on T2 -1. 2/15/2012
Looking upstream at cattle crossing on T2 -1. 2/15/2012
11
Looking downstream at cattle crossing on T2 -1. 2/15/2012

Final Mitigation Plan
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Looking downstream at incised banks on T2A. 2/21/2012
12
Looking downstream at incised banks on T2A. 2/21/2012

Final Mitigation Plan
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
The project site will be placed in a permanent conservation easement held by the State of North Carolina
and will consist of 13.9 acres.
All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the State prior to any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall
take place unless approved by the State.
3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
one parcel owned by the following entities in Rowan County; Martha Myers Deal Revocable Trust,
Oscho Roy Deal, Oscho Roy Deal Revocable Trust. The preliminary conservation easement boundary has
been included in Appendix A.
13

Final Mitigation Plan
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 2. Project Information
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
* Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B.
14
Project Information
Project Name
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
County
Rowan County
Project Area (acres)
13.9 acres
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
35.552956 N, 80.653116 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03040105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-
03040105020040
digit
DWQ Sub -basin
13 -17 -09
Project Drainage Area
459 acres /0.72 square miles
Project Drainage Area Percentage
o
2.3 /o / 6 acres
of Impervious Area
CGIA Land Use Classification
4.8% Cultivated, 60.1% Managed Herbaceous Cover, and 35.1 % Mixed Upland Hardwoods.
Reach Summary
Information
Parameters
Tl -1
T1-2
T1-3
T1A
T2A
T2 -1
T2 -2
Length of reach (linear feet)
326
158
846
294
465
1,800
1,135
Valley classification
VIII
VIll
VIII
VIll
VIII
VIll
VIII
Drainage area (acres)
239.0
241.4
258.6
136.9
35.7
147.5
200.6
NCDWQ Water Quality
Class C,
Class C,
Class C,
Class C,
Class C,
Class C,
Class C,
Classification
WSIII
WSIII
WSIII
WSIII
WSIII
WSIII
WSIII
Morphological Description (stream
Modified
Modified
Modified
Modified
Modified
Modified
Modified
type)
Ditching
Ditching
Ditching
Ditching
Ditching
Ditching
Ditching
Evolutionary trend
and Pasture
and Pasture
and
and Pasture
and
and
and
pasture
pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Chewacla
Chewacla
Chewacla
Chewacla
Pacolet
Pacolet
Chewacla
Mapped Soil Series
loam
loam
loam
loam
sandy
sandy
loam
loam
loam
Drainage class
Poorly
Poorly
Poorly
Poorly
Well
Well
Poorly
drained
drained
drained
drained
drained
drained
drained
Soil Hydric status
Non hydric
Non hydric
Non
Non hydric
Non
Non
Non
hydric
hydric
hydric
hydric
Slope
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
0 -2%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Native vegetation community
hardwoods
hardwoods
Pasture
hardwoods
pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Percent composition of exotic
10 -25%
10 -25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
invasive vegetation
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Submitting NWP 27 following
N/A
Mitigation Plan approval
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Submitting NWP 27 following
N/A
Mitigation Plan approval
Endangered Species Act*
No
N/A
N/A
Historic Preservation Act*
No
N/A
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act *
No
N/A
N/A
(CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat*
No
N/A
N/A
* Items addressed in the Categorical Exclusion in Appendix B.
14

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
4.1 Watershed Summary Information
The site is part of the 03040105 Rocky River Watershed Unit (Rocky River). The Rocky River Watershed
as a whole is experiencing extensive habitat alteration due to population growth from Charlotte and its
surrounding metropolitan area. The project drainage is comprised of 0.72 square mile (459 acres) that
flow through the project floodplain before reaching Irish Buffalo Creek, which ultimately flows into the
Kannapolis Lake downstream of the project site. Current land use in the project watershed (See 2.4
Watershed Map) consists of cultivated land (22 ac /4.8 %), managed herbaceous cover (276 ac /60.1 %), and
mixed upland hardwoods (161 ac /35.1 %) (NCCGIA Land Cover, 2006). The approximate total
impervious cover of the project watershed is 2.3% (6 acres). This estimate was developed using the
following percent impervious estimates: agricultural (2 %) and forest (0 %). The surrounding area is rural
with moderate development pressure. The project area is located in the United States Geological Survey
USGS Enochville Quadrangle (1970).
According to the Rowan County Land Use Plan the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site is located in
"Area 3" of their land use plan (Benchmark, 2009). This area of the county will encourage "conservation
subdivision" design for all proposed developments greater than 20 acres in size. The rural character of the
area will be preserved by promoting the clustering of small residential tracts while preserving open space
and farmland. If the watershed that drains to the project site is developed, one acre lot sizes will be the
minimum allowed lot size. Based on this information, and the stormwater requirements for new
development, it does not appear that the project will be significantly impacted by stormwater discharges,
even if a full build -out scenario is implemented in the watershed.
4.2 Geology and Soils Information
The site lies within the Southern Outer Piedmont (Level IV 45b) ecoregion of the Piedmont
physiographic province. This area is characterized by irregular plains with low rounded hills and ridges
consisting of low to moderate gradient streams with mostly cobble, gravel and sandy substrates. The
underlying rocks of the area consist of gneiss, schist and granite covered with deep saprolite and mostly
red, clayey subsoils. According to the soil survey for Rowan County, the soils within the project site are
mapped as Chewacla loam for the northwestern and southern portions of the site and Pacolet sandy loam
for the northeastern tributaries as shown in 2.5 Soil Survey. Chewacla loam is described as a very deep,
somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs within river or stream valleys and drainage ways of the
piedmont. Pacolet sandy loam is a very deep and well- drained soil that occurs within narrow ridges and
side slopes in piedmont uplands. (Soil Survey of Rowan County, NC, NRCS, 2004).
4.3 Reach Summary Information
Existing Streams
The streams at the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site have been impacted by a history of logging
and grazing (See 2.8 Site Photographs). Four separate streams make up the site: Tributary 1 (T1) begins
in the northwestern project corner, Tributary IA (T1A) flows south to join T1; Tributary 2 (T2) comes
onto the site from the northeastern corner; and Tributary 2A (T2A) originates on the property from seep
flow to then join T2. T1 and T2 come together just south of the project boundary before joining another
tributary to form Irish Buffalo Creek (See 2.6. Current Condition Plan View).
T1 comes onto the site in the northwestern corner of the property and is a perennial first -order stream that
flows for approximately 1,330 linear feet through the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site. The
stream's drainage originates from the forested slopes south of State Highway 152, where the B -type
channel comes down through a moderately steep valley. T1 -1 flows southeast with isolated bank erosion
15

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
and thick invasive vegetation (primarily Chinese privet) on the banks. Downstream, T1 -2 enters a more
heavily wooded section with a steeper slope along the left bank. T1 -3 flows through the wooded section
through a wooden gate and moves into the open pasture. T1 -3 flows approximately 680 linear feet
through the pasture before it reaches the southern project boundary. The stream has been straightened and
consequently lacks the appropriate stream planform. The riparian zone has sparse to no vegetation and the
banks are actively widening and eroding. A culverted crossing is on T1 -3 before it leaves the property.
T1A is a perennial first -order stream that enters the site from the northern project boundary and occupies
a similar landscape position to T1. Its drainage area also begins south of State Highway 152 and flows
south out of a pond upstream of the project site. Once onto the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site,
the stream is a B -type channel approximately 294 linear feet in length before it reaches the confluence
with T1. The tributary enters from a mature forested system upstream, but the riparian vegetation in the
project reach is less mature than that upstream and consists of a few mature trees mixed in with shrubs
and invasive species. As a result, there are sections of banks without rooted protection that are eroding.
T1A has developed torturous meanders as a result of the riparian modifications.
T2 begins from the northeastern corner of the project and is a perennial first -order stream that flows for
approximately 2,935 linear feet until reaching the southern edge of the Jacob's Landing Stream
Restoration Site. Upstream of the project, T2 originates from a farm pond and then travels through a
mature forested slope to reach the start of the project. Once onto the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration
Site, the stream comes out into a broader valley type where the riparian vegetation has been removed
aside from isolated mature trees. Livestock have had access to the channel and they have further impacted
the bank stability and increased rates of erosion. The existing channel begins with a low width -to -depth
ratio and high bank heights. Eroding slopes within the valley have contributed additional sediment to the
stream and further induced scour and downcutting. The channel has tried to adjust by becoming more
highly sinuous. At approximately 1,300 linear feet downstream on T2, there is a culverted crossing across
the channel and then the stream begins to move to the south and into an entrenched position in the valley.
The stream is characterized by high, eroding banks. Downstream, a bedrock feature serves as grade
control by keeping a large headcut from continuing to migrate upstream. At 1,800 linear feet along T2,
T2A enters from the east. Shortly after the confluence, there is wooden gate across the channel and then
the stream enters a broader valley type. Here the cattle have severely impacted the channel. There is no
riparian vegetation and the stream is actively eroding. Another culverted crossing goes over the channel,
and after this point the stream runs along a steep valley slope on the left bank before leaving the project
site.
T2A is the only stream that originates on the project and is a perennial, first- order, seep -driven stream that
flows west until the confluence with T2. The T2A reach begins at a makeshift tire fence across the
channel. Upstream of the reach, the flow originates out of deep rock gulch. According to the landowner,
the stream has persistent base flow. The stream is deeply entrenched with vertical valley walls. The
riparian vegetation has been removed, which has allowed the steep banks to begin eroding and obscured
the pool and riffle features in the tributary. The valley begins to open up as the channel makes its way to
the confluence with T2.
All project reaches (existing) were evaluated using NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms in February
2012 (Appendix Q. The NCDWQ forms were used to determine if the tributaries were classified as
perennial or intermittent streams. A numerical value of at least 30 points is determined from the NCDWQ
stream identification form to classify the stream as a perennial stream (NCDENR, September 1, 2010).
All project reaches scored a numerical value of at least 30 points.
L[:

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Channel Classification
T1 -1 begins as a "G4" stream type with an entrenchment ratio of 1.5, a width -to -depth ratio of 9.6, and a
bank height ratio of 1.6. Downstream, after the confluence with T1A, the channel classifies as an "E4"
stream type with a very low width -to -depth ratio of 3.7, and an entrenchment ratio of 2.5. The stream then
continues downstream through the pasture with an entrenchment ratio of 3.3 and a very low width -to-
depth ratio of 5.2, classifying the stream as "G4" before reaching Irish Buffalo Creek. T1A is classified as
an "E4" stream type with an entrenchment ratio of 1.9, a moderate width -to -depth ratio of 9.3, and a bank
height ratio of 2.2 as it reaches the confluence of T1 -1.
T2 -1 begins as an "E4" stream type with an entrenchment ratio of 2.3 and a low width -to -depth ratio of
8.4. After T2A enters from the east, T2 -2 is classified as "F4" stream type with an entrenchment ratio of
1.4, a width -to -depth ratio of 12.9, and a very high bank height ratio of 4.7. Further downstream, the
channel is classified as a "G4" with a low width -to -depth ratio. T2A is deeply entrenched and classified as
a "G4" stream type with an entrenchment ratio of 1.7, a moderate width -to -depth ratio of 12.8, and a high
bank height ratio of 6.3. The stream continues to be entrenched as it reaches the confluence of T2 -2.
Channel Morphology (Pattern, Dimension, and Profile)
A Rosgen Level III assessment was conducted to gather existing stream dimension, pattern, and profile
data to determine the degree of channel instability. Channel cross - sections were surveyed at eleven
representative locations along the project, one location each on T1 -1, T1 -3, T1A and T2A, as well as two
locations each on T1 -2, T2 -1, and T2 -2. Data developed from these surveys are presented in a channel
morphology summary in Appendix C.
Channel Stability Assessment
A qualitative stability assessment was performed to estimate the level of departure and determine the
likely causes of the channel disturbance. This assessment facilitates the decision - making process with
respect to restoration alternatives and establishing goals for successful restoration. Streambank
measurements were taken on the following characteristics; bank heights, bank angles, materials, presence
of soil layers, rooting depth, rooting density and percent of bank protection. The data was used to
develop the Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating (BEHI) forms for all reaches (Appendix C), ( Rosgen, 2001).
A total of nineteen BEHI rating forms were performed and completed for all reaches. Table 3 summarizes
total BEHI values for all reaches. T1 -1 exhibited BEHI ratings of moderate 29.8, high 33.2, and very high
40.7 with a bank height ratio at 1.6. The T1 -2 assessment exhibited a high BEHI rating of 34.9 with bank
height ratios in the project reach ranging from of 1.9 to 2.2. T1 -3 exhibited BEHI ratings of moderate
29.0, high 36.6, and very high 40.9 with a bank height ratio of 1.9. The T1A assessment exhibited BEHI
ratings of moderate 29.8, high 38.8, and very high 40.1 with a bank height ratio at 2.2. T2 -1 exhibited
moderate 28.8, high 38.3, and very high 40.5 BEHI ratings with bank height ratios in the project reach
ranging from 1.5 to 2.0. T2 -2 assessment exhibited BEHI ratings of moderate 29.3, high 39.4, and very
high 41.3 with bank height ratios in the reach ranging from 2.9 and 4.7. T1A exhibited moderate 29.8,
high 38.8, and very high 40.1 BEHI ratings with a bank height ratio of 6.3.
The reaches exhibit characteristics of unstable stream channels. High bank height ratios ( >1 -2) are typical
of incised and/or channelized streams. Most notably, the channels show evidence of bank erosion and
undercutting along with channelization in portions of each reach. Furthermore, several sections do not
have vegetation on the banks and consequently lack rooting strength and cover protection. The high bank
height ratio indicates the lack of a bankfull or floodplain feature along the stream to provide any access
during high flow events.
17

Final Mitigation Plan
Table 3. BEHI Data
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Bankfull Verification
The standard methodology used in natural channel design is based on the ability to select the appropriate
bankfull discharge and generate the corresponding bankfull hydraulic geometry from a stable reference
system(s). The determination of bankfull stage is the most critical component of the natural channel
design process.
Bankfull can be defined as "the stage at which channel maintenance is most effective, that is, the
discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or changing bends and
meanders, and generally doing work that results in the average morphologic characteristics of the
channels," (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Several characteristics that commonly indicate the bankfull stage
include: incipient point of flooding, breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, highest depositional features
(i.e. point bars), and highest scour line. The identification of bankfull stage, especially in a degraded
system, can be difficult. Therefore, verification measures were undertaken to validate the correct
identification of the bankfull stage on all project reaches.
18
Left Bank
Right Bank
Total
BEHI
Linear
Footage
BEHI
Linear
Footage
BEHI
Rating
Linear
Footage
TI -I
Very High
Very High
70
40.7
70
High
20
High
40
33.2
60
Moderate
30
Moderate
15
29.8
45
Reach Total
50
125
TI -2
- -
High 40
34.9 40
Reach Total
-
40
TI -3
Very High
45
Very High
90
29.0
135
High
50
High
100
36.6
150
Moderate
110
Moderate
33
40.9
143
Reach Total
205
223
TIA
Very High
60
Very High
47
29.8
107
High
20
High
15
38.8
35
Moderate
23
Moderate
-
40.1
23
Reach Total
103
62
T2 -1
Very High
340
Very High
-
28.8
340
High
50
High
95
38.3
145
Moderate
145
Moderate
130
40.5
275
Reach Total
535
225
T2 -2
Very High
85
Very High
145
29.3
230
High
250
High
135
39.4
385
Moderate
160
Moderate
145
41.3
305
Reach Total
495
425
T2A
Very High
70
Very High
55
29.8
125
High
30
High
15
39.6
45
Moderate
30
Moderate
55
42.5
85
Reach Total
130
125
Bankfull Verification
The standard methodology used in natural channel design is based on the ability to select the appropriate
bankfull discharge and generate the corresponding bankfull hydraulic geometry from a stable reference
system(s). The determination of bankfull stage is the most critical component of the natural channel
design process.
Bankfull can be defined as "the stage at which channel maintenance is most effective, that is, the
discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or changing bends and
meanders, and generally doing work that results in the average morphologic characteristics of the
channels," (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Several characteristics that commonly indicate the bankfull stage
include: incipient point of flooding, breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, highest depositional features
(i.e. point bars), and highest scour line. The identification of bankfull stage, especially in a degraded
system, can be difficult. Therefore, verification measures were undertaken to validate the correct
identification of the bankfull stage on all project reaches.
18

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
The regional hydraulic geometry relationships (regional curves) were utilized to compare the bankfull
discharge calculated from the field identification. Regional curves are typically utilized in ungauged areas
to approximate bankfull discharge, area, width, and depth as a function of drainage area based on
interrelated variables from other similar streams in the same hydrophysiographic province. Regional
curves and corresponding equations from ` Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North
Carolina Streams" (Harman et al., 1999) were used to approximate bankfull in the project reaches. Based
on the regional curves, a bankfull discharge and cross - sectional area were estimated for all reaches. For
T1 -1 and T1 -2, the regional curve estimates a bankfull discharge of 46 ft3 /s and a cross - sectional area of
11.4 ftZ. For T1 -3, the regional curve estimates a bankfull discharge of 48 ft3 /s and a cross - sectional area
of 12 ftZ. For T1A, the values were estimated at 27 ft'/s, and 7 ftZ. For T2 -1, the regional curve estimates
a bankfull discharge of 32 ft3 /s and a cross - sectional area of 8.2 ftZ, while T2 -2 estimates a bankfull
discharge of 40 ft3 /s and a cross - sectional area of 10.1 ftZ. For T2A, the values were estimated at 12 ft3 /s
and 3.2 ftZ.
A similar reach of UT to Irish Buffalo Creek, located 400 linear feet upstream on the existing project
reach T1, was surveyed for a reference stream by KCI in February 2012. KCI analyzed the relationship
between drainage area and discharge to the NC rural piedmont regional curve data. The results indicated
the bankfull cross - sectional area and discharge for the reference stream reveal consistent plotting of the
regional curve data, demonstrating that bankfull stage is suitable at the reference stream. Since this stream
is located upstream T1, KCI feels that it is a suitable reference for the project reaches.
The method used to confirm bankfull stage at Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site was bankfull field
identification. Field identification of bankfull indicators on existing cross - sections were utilized on T2
and UT to Irish Buffalo Creek Reference Reach (T1). For T2 -1, XS -I bankfull field indicators resulted in
a discharge of 31 ft3 /s, which correlated to the regional curve bankfull discharge of 32 ft'/s. For the
reference reach cross - section, bankfull field indicators resulted in a discharge of 25 ft3 /s, which is similar to
the regional curve bankfull discharge of 25 ft3 /s. After analyzing the bankfull verification results, the design
discharges were set for the project reaches. The design bankfull discharges are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Bankfull Discharge
Parameters
RefXSnce
T1 -1
T1 -2
T1 -3
T1A
T2A
T2 -1
T2 -2
Regional Curve
25 ft3 /s 46 ft3 /s 46 ft3 /s 48 ft3 /s 27 ft3 /s
12 ft3 /s 32 ft3 /s 40 ft3 /s
Bankfull Field
Indicators
XS -1
31 ft3 /s
Design
Discharge
46 ft3 /s 45 ft3 /s 47 ft3 /s 27 ft3 /s
12 ft3 /s 33 ft3 /s 40 ft3 /s
UT to Irish
Buffalo Creek
Reference (TI)
Discharge
25 ft3 /s
Bankfull data for the project reaches were compared with the NC rural piedmont regional curve. The
proposed cross - sectional areas and bankfull discharge for the reaches are shown overlaid with the NC
rural piedmont regional curve in (4.4 Regional Curve Discharge). Analysis of the bankfull cross - sectional
areas and discharge for the project reaches reveal consistent correlation with the NC rural piedmont
regional curve data
19

Final Mitigation Plan
Vegetation
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Because of previous cattle impacts and logging at Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, no distinct
vegetative communities exist on the site. The vegetation within the project area is primarily comprised of
open pastures dominated by various grass species and small understory trees.
The start of T1 is in early successional growth with riparian vegetation limited to small trees and shrubs
or herbaceous vegetation. The dominant species consist of tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red
maple (Acer rubrum), and box elder (Acer negundo). Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora) are the main invasive species interspersed along the upstream portion of T1. These
species will be mechanically removed during the construction phase of the project and any remaining
plants will be treated. Treatment techniques may vary based on seasonality, the concern for drift and the
size of the plants and stems. Basal bark spray of Garlon 4 (triclopyr ester) and foliar spraying of Rodeo
(glyphosate) or Escort XP (metsulfuron methyl) will be the preferred treatment methods. Treatments will
be targeted in late summer, when possible. For large stems, stem injections using Garlon 3A (triclopyr)
will be completed in the fall. The downstream portion of T1 has been affected by cattle grazing and
consists of various grass species. In order to minimize the allelopathic influence of tall fescue (primarily
Kentucky 31) along the stream banks and within the riparian zone, fescue will be mechanically removed
and or treated with glyphosate herbicide. A chelated form of glyphosate (Rodeo, or similar) will be used
in proximity to the stream, and a non - chelated form (Roundup, or similar) will be used in upland areas.
Along T1A the riparian vegetation in this reach is less mature than upstream of the project and consists of
various grasses.
The entire length of T2 has been affected by cattle grazing. The vegetation within the project area is
primarily comprised of open pastures dominated by various grass species.
20

Final Mitigation Plan
4.4 Regional Curve Discharge
10000
S 1000
21
sa
ig
0 100
10 L-
0.1
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Discharge
1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (square miles)
• Rural Data ► T1 -1 and T1 -2 (proposed) T2 -1 (proposed)
• T1 and T2 Reference Reach A. T1-' (proposed) T2 -2 (proposed)
(LIT to Irish Buffalo Creek) A T1A [proposed]
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Area
fiii ■■ ■ ■fifi fi fii ■■ ■ ■■ fififii�!:��fi fifii ■■ ■ ■ ■■
„ ■■■ �IIIII ■ ■■�Illllf"ii�����10■ ■ ■�IIII�
■I'��!lE��l��tlEE��l���!!!
fifii ■■ ■ ■ ■■ fi Vii■ ■ ■ ■[fififii ■■ ■ ■ ■■ fifii ■■ ■ ■ ■■
��■ A■ 1111 � ■■ ■ ■Illl� ■■ ■■ ■ 111 � ■■ ■■ ■
. �_ �lii��' �: iifl� ■■�IIIII■ ■■�IIIII■ ■■�Il�ii
ii■ii fr■ ■■ ■ ■ �■ fi fii ■■ ■ ■■ � iifii ■■ ■ ■ ■■ fifii ■■ ■■
•L ■ ■ ■W111 ■ ■ ■�Illfl ■■ ■WWII ■■ ■111111
- . - pjjjpjz
■ Rural Data T1 -1 and T1 -2 (proposed) T2 -1 (proposed)
■ T1 and T2 Reference Reach T1 -3 (proposed) T2 -2 (proposed)
(UT to Irish Buffalo Creek) s T1A (proposed)
Reference; Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2010
21

Final Mitigation Plan
4.5 Wetland Summary Information
Not applicable for this project.
4.6 Regulatory Considerations
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
The Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site is not located within the 100 -year floodplain (Zone AE);
therefore regulatory considerations are not applicable for this project.
5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design. Upon completion of
site construction the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as -built
condition.
Table 5. Determination of Credits
22
Mitigation
Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
EI
EII
-
-
-
-
-
Length
4,015
465
109
-
-
-
-
-
Credit
4,015
310
44
TOTAL
CREDITS
4,369
Project Components
Reach ID
Existing Footage
Approach
(PI, PH etc.)
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Designed
Footage
Mitigation Ratio
T1 -1
326
P2
Restoration
303
1:1
T1 -2
158
-
Enhancement II
109
1:2.5
TI -3
846
P2
Restoration
893
1:1
T1A
294
P2
Restoration
178
1:1
T2 -1
1,800
P2
Restoration
1,581
1:1
T2 -2
1,135
P2
Restoration
1,060
1:1
T2A
465
-
Enhancement I
465
1:1.5
22

Final Mitigation Plan
6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
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
Department of Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer
(DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is
required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the 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 as follows:
Stream Credits
Monitoring
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Total
Year
Release
Released
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements below
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
40%
standards are being met
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
50%
standards are being met
(65 % *)
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
60%
standards are being met
(75 % *)
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
10%
70%
standards are being met
(85 % *)
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
15%
100%
standards are being met and project has received closeout approval
*If two bankfull events have been observe
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCEEP
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCEEP Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built
report has been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project closeout,
if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
23

Final Mitigation Plan
Subsequent Credit Releases
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve of
15% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bank -full events have occurred, in separate
years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less
than two bank -full events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at
the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the NCEEP will
submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of
criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring
report.
7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Stream Type and Plant Communities
Target Streams
The design for the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site proposes the Restoration of approximately
4,015 linear feet, Enhancement I of approximately 465 linear feet, and Enhancement II of 109 linear feet.
The Enhancement I will involve adjusting the stream to have the appropriate profile and dimension, while
the Enhancement II will involve grading the stream banks, removing invasive vegetation and planting the
buffer with native trees (USACE et. al 2003). The tributaries are divided into seven separate reaches
based on the restoration or enhancement approach applied to the portions of the channels. The project
reaches are identified in 7.6 Proposed Mitigation Plan View.
Target Plant Communities
The 50 -foot buffer along the project streams will receive riparian plantings consisting of native woody
species and will be incorporated as outlined in the planting plan. Six hundred and eighty (680) stems per
acre (8' x 8' spacing) will be planted along restoration reaches to achieve a mature survivability of two
hundred sixty (260) stems per acre. Woody vegetation planting will take place during dormancy. The
riparian areas for T1 -1, T1 -2, T1 -3, T1A, T2 -1, and T2 -2 will be planted as a Piedmont Alluvial Forest
and will consist of at least five of the following:
American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis River Birch Betula nigra
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
The riparian areas of T2A will be planted as Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest and may consist of the
following species:
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera White oak Quercus alba
Southern Red Oak Quercus falcata American Persimmon Diospyros virginiana
Willow Oak Quercus phellos Pin oak Quercus palustris
On the restored stream banks, live stakes will be used to provide natural stabilization. Appropriate species
identified for live staking include:
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum Silky Willow
Black Willow Salix nigra Common Elderberry
24
Salix sericea
Sambucus canadensis

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
A herbaceous seed mix composed of appropriate native species will also be developed and used to further
stabilize and restore the riparian and bank zones following construction.
In addition to planting the proposed community types, vegetative restoration will also include eliminating
invasive species that have moved into portions of the site. The targeted species will be treated with an
appropriate herbicide as needed to control populations.
7.2 Design Parameters
The mitigation approach for the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site will aim to restore and protect
the headwater tributaries to Irish Buffalo Creek. Mitigation actions will focus on repairing isolated
sections of bed degradation and bank erosion and restoring the unstable reaches that have been
straightened or severely degraded by cattle. The overall approach to the design of Jacob's Landing Stream
Restoration Site is Priority 2 Restoration, which will involve creating a new stream profile and dimension
and a bankfull bench (Rosgen, 1997). A combination of Priorities 1 and 2 approach will be utilized along
T1 -3 by creating an appropriate dimension, pattern, profile and reconnecting the floodplain to an
elevation at or similar to the historic floodplain elevation.
Tributary T1 -1— 303 linear feet of Restoration
Upstream of the T1 -1 is an existing culvert crossing, which will be reset and stabilized. The stream will
be restored to a C4 -type channel with a stable planform using a Priority 2 approach. Restoration of this
reach will involve stabilizing the outer left vertical bank, which is currently a large source of sediment
into the stream. Grade control structures will be installed to direct the stream along the reconstructed
channel and a bankfull bench will better accommodate large flows.
Tributary TI -2 — 109 linear feet of Enhancement II
This reach has stable gravel /cobble riffles, but the riparian buffer has been impacted by grazing along the
left bank and logging on the right bank. Enhancement actions will focus on stabilizing bank erosion as
well as removing invasive vegetation and replanting with native trees. A seep coming into T1 from the
east will also be stabilized and protected within the conservation easement.
A 50 -foot easement exception will be left out of the project easement along this reach to ensure
landowner access to the other side of the channel in the future. No crossing will be constructed at this
time.
Tributary TI -3 — 893 linear feet of Restoration
This final reach of T1 -3 is the most highly modified section of the tributary. The existing stream has been
straightened as it comes out into a broader valley type. A combination of Priorities 1 and 2 approach will
be used to restore a C4 -type channel. A new channel planform will be constructed by moving the stream
to the right (west). Pulling the stream away from the old channel will allow for the channel to be brought
up closer to the relic floodplain and for larger entrenchment ratios with a wider floodprone area to
attenuate flows. A stable meandering planform with low to moderate sinuosity will be developed to tie the
stream into the downstream end of the project.
The existing road crossing located at the end of the downstream reach will be reconstructed into a
culverted crossing.
Tributary T1A — 178 linear feet of Restoration
T1A exhibits a highly sinuous stream with unstable meander curves, which have resulted in bank erosion
along the outer bends. This section immediately before the confluence with T1 -1 will be restored to stable
B4c /C4 -type channel using a Priority 2 approach. The planform will be altered to create a stable
25

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
alignment as the stream flows to the confluence with T1. To account for the slightly higher slope on T1A,
the design will include frequent grade control structures that will mimic the natural step pool sequences
found in streams of this type. These step pools will create the pool habitat that the stream is currently
lacking.
Tributary T2 -1 -1,581 linear feet of Restoration
T2 -1 enters the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site from a mature forested area and then becomes
highly sinuous within the project bounds as it has attempted to adjust to the removal of riparian vegetation
and an increased sediment supply from unstable banks and valley walls. As a result, the channel is
attempting to downcut and there is a lack of riffle and pool sequencing. The restoration of T2 -1 will use a
Priority 2 approach to restore a C4 -type channel. Unstable meanders will be reshaped to a stable pattern
with a bankfull bench. Habitat and grade control structures will be used to create feature diversity in the
profile, maintain pool depth, and prevent further downcutting of the stream.
The existing road crossing within this reach will be reconstructed. The new road crossing will be a
culverted crossing within a 50 -foot wide easement exception.
Tributary T2 -2 — 1,060 linear feet of Restoration
Downstream of the confluence with T2A, T2 -2 continues to be entrenched within a tight valley for
another 200 linear feet but then emerges in a broader valley type for the remainder of the reach. In this
section, T2 -2 has experienced severe impacts from cattle. A new channel planform will be constructed by
moving the stream to the left (east) for approximately 400 linear feet before crossing the existing channel
to move the stream to the right (west). A stable meandering planform with low to moderate sinuosity will
be developed to tie the stream into the downstream end of the project.
The existing road crossing within this reach will be reconstructed into a culverted crossing within a 50-
foot wide easement exception.
Tributary T2A — 465 linear feet of Enhancement I
T2A is confined within a steep valley and the removal of riparian vegetation has led to bank erosion. The
stream is also cutting down to meet the confluence with T2 -2, which has caused bed degradation and an
incised channel. This reach will be enhanced by shaping the banks to creating a bankfull bench, and
installing grade control structures to gradually drop the bed elevation down. The reach will be stabilized
by replanting the riparian buffer to achieve a mix of native tree species.
Additional Site Enhancement Measures:
In addition to the stream mitigation proposed, KCI will also stabilize incoming seeps and side slopes at
the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site. Due to the hilly terrain at the site, there are many incoming
small drainages and seeps. Currently, these seeps are not protected and most are open to cattle impacts or
contributing to bank instability as they enter the project streams. However, they have high potential for
ecosystem uplift as amphibian habitat and pocket wetlands alongside the riparian buffer. As part of the
overall site restoration, these seeps will be protected in the project easement and stabilized as necessary to
become an integral part of the riparian corridor connecting to Irish Buffalo Creek.
There are also other swales and drainage ways that lead to the project stream. Installing water quality
treatment structures at the outlet of these drainage paths will provide opportunities to improve water
quality by catching runoff in small basins before it drains directly to a project stream. The purpose of
these structures is to catch the initial flush of surface runoff that is currently routed through these drainage
ways from overland flow through pasture areas during rain events. The water quality treatment structures
offer the potential for nutrient reduction of agricultural runoff. Potential locations for these detention
basins are indicated in the plans. The final placement of these structures may be adjusted as necessary
LO

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
during construction by the designer. Their placement will be dependent on the specific conditions during
construction and how the structure fits into the surrounding topography. One of these structures will be
installed at the bottom of a drainage swale near Station 17 +00, using the footprint of the former channel
as a detention area.
KCI recognizes that a strategy to maintain an adequate topsoil layer is necessary for the long -term success
of the project by improving vegetation survival and vigor. This strategy will involve stockpiling and
reapplying topsoil during construction where suitable topsoil exists. In addition to managing the existing
topsoil, KCI will apply biosolids to areas further than 30 feet from the stream to increase the soil fertility
where the existing topsoil is thin or has been eroded to the subsoil. For areas within 30 feet of the stream,
an organic compost mixture will be applied and mixed with the soil to help ensure success of the planted
vegetation.
7.3 Data Analysis
The streams at the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site will be restored using a combination of C4
and B4c /C4 Rosgen stream types. The project streams are divided into reaches based on the drainages
entering the streams and the restoration or enhancement approach needed to design the proposed
channels. The morphological design criteria for each of the reaches are found in Table 6. Morphological
Design Criteria. Below is a description of the specific design approach used for all project reaches.
T1 has been divided into three reaches based on the restoration and enhancement approach. T1 -1 and T1-
3, will be restored as C4 channels, while T1 -2 will be enhanced as a C4 channel, using the UT to Irish
Buffalo Creek Reference Reach (T1) morphological criteria. T2 was also divided into separate reaches
and will be restored as C4 channels using the UT to Irish Buffalo Creek Reference Reach (T1)
morphological criteria. The pattern and profile for T1 and T2 were developed from detailed
morphological criteria and hydraulic geometry relationships taken from stable sections of UT to Irish
Buffalo Creek Reference Reach (T1) (See Table 6 and Appendix C Morphological Design Criteria).
T1A will be restored as a B4c /C4 stream type, using the UTFR Reference Reach to develop the
morphological criteria. T2A will be enhanced to a B4c /C4 stream type by grading a stable cross - section
and profile with a newly stabilized riffle -pool sequence, and restoring a native riparian buffer. The UTFR
Reference Reach was used to develop the morphological criteria.
The design discharges and cross - sectional areas for all project reaches compare closely to their values as
predicted by the regional curve. The designed stream discharges were also evaluated using the channel
hydraulics and sediment transport for the proposed cross - sectional areas.
In- stream structures, including step pools, riffle grade controls, soil lifts, and log drops will be used to
stabilize the restored channels (Refer to Plan Sheets 3 and 4). These structures are designed to reduce
bank erosion, influence secondary circulation in the near -bank region of stream bends, and provide grade
control. The structures further promote efficient sediment transport and produce /enhance in- stream
habitat. Riffle areas will also be enhanced with graded gravel material to mimic existing stable riffle
features. Coir fiber matting and seeding will be used to stabilize the newly graded stream banks and live
stakes will be planted to provide long -term rooting strength.
During construction, the number of mature trees removed from the existing riparian areas will be
minimized as much as possible. Any valuable trees that may provide immediate shade to the restored
channel will be left in place if feasible. In the enhancement areas, certain trees may be able to remain on
one bank if the opposite bank can be reshaped to accommodate the appropriate dimension for the stream.
27

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Prior to construction, woven wire exclusion fencing (Stay Tuff, model 949 -12) and alternative watering
options will be installed along the easement boundary to keep livestock out of the project streams. The
fence will be expanded upslope of the easement boundary in several areas to include areas of steep slope
where cattle access could potentially cause erosion. In these areas additional easement signage will be
required to adequately mark the easement boundary. T1 -3 and all of T2 and T2A will have fence
installed along the easement boundary. Further upstream along T1 and T1A, new fence will be installed
along the eastern easement boundary and then tie into existing fence in the upper forested reaches. To
ensure adequate cattle watering, a groundwater well and five, four -hole cattle waterers will be installed
prior to construction.
7.4 Reference Streams
A reference reach is a channel with a stable dimension, pattern, and profile within a particular valley
morphology. The reference reach is used to develop dimensionless morphological ratios (based on
bankfull stage) that can be extrapolated to disturbed /unstable streams to restore a stream of the same type
and disposition as the reference stream (Rosgen 1998). For this project, two reference reaches were used
to design the proposed restoration reaches: an Unnamed Tributary to Fisher River (UTFR) in Surry
County and UT to Irish Buffalo Creek (T1) (see Appendix C for detailed reference reach data).
UT to Fisher River Reference Site
An Unnamed Tributary to Fisher River (UTFR), a first order rural stream in Surry County, was selected
as a reference reach for the restoration of the project streams. The reference reach is located on Fisher
Valley Road off of Exit 93 from Interstate 77. The valley slope is approximately 1.6 %. The sediment
distribution and transport are similar to the project streams. The local topography is characterized by
rolling hills. Approximately 300 linear feet of UTFR was surveyed and was classified as a 134c channel.
UTFR flows northeast into Fisher River and drains approximately 0.38 square mile of predominantly
forested land with a small section of rangeland. The reference reach watershed is within the Northern
Inner Piedmont ecoregion in the Piedmont physiographic province. The site is in the 14 -digit hydrologic
unit 03040101090010 in the Yadkin Basin and is in the DWQ Subbasin 03- 07 -02. The reference reach
watershed elevations range from 1,420 feet AMSL at the headwaters of the site to 1,210 at the bottom of
the reference reach.
UT to Irish Buffalo Creek Reference Site (TI)
A short reach of a tributary to Irish Buffalo Creek, located approximately 400 linear feet upstream of the
existing project reach on T1 -1, was surveyed by KCI in February 2012 (Appendix Q. The sediment
distribution and transport are the same as the project streams. A stable riffle cross - section was surveyed
and classified as an E4 channel to be used as a dimensional reference. Although likely logged previously,
historic aerial photos indicate that this upstream reach of T1 has been under mature forest for at least fifty
years. The stream flows through a hardwood forest and has stable planform and banks. Small
cobble /gravel riffles are present and there is no evidence of bed degradation. The forest cover becomes
less mature as the stream travels downslope, but the channel remains stable with functional riffles and
pools. The dimensionless hydraulic geometry relationships were developed from stable channel
dimensions to facilitate the design of the proposed channel cross - section, planform, and pattern data for
T1 and T2 restoration reaches.
28

Table 6. Mornholo2ical Design Criteria
Variables
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Ref. Reach UT
to Irish Buffalo
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
T1 -1
T1 -2
T1 -3
T2 -1
T2 -2
T1 -1
T1 -2
T1 -3
T2 -1
T -2
Rosgen Stream Type
G4
E4
G4
E4
F4
E4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enh.2
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
N/A
Restoration
Enh.2
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Drainage Area (mil)
0.37
0.38
0.40
0.23
0.31
0.16
0.37
0.38
0.40
0.23
0.31
Bankfull Width (We,) (ft)
9.1
6.5 -9.0
7.9
8.8
11.1 -12.3
6.9
11.5
11.5
12.2
10.4
11.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (dekf) (ft)
0.9
1.3 -1.8
1.5
1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional area (Aekf) (ft)
8.6
11.4 -12.0
12.1
9.2
11.3 -11.7
7.4
11.2
11.2
12.6
9.1
11.1
Width/depth Ratio (W6k1dekf)
9.6
3.7 -6.8
5.2
8.4
10.9 -12.9
6.4
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
Maximum Depth (dmekf) (ft)
1.1
1.7 -2.7
2.8
1.8
1.3 -1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.5
Width of flood prone area(Wf,,) (ft)
1 -14
15 -16
26
20
17 -19
23
25 -40
25 -40
27 -60
23 -35
26 -50
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
1.5
1.6 -2.5
3.3
2.3
1.4 -1.7
3.4
2.2 -3.5
2.2 -3.5
2.2 -4.9
2.2 -3.4
2.2 -4.3
Sinuosity (stream length/valley length) (K)
1.15
1.09
1.07
1.45
1.09
1.18
1.11
1.09
1.12
1.31
1.16
Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
1.6
1.9 -2.2
1.9
1.5 -2.0
2.9 -4.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Mean Bankfull Velocity (V) (fps)
5.4
3.9 -4.0
4
3.4 -3.5
3.5 -3.6
3.3
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.6
3.6
Bankfull Discharge (Q) (cfs)
46.3
45.5 -46.5
48
30.7 -32.3
41.0 -41.2
24.7
45.2
45.2
47.4
32.5
40.2
Average water surface slope
0.0140
0.0080
0.009
0.010
0.007
0.007
0.010
1 0.010
0.007
1 0.010
0.009
29

Variables
Existing
Existing
Ref. Reach
UTFR
Proposed
Proposed
T1A
A
Rosgen Stream Type
E4
G4
B4c
B4c /C4
B4c /C4
Mitigation Type
Enh. I
Enh. II
N/A
Enh. I
Enh. II
Drainage Area (mil)
0.21
0.06
0.4
0.21
0.06
Bankfull Width (Wb� (ft)
7.7
6.6
9.0 -10.0
8.5
6.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) (ft)
0.8
0.5
1.1 -1.2
0.7
0.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional area (Abkf) (ft2)
6.4
3.4
10.4 -10.7
6.2
3.5
Width /depth Ratio (°° blidbkf)
9.3
12.8
8.0 -10.0
12.0
12.0
Maximum Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.3 -1.5
1.2
0.9
Width of flood prone area (Wf,,) (ft)
15
11
13 -21
19
14
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
1.9
1.7
1.3 -2.3
2.2
2.2
Sinuosity (stream length /valley length) (K)
2.10
1.16
1.20
1.11
1.13
Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
2.2
6.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
Mean Bankfull Velocity (V) (fps)
4.8
3.3
4.1 -4.5
4.4
3.3
Bankfull Discharge (Q) (cfs)
30.5
11
1 42 -46
1 27.1
1 11.5
Average water surface slope
0.023
0.019
1 0.013
1 0.017
1 0.014
30

Final Mitigation Plan
7.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
In order to analyze the existing sediment conditions within the project streams, bar samples were taken
from the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site. In addition, the streams were sampled using the
Wolman pebble count method at eight locations for trend analysis. These data are provided in Appendix
C. Based on this analysis, the majority of the project reaches are dominated by gravel material with
portions of sand in the smaller, headwater reaches.
After analyzing the existing sediment conditions, the site was studied with respect to proposed sediment
transport. In active bed systems, there is a threshold level of bedload movement. At low flow levels, only
the smallest particles will move, with the larger particles resisting the flow of the stream; this is the
condition of partial sediment transport. As the stream flow increases, eventually every particle on the
streambed will show threshold movement. This is the condition of full sediment transport. If the largest
particle that moves during a bankfull event can be identified, then the flow conditions that produced this
movement can be determined and this flow condition (channel competency) can be used in the design of
the restored stream. Determinations of the design shear stresses were made based on the sediment
distribution from the surface and subsurface sampling.
These shear stresses were validated for the proposed riffle cross - sections and channel gradient using the
equation below. The shear stress values for the designed reaches were calculated and related to the
movement of a particular grain size using Shield's threshold of motion curve (See Table 7) (Shields et al.
1936). An approximate bedload transport rate was modeled using the Wilcock and Crowe model for
mixed gravel -sand beds using existing surface (pebble count) data.
i = yRs
Where: i = shear stress (lb /ft2)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft')
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = average water slope (ft/ft)
Table 7. Sediment Analysis
Project
Reach
Shear Stress at
Designed Reaches
(lb /sq. ft)
Largest Grain
Diameter Mobilized
(mm)
Equivalent
Grain Type
Be Rate Transport
Rate (lb /min)
T1 -1
0.64
49
Very Coarse Gravel
117
T1 -2
0.64
49
Very Coarse Gravel
152
T1 -3
0.43
33
Very Coarse Gravel
70
T1A
0.74
57
Very Coarse Gravel
134
T2 -1
0.52
40
Very Coarse Gravel
129
T2 -2
0.52
39
Very Coarse Gravel
222
T2A
0.45
34
Very Coarse Gravel
N/A
The predicted mobilized material and bedload transport rates are appropriate for the gravel material
existing within the project streams. The project streams all have small watershed areas that drain to them
and the incoming sediment supply is limited. Currently, the smaller -sized sands and fine gravels within
the project streams are coming from active bank erosion. This source will be reduced following the
project restoration. Along T1, the proposed stream progresses from steeper, slightly entrenched reaches in
31

Final Mitigation Plan
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
T1 -1 and T1 -2 to the proposed Priority 1 -reach of T1 -3 with less stream energy. T2 maintains a similar
slope along its length and therefore both reaches are similar in the size of material moved.
T2A is a threshold channel, which is defined as a stream where the bed material inflow is negligible and
the channel boundary is immobile even at high flows (Shields et al. 2003). T2A is a seep -driven channel,
and due to its location in a deep valley it has a limited supply of sediment that reaches the channel. There
is an existing stable gravel bed layer that is not mobilized during bankfull events. As opposed to an active
bed system, a threshold channel never achieves full sediment transport; the system only achieves partial
sediment transport. Therefore, the bedload rates provided for the other tributaries are not relevant for
T2A. The existing stable gravel bed will be maintained or enhanced for this tributary.
Based on this analysis, the designed channels provide sufficient competency for the type of streams
proposed and are capable of transporting sediment during bankfull events.
32

Final Mitigation Plan
7.6 Proposed Mitigation Plan View
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Restoration =
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Other Streams
Conservation Easement
PROJECT SITE PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN VIEW
o 175 sso JACOB'S LANDING STREAM RESTORATION SITE Statewide rtha
Feet ROWAN COUNTY, NC StatewideOrthoimagery-
33

Final Mitigation Plan
8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
KCI shall monitor the site on a regular basis and shall conduct a physical inspection of the site a
minimum of once per year throughout the post - construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site
construction and may include the following:
Component/Feature
Maintenance Through Project Close -Out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-
stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and
Stream
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel
may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head-cutting.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic
Vegetation
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 boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between
the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by
Site Boundary
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.
Utility Right -of-
Utility rights -of -way within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Way
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or
corridor agreements.
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Road Crossing
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or
corridor agreements.
Stormwater
Storm water management devices will be monitored and maintained per the
Management Device
protocols and procedures defined by the NC Division of Water Quality Storm
Water Best Management Practices Manual.
9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Monitoring of the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site shall consist of the collection and analysis of
stream stability and riparian /stream bank vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the
project in meeting established restoration objectives. Specifically, project success will be assessed
utilizing measurements of stream dimension and profile; site photographs, and vegetation sampling.
The purpose of monitoring is to evaluate the stability of the restored stream. Following the procedures
established in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites (Harrelson et al. 1994)
and the methodologies utilized in the Rosgen stream assessment and classification system (1994 and
1996), data collected will consist of detailed dimension measurements, longitudinal profiles, and bed
materials sampling.
Dimension
Permanent cross - sections will be established along the restored and enhanced reaches and will be used to
evaluate stream dimension stability. Permanent monuments will be established at the left and right extents
34

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
of each cross - section by either conventional survey or GPS. The cross - section surveys shall provide a
detailed measurement of the stream and banks and will include points on the adjacent floodplain or
valley, at the top of bank, bankfull, at all breaks in slope, the edge of water, and thalweg. Width /depth and
entrenchment ratios will be calculated for each cross - section based on the survey data.
Cross - section measurements should show little or no change from the as -built cross - sections. If changes
do occur, they will be evaluated to determine whether they are minor adjustments associated with settling
and increased stability or whether they indicate movement toward an unstable condition.
Profile
A 3,000 linear foot detailed longitudinal profile will be conducted along portions of T1, T2, T1A, and
T2A. Measurements will include slopes (average, pool, and riffle) as well as calculations of pool -to -pool
spacing. Annual measurements should indicate that bedform features are stable with little change from the
as -built survey. The pools should maintain their depth with lower water surface slopes, while the riffles
should remain shallower and steeper than the average values for the stream.
Bed Materials
Pebble counts will be conducted at each monitored riffle cross - section for the purpose of repeated
classification and to evaluate sediment transport
Verification of Bankfull Events
During the monitoring period, a minimum of two bankfull events must be recorded within the five -year
monitoring period. These two bankfull events must occur in separate monitoring years. Bankfull events
will be verified using automatic stream monitoring gauges to record daily stream depth readings.
Photograph Reference Points
Permanent photograph reference points will be established to assist in characterizing the site and to allow
qualitative evaluation of the site conditions. The location and bearing /orientation of each photo point will
be documented to allow for repeated use.
Cross - section Photograph Reference Points
Each cross - section will be photographed to show the form of the channel with the tape measure stretched
over the channel for reference in each photograph. An effort will be made to consistently show the same
area in each photograph.
Visual Assessment
An annual site walk will be conducted at the end of each monitoring period to document any stream
problem areas. Particular attention will be paid to the enhancement reaches and the two tributaries.
Specific problem areas that could arise include excessive bank erosion, bed deposition or aggradation, or
problems with the installed structures. The findings of the visual assessment as well as any recommended
corrective actions for problem areas will be summarized in the monitoring reports by way of a Current
Conditions Plan View figure.
Vegetation
The success of the riparian buffer plantings will be evaluated using thirteen, ten -by -ten meter vegetative
sampling plots and will use the CVS -EEP version 4.2, stream vegetation monitoring protocol (Lee et al.
2008). The corners of each monitoring plot will be permanently marked in the field. The coordinates of
the plot corners will be recorded using conventional survey. The monitoring will consist of the following
data inventory: composition and number of surviving species, total number of stems per acre, diameter at
breast height for trees greater than 5 feet in height, and vigor. Additionally, a photograph will be taken of
each plot that will be replicated each monitoring year. Riparian vegetation must meet a minimum survival
35

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
success rate of 320 stems /acre after three years, 288 stems /acre after four years, and 260 stems /acre after
five years. If monitoring indicates that the specified survival rate is not being met, appropriate corrective
actions will take place, which may include invasive species control, the removal of dead /dying plants and
replanting.
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted during the first full growing season following project
completion. Monitoring shall subsequently be conducted annually for a total period of five years or until
the project meets its success criteria.
Beginning at the end of the first growing season, KCI will monitor the planted vegetation for five years or
until the success criterion is met. Annual monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted after all
monitoring tasks for each year are completed. The report will document the monitored components and
include all collected data, analyses, and photographs. Each report will provide the new monitoring data
and compare the most recent results against previous findings. Monitoring will also include evaluating the
site for potential maintenance needs, including but not limited to invasive species problems, stream
channel instability, riparian vegetation survival, floodplain scour and easement violations or
encroachments. If problems arise, maintenance will occur to address the problem area. Maintenance will
occur throughout the monitoring period on an as- needed basis. Specific maintenance activities, including
any easement violations or encroachments will be documented in yearly monitoring reports. The
monitoring report format will be similar to that set out in the most recent EEP monitoring protocol.
Required
Parameter
uanti
Frequency
Notes
Yes
Pattern
Once, during as-
built survey
To be distributed throughout the
Yes
Dimension
11 Cross - sections
annual
project reaches.
Profile will include sections of
Yes
Profile
3,000 linear feet
annual
all project reaches
Pebble counts at permanent
Yes
Substrate
riffle cross - sections
annual
Two pressure transducer gauges
Surface
Two, one each on TI and
will be installed on site; the
Yes
Water
T2.
annual
devices will be inspected every
Hydrology
two months to document the
occurrence of bankfull events on
the project
A total of 13 plots will be
Vegetation will be monitored
Yes
Vegetation
distributed to ensure
annual
using the Carolina Vegetation
sufficient coverage of
Survey (CVS) protocols
planted vegetation
Exotic and
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Yes
nuisance
annual
vegetation will be mapped
vegetation
Locations of fence damage,
Yes
Project
annual
vegetation damage, boundary
boundary
encroachments, etc.
will be mapped
CCU:

Final Mitigation Plan Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to the
NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program. This party
shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions
shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible parry. Section III of the Conservation Easement
allows perpetual Right of Access to the Grantee, its employees and agents at reasonable times to
undertake any activities to restore, construct, manage, maintain, enhance and monitor the site. Although
the Conservation Easement does not restrict how the Grantee can access the site, the Conservation
Easement plat shows the preferred access route into the site for the convenience of the Conservation
Stewardship Program.
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the compensatory
mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the Endowment Account
to offset losses due to inflation.
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, KCI will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in
this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, KCI will notify the EEP and the USACE of the need to develop a
Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized KCI will:
1. Notify the EEP and USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary
and /or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent
and nature of the work performed.
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP. This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.
37

Final Mitigation Plan
14.0 OTHER INFORMATION
14.1 Definitions
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Morphological description — the stream type; stream type is determined by quantifying channel
entrenchment, dimension, pattern, profile, and boundary materials; as described in Rosgen, D. (1996),
Applied River Morphology, 2"d edition
Native vegetation community — a distinct and reoccurring assemblage of populations of plants, animals,
bacteria and fungi naturally associated with each other and their population; as described in Schafale,
M.P. and Weakley, A. S. (1990), Classification of the Natural Communities ofNorth Carolina, Third
Approximation.
38

Final Mitigation Plan
14.2 References
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Benchmark, CMR, Inc. Rowan County 2009 Land Use Plan, Areas West of I -85.
(http://www.rowancountync.gov/HOME.aspx).
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: an Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2 (http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm).
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent
and Perennial Streams and Their Origins. Version 4.11.
http:// portal .ncdenr.org /c /document_library/ get_ file ?uuid= Oddc6eal- d736- 4b55 -8e50-
169a4476de96 &groupld =38364
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2012a. 2012 Draft North Carolina 303(d) list. Raleigh, NC.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2012b. Surface Water Classifications. Last accessed April 25,
2012. http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /ps /csu /classifications
NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Priorities 2009.
Raleigh, NC. http: / /www.nceep .net /services /restplans/Yadkin Pee_Dee_RBRP_2009_Final.pdf
Pitlick, J., Y. Cui, and P. Wilcock. 2009. Manual for Computing Bedload Transport Using BAGS
( Bedload Assessment for Gravel -bed Streams) Software. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR -223. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169 -199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. In: Wang, S.S.Y.,
E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Management of
Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12 -22.
Rosgen, D.L. 1998. The Reference Reach — a Blueprint for Natural Channel Design. Presented
at ASCE Conference, Denver, CO — June, 1998.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate. Pagosa Springs, CO:
Wildland Hydrology Books.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
3rd Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, NCDEHNR, Division of Parks
and Recreation. Raleigh, NC.
Shields, F.D., Jr. R.R. Copeland, P.C. Klingeman, M.W. Doyle, and A. Simon. 2003. Design for Stream
Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 129 (8): 575 -584.
39

Final Mitigation Plan
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
Shields, Ing. A., W. P. Ott, and J. C. Van Uchelen. 1936. Application of Similarity Principles and
Turbulence Research to Bed -load Movement. Pasadena, CA: Soil Conservation Service,
California Institute of Technology.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, US Environmental Protection Agency, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. 2003.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Wilmington, NC.
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2004. Soil Survey of Rowan County, North
Carolina.
Wilcock, P.R., and J.C. Crowe. 2003. Surface -based Transport Model for Mixed -size Sediment.
ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 129 (2): 120 -128.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2010. Scaly Bark Creek Mitigation Site. Restoration Plan. Prepared for
NCDENR, EEP.
40

Appendix A
Conservation Easement (Preliminary)

NOTES:
I. TH IS PLATDOES NO IRFSI:N- A HOONDARY SURVEY OF THFPAItEN I'
I ItACTS. TIRE PARENT TI AC I BOUNDARIES ADIACI NI TO THIS EASLIMENT ARE NOT
CHANGED IT l' Hi IS P- BOUNDARY INFORMAT ON SHOWN IIFRF.DN WAS DFRI VED
,M N DI:I:DSANDMAPSOFRECORD INROWANC'OUNFY AND MOWMENTATION
FOUND IN TIRE FIELD.
3. DISTANC'ESSHOWN ARE HORMONO-OKOIIND DINANCLSIN U.S. SURVEVFEET
IINI.ESS O1 HF2 \1'ISE NO'IEU.
3. AIiEACOMI'U'IEDDYCOORDINA1t: MLTHOD.
4. THEBASIS OF THE MERIDIANS AND C'OORDINAIES FOR THIS PLAT IS THE
NORTH CAROLINA STA'IL N ANE CCOIIDINA'] E SYSTEM, N'ORIII AMERICAN DATUM
rEB (NAD 630. HA51;0ON UIN ERI:NTIAI. GPS OBSERVATIONS RWISE MEDI IN
FEBRUARI' 3011. A1.1. DISTANCES ARE GROUNI] 11111.1:55 O1'HFRW'ISE NOTED.
DFFD REFERENCES. AS SHOWN HERCO.N.
G SUOIECT PROFLITH ES KNOW'NAS'FAX NUM EER: AS SII(1 \ \'n'HER EON.
SUIJJECT PROPERTIES LIF,W'(THIN THE AREA DESIGNATEDAS]ONI:"X", BASEDON
FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANC'I. BAIL MAP 371056000) EFFFCIRVL JUNE 16. 2-
S. NO UNDERGROUND UIILITY LOC'ATIN'G PERFORMED DURINGTHECOURSEOFIRIS
SUI1VPY
N/F
ALLEN CORRIHER
PARCEL IDy 234 057
OB 551 PG 666
CONSER VAT /ON
EASEMENT 3 -
0.07ACRES
r
CONSERVATION�T\\ „11
EASEMENT 3 \ --
L19-
N/F
OSCH0 ROY DEAL
REVOCABLE TRUST
PARCEL ID# 234 024
OB 875 PG 742 (PAR. 1)
/ BENT I
/ I RON
N/F I
MARTHA MYERS DEAL / / h
CONSERVATION
REVOCABLE TRUST / EASEheENT7
PARCEL ID# 234 023 / 0.06 ACRES
2)
DB 915 PG 687 (PAR.
CONSERVATION
3 / / EASEMENT 7 °
N
-- / POINT 1 i
,Z, 0h LSL49 /34
CONSERVATION CONSERVATON r
EASEMENT 2 / EASEMENT 6 - " LAID was / La fiS7
lc, 201 ACRES / / 0.11 ACRES J `
/ N
a15 P.O.B. WETLAND 011 ' �' E' a46
p16 / CONSERVATION-
1 9lO a(6 .LA I N / EASE MENT 6 a 76 L57
1 V .. p19 / CONSERVATION -4E ._ a47
lr, A 3✓ V.y6 EASEMENTS w
_ 20 0,30ACRES EXCEPTlON2
EXCEPTION 2 i EASEMENT B
0 / 16 ACRES J f5 T LOCAnON OF CRICK
DURING MAY 2012 k D 0.19ACRES
,¢33 L59
POINT / 9uR\EVt1 v$49 <60
L7 / ^w
1 u# i
NCGS ",1011 - _
CONCORDIA A7_ III P.O.B.
AZ1
FA4167 CONSERVATION �4 Locnno'. or CREEK P-. 0 B
M 668,151 63 a< DURING DAY 2.12 CONSERVATION °+ ? L62 asz �- v
F: 1,502,5/3.52 EASEMENT 2 suev[v / M `` Vg3
EASEMENT 5
CSF: 0.99985034
o S
r r
i / a D ARi X55
"v Xc., CONSERVATION
CONSERVATION .3 V " EASEMENT4
2
a
- - - -�L - - - - VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)
I
N/F
N9LLIAM CORRIHER /
PARCEL IDS' 234 025 /
DB 1117 PG 976 /
/
/ I
I
48 "TREE
STUMP
N/F
JACQUELYN FILCHER
PARCEL @# 234 044
DS 1036 PC 76
5
N/F
ER
PARCEL DID# 2D3 D 062
DO DB 8734 G 623 %
/
N/F
OSCHO ROY DEAL
PARCEL IDr 234 025
OB 1122 PG 670 /
DS 755 PG 923 / __
LINE TABLE
LINE LENGTH BEARING
L76 53.18 576'49'08 "YJ
L77 78.95 N06- 43.25 "E
L78 98.63 N23- 26.03 "E
L79 55.35 1188'02'34 "E
L80 0.17 N27023114 4E
L81 34.07 N27'23'14 "E
L82 239.55 N6319424 "E
L33 89.38 N04042'00 "E
L84 202.51 1140'39'24 "E
L85 72.54 1147'11'55 "E
L86 25.16 SBT54'41 "E
--
' -
*SITE _
1. '-
'
'
..._
` / v ✓
N/F
RING
710'T
7'2rE
2'01 "W
7'17"W
8'04"E
WI 7"W
9'08 "YJ
1'47 "W
6'41 "E
1'08 "E
7'44" \Y
7'20 "YJ
ri 39 "W
3'30 "W
8'39 "YJ
3'20 "14
CONSER VAT /ON
EASEMENT 3 -
0.07ACRES
r
CONSERVATION�T\\ „11
EASEMENT 3 \ --
L19-
N/F
OSCH0 ROY DEAL
REVOCABLE TRUST
PARCEL ID# 234 024
OB 875 PG 742 (PAR. 1)
/ BENT I
/ I RON
N/F I
MARTHA MYERS DEAL / / h
CONSERVATION
REVOCABLE TRUST / EASEheENT7
PARCEL ID# 234 023 / 0.06 ACRES
2)
DB 915 PG 687 (PAR.
CONSERVATION
3 / / EASEMENT 7 °
N
-- / POINT 1 i
,Z, 0h LSL49 /34
CONSERVATION CONSERVATON r
EASEMENT 2 / EASEMENT 6 - " LAID was / La fiS7
lc, 201 ACRES / / 0.11 ACRES J `
/ N
a15 P.O.B. WETLAND 011 ' �' E' a46
p16 / CONSERVATION-
1 9lO a(6 .LA I N / EASE MENT 6 a 76 L57
1 V .. p19 / CONSERVATION -4E ._ a47
lr, A 3✓ V.y6 EASEMENTS w
_ 20 0,30ACRES EXCEPTlON2
EXCEPTION 2 i EASEMENT B
0 / 16 ACRES J f5 T LOCAnON OF CRICK
DURING MAY 2012 k D 0.19ACRES
,¢33 L59
POINT / 9uR\EVt1 v$49 <60
L7 / ^w
1 u# i
NCGS ",1011 - _
CONCORDIA A7_ III P.O.B.
AZ1
FA4167 CONSERVATION �4 Locnno'. or CREEK P-. 0 B
M 668,151 63 a< DURING DAY 2.12 CONSERVATION °+ ? L62 asz �- v
F: 1,502,5/3.52 EASEMENT 2 suev[v / M `` Vg3
EASEMENT 5
CSF: 0.99985034
o S
r r
i / a D ARi X55
"v Xc., CONSERVATION
CONSERVATION .3 V " EASEMENT4
2
a
- - - -�L - - - - VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)
I
N/F
N9LLIAM CORRIHER /
PARCEL IDS' 234 025 /
DB 1117 PG 976 /
/
/ I
I
48 "TREE
STUMP
N/F
JACQUELYN FILCHER
PARCEL @# 234 044
DS 1036 PC 76
5
N/F
ER
PARCEL DID# 2D3 D 062
DO DB 8734 G 623 %
/
N/F
OSCHO ROY DEAL
PARCEL IDr 234 025
OB 1122 PG 670 /
DS 755 PG 923 / __
o EASEMENT 1 kz 8.94ACRE5 DIRrPgi�ESS Dr
q
GO
w 242 ACRES A °�' _
EXISTING / (y
o DIRT Acc[ss /
P.O.B. PATH
CONSERVATION a24 p26 7 ,� A. „° EXCEPTION
EASEMENT 1 ' .�6 e -/ 7 0.20 ACRES / /
FOUND /
uuz J AxLE /
372. 24' L73 112 a25 - ^3h
586'57'46 "E 1 geD / /
/ N/F
S86'S7'46 "E 1660.86' 27 F
FOUND "Lfi9.�`�`;,yg1� /
IRON F &L HOLDINGS -1-C
N:664 9 14,29 / PARCEL ID/i 236001070 `LJ
E: 1502692.37 �/ N86'57'46 "W PARCEL ID# 236 004
1452.82 DB 1070 PG 976
N/F / FOUND I
CITY OF KANNAPOLIS IRON BAR /
PARCEL ID# 236 025 L P.O.B. N/F ON LINE
BE 1022 PG 574 CONSERVATION PINEWOOD HOMES INC TR. / N: 664737.86
EASEMENT 4 PARCEL ID'# 236 086 E:1506017.45 i
- - POINT "Y" DB 873 PG 976
_ Doc ID: 011782450003 Type: CRP
I, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS MAP WAS DRAWN ReCOrded: 09/17T2D12 et 01:51:33 PM
UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM ASURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION, --' -- Fee Amt: $21.00 Page 1 of 3
THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY INDICATED. AS LEGEND ROHan, NC
DRAWN FROM INFORMATION AS SHOWN HEREON; THAT THE RATIO OF Harry L. WeIoh Jr, R�e]A3n6tQer of Deeds
PRECISION AS CALCULATED IS GREATER THAN 1:10,000; THAT THIS MAP • EXISnNG PK NAIL -9995 PG %�7GV SHEET:
DOES REPRESENT AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY AND HAS BEEN EXISTING IRON
PREPARED IN ACCORDANr.F WITH C, 5.47 -3H AS AMENDED, WITNESS H CAROLINA NORTH 1 OF I
MYORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AND SEAL THIS ST ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA S E OF N 0 0/6" REDAR SCT W/ 3.25" ALUMINUM
127H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 ROWAN COUNTY ROWAN COUNTY CAP WITH STATE SEAL
1. S , _ �L' f REVIEW OFFICER
A CALCULATED POINT DATE:
CERTIFY M. THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED IN SURVEYOR. NO, L -3860 PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION AND C,O$$DED ��' - uY, C F HAY 4, 2012
CERTIFY TO THE FOLLOVYING AS REQUIRED IN G.S. 4790 (Cua� {FCOFIOPFgYTA IN THIS OFFICE IN BOOK OF MAPS W Yy OF ROWAN COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP
O EXISnNG MONUMENT
THAT THE SURVEY IS OF ANOTHER CATEGORY,SUC GA i6'f P GE F13 V, THIS THE WAY OF ORPLATWHICH THIS CERTIFICATION ISAFFIXED NEW CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR FINAL PLAT
��Fyyy... ___�n tfe`� MEETS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR "THE STATE OF NC, ECOSYSTEM
RECOMHDATIONOFEXHFFINGPARCELS .ACOURr Rv w -.zo12. CONSERVATION EASEMENT
OTHEREXCEPTIONTOTHEDEFINITION OF SUBD "ry OAx�P RECORDING. ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM."
tV/ 'Y KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C. FOR
f� P 0.8. POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
U /•. ("-' < ( k}4x- �°pi'i-$g ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS PROJECT NAME: JACOB'S LANDING STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
REVIEW OFFICER DATE GRAPHIC SCALE EEP SITE 110.95024
1 v C.GISTER OF DEEDS) E* pte7 jS 200' o rnD' 200' 400' K C I 4601 SiX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 220 SPO FILE 110. 80 -AU: PROPERTY OF OSCHO ROY DEAL
O F
IBTRATIO ASSOCIATES OF RALEIGH, NC 27609 SPO FILE NO. 80 -AX: PROPERTY OF MARTHA MYERS DEAL REVOCABLE TRUST
NORTH CAROLINA EG IJVF.l�EW L' +, 0 --L
JAMES M. GELLENTHIN "of 3UUi< l' s NORTH CAROLINA PHONE [phone] 'FAX [phone] SPO FILE 110.80 -AY: PROPERTY OF OSCHO ROY DEAL REVOCABLE TRUST
I INCH = 200 FEET C -0764 ATWELL TOWNSHIP, ROWAN COUNTY, NC
/ tio4 J� ?�/
/ ?/
` / v ✓
N/F
ppO oynv
2
ERIC �
PARCEL DM 234 099
OF 1098 PC 954
�Exlsn11c
o EASEMENT 1 kz 8.94ACRE5 DIRrPgi�ESS Dr
q
GO
w 242 ACRES A °�' _
EXISTING / (y
o DIRT Acc[ss /
P.O.B. PATH
CONSERVATION a24 p26 7 ,� A. „° EXCEPTION
EASEMENT 1 ' .�6 e -/ 7 0.20 ACRES / /
FOUND /
uuz J AxLE /
372. 24' L73 112 a25 - ^3h
586'57'46 "E 1 geD / /
/ N/F
S86'S7'46 "E 1660.86' 27 F
FOUND "Lfi9.�`�`;,yg1� /
IRON F &L HOLDINGS -1-C
N:664 9 14,29 / PARCEL ID/i 236001070 `LJ
E: 1502692.37 �/ N86'57'46 "W PARCEL ID# 236 004
1452.82 DB 1070 PG 976
N/F / FOUND I
CITY OF KANNAPOLIS IRON BAR /
PARCEL ID# 236 025 L P.O.B. N/F ON LINE
BE 1022 PG 574 CONSERVATION PINEWOOD HOMES INC TR. / N: 664737.86
EASEMENT 4 PARCEL ID'# 236 086 E:1506017.45 i
- - POINT "Y" DB 873 PG 976
_ Doc ID: 011782450003 Type: CRP
I, JAMES M. GELLENTHIN, HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS MAP WAS DRAWN ReCOrded: 09/17T2D12 et 01:51:33 PM
UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM ASURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION, --' -- Fee Amt: $21.00 Page 1 of 3
THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY INDICATED. AS LEGEND ROHan, NC
DRAWN FROM INFORMATION AS SHOWN HEREON; THAT THE RATIO OF Harry L. WeIoh Jr, R�e]A3n6tQer of Deeds
PRECISION AS CALCULATED IS GREATER THAN 1:10,000; THAT THIS MAP • EXISnNG PK NAIL -9995 PG %�7GV SHEET:
DOES REPRESENT AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY AND HAS BEEN EXISTING IRON
PREPARED IN ACCORDANr.F WITH C, 5.47 -3H AS AMENDED, WITNESS H CAROLINA NORTH 1 OF I
MYORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AND SEAL THIS ST ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA S E OF N 0 0/6" REDAR SCT W/ 3.25" ALUMINUM
127H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 ROWAN COUNTY ROWAN COUNTY CAP WITH STATE SEAL
1. S , _ �L' f REVIEW OFFICER
A CALCULATED POINT DATE:
CERTIFY M. THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED IN SURVEYOR. NO, L -3860 PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION AND C,O$$DED ��' - uY, C F HAY 4, 2012
CERTIFY TO THE FOLLOVYING AS REQUIRED IN G.S. 4790 (Cua� {FCOFIOPFgYTA IN THIS OFFICE IN BOOK OF MAPS W Yy OF ROWAN COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP
O EXISnNG MONUMENT
THAT THE SURVEY IS OF ANOTHER CATEGORY,SUC GA i6'f P GE F13 V, THIS THE WAY OF ORPLATWHICH THIS CERTIFICATION ISAFFIXED NEW CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR FINAL PLAT
��Fyyy... ___�n tfe`� MEETS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR "THE STATE OF NC, ECOSYSTEM
RECOMHDATIONOFEXHFFINGPARCELS .ACOURr Rv w -.zo12. CONSERVATION EASEMENT
OTHEREXCEPTIONTOTHEDEFINITION OF SUBD "ry OAx�P RECORDING. ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM."
tV/ 'Y KCI ASSOCIATES OF N.C. FOR
f� P 0.8. POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
U /•. ("-' < ( k}4x- �°pi'i-$g ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS PROJECT NAME: JACOB'S LANDING STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
REVIEW OFFICER DATE GRAPHIC SCALE EEP SITE 110.95024
1 v C.GISTER OF DEEDS) E* pte7 jS 200' o rnD' 200' 400' K C I 4601 SiX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 220 SPO FILE 110. 80 -AU: PROPERTY OF OSCHO ROY DEAL
O F
IBTRATIO ASSOCIATES OF RALEIGH, NC 27609 SPO FILE NO. 80 -AX: PROPERTY OF MARTHA MYERS DEAL REVOCABLE TRUST
NORTH CAROLINA EG IJVF.l�EW L' +, 0 --L
JAMES M. GELLENTHIN "of 3UUi< l' s NORTH CAROLINA PHONE [phone] 'FAX [phone] SPO FILE 110.80 -AY: PROPERTY OF OSCHO ROY DEAL REVOCABLE TRUST
I INCH = 200 FEET C -0764 ATWELL TOWNSHIP, ROWAN COUNTY, NC

Appendix B
Baseline Information Data

FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
(dote: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Project Part 1: General • •
Project Name: Jacob's landing Stream Restoration Project
County Name: Rowan
EEP Number: 003984
Project Sponsor: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) 1 KCI Technologies, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Tim Morris
Project Contact Address: 4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 220, Raleigh NC 27609
Project Contact E -mail: tim.morris @kci.com
EEP Project Mana gr: Guy Pearce
Project Description
This project proposes to improve water quality and protect aquatic habitat in an agricultural area of Rowan County
that has undergone degradation from unrestricted agricultural activities and human induced disturbances. This
stream restoration project intends to restore approximately 4,700 linear feet of tributary stream draining to Irish
Buffalo Creek in southwestern Rowan County.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By: 1),412zJ1 �,? ltvv /�/
Date EEP Project Manage
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
0
Date For Division Adminis rator
FHWA .
NE FIA11=0
OCT r% Poll
ENHA NC CEMENT pRO0RAM
6 Version 1.4, 8118145

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Q . 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
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ 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
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit 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
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
[Z] No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
[Z] No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
[Z] No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] 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
[Z] No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
❑✓ Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Q . 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
❑ Yes
Cherokee
Indians?
[Z] 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
❑ Yes
Places?
❑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
[Z] No
2.
Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑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
[Z] N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1.
Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
2.
Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
❑ N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
❑ N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1.
Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and /or Designated Critical Habitat
❑✓ Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2.
Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
❑ N/A
3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑No
❑ N/A
4.
Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and /or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated
Critical Habitat?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
5.
Does the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
[Z] Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
6.
Has the USFWS /NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by
the EBCI?
❑No
2.
Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
3.
Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1.
Will real estate be acquired?
[Z] Yes
❑ No
2.
Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
[Z] Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3.
Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
[Z] Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1.
Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any
❑ Yes
water
body?
❑✓ 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,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
[Z] No
2.
Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1.
Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
2.
Is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
3.
Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
4.
Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
5.
Has consultation with NOAA- Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1.
Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
2.
Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Wilderness Act
1.
Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
[Z] No
2.
Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal
agency?
❑ No
[Z] N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Appendix C
Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses

Existing Conditions
Cross - Sections

River Basin:
Yadkin- PeeDee
Watershed:
Irish Buffalo Creek, Existing Conditions, T2 -1
XS ID
XS Riffle
Drainage Area (sq nd):
0.23
Date:
2/15/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, K. O'Briant
Station
Elevation
0.0
814.61
2.5
814.45
5.1
814.07
7.6
813.53
9.7
813.01
11.7
812.41
13.4
812.02
14.6
811.56
15.6
811.01
16.1
810.46
17.4
809.98
18.0
809.44
18.4
808.99
19.0
808.90
19.6
808.99
20.0
808.92
20.2
809.02
20.9
809.27
21.7
809.49
22.5
809.67
23.0
810.27
23.7
810.25
24.4
810.29
24.7
810.72
26.1
810.84
28.0
810.93
29.7
811.22
32.5
811.58
35.0
811.66
SUMMARY DATA
BanIkfull Elevation:
810.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
9.2
BanIkfull Width:
8.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
812.5
Flood Prone Width:
>20
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
8.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.5
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XS1
817
815
813
-------------------- -------------------------------------------
0
811
----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - --
W
809
_ _ _' Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
807
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Yadkin- PeeDee
Watershed:
Irish Buffalo Creek, Existing Conditions, T2 -1
XS ID
XS2 -Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.23
Date:
2/15/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, K. O'Briant
Station
Elevation
0.0
806.17
3.0
806.08
6.3
806.01
8.7
805.91
10.0
805.76
11.1
805.31
12.0
804.60
12.9
803.61
13.6
803.03
14.6
800.29
15.2
800.02
16.0
800.18
16.6
800.32
17.6
800.45
18.3
800.54
18.9
801.76
19.5
802.02
20.6
801.94
21.3
802.86
23.3
803.32
26.5
803.83
30.1
804.32
32.7
804.46
34.3
804.50
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
802.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
9.2
Bankfull Width:
7.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
804.5
Flood Prone Width:
14
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
5.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.9
Bank Height Ratio:
2.0
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XS2
809
807
805
0
803
W____________________________
________ _ _______________________
801
_ _ _' aar�xruu
Flood Prone Area
799
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Yadkin- PeeDee
Irish Buffalo Creek, Exi
sting Conditions, T2 -2
--
#ia :�° •J
,.
x ' .
i
s _
i
ti.~
,
`
River Basin:
0.31
Watershed:
2/ 15/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, K. O'Briant
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
12.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.4
Bank Height Ratio:
Station
Elevation
0.0
798.78
3.0
798.78
6.1
798.71
8.0
798.62
9.1
798.50
9.8
798.04
11.2
796.33
12.9
795.88
13.7
795.69
14.3
795.25
14.8
794.34
16.8
793.79
18.2
793.36
19.0
793.08
19.4
792.28
21.5
792.03
22.1
792.06
23.1
792.10
23.9
792.06
24.6
791.99
25.5
792.08
26.4
791.99
27.3
792.02
28.0
792.45
29.3
792.95
30.7
793.29
31.6
793.83
32.1
794.03
33.7
796.83
35.7
797.70
38.4
798.14
41.5
798.19
43.9
798.00
51.4
797.83
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
793.3
sting Conditions, T2 -2
XS ID
XS3 Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.31
Date:
2/ 15/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, K. O'Briant
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
793.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
11.7
Bankfull Width:
12.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
794.6
Flood Prone Width:
17
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
12.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.4
Bank Height Ratio:
4.7
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XS3
800
798
796
0
� 794
792
Bankfiill
Flood Prone Area
790
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Yadkin- PeeDee
Watershed:
Irish Buffalo Creek, Existing Conditions, T2 -2
XS ID
XS4 Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.31
Date:
2/15/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, K. O'Briant
Station
Elevation
0.0
795.64
3.5
795.12
5.7
794.66
8.0
794.62
10.5
794.34
12.2
793.96
13.6
793.42
14.7
792.87
15.3
792.25
16.3
791.72
17.0
790.86
17.7
789.75
18.6
789.77
19.5
789.53
20.8
789.66
21.7
789.51
22.5
789.54
23.2
789.72
23.8
790.20
25.4
790.36
26.7
790.61
28.7
791.32
30.2
791.77
32.5
792.10
34.6
792.76
35.7
793.13
36.3
793.75
37.3
793.94
39.7
793.90
42.6
793.73
44.8
793.79
46.6
793.73
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
791.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
11.3
Bankfull Width:
11.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
792.6
Flood Prone Width:
19
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
10.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.7
Bank Height Ratio:
2.9
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XS4
799
797
795
0
793
------ - - - - -- -----------------
W
791
- - -'B
Flood Prone Area
789
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Yadkin- PeeDee
Watershed:
Irish Buffalo Creek, Existing Conditions, T1A
XS ID
XS5
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.21
Date:
2/17/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, K. O'Briant
Station
Elevati
0.0
803.97
4.8
803.57
6.4
803.05
7.1
798.79
8.0
798.49
9.0
798.48
10.2
798.63
11.3
798.92
12.7
798.91
13.7
799.41
15.9
800.05
18.3
800.71
21.5
801.15
25.3
801.18
28.0
801.16
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
799.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
6.4
Bankfull Width:
7.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
800.9
Flood Prone Width:
15
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
9.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.9
Bank Height Ratio:
2.2
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XS5
807
805
803
0
801
W
---------------- ---------- -- -- -- --------------- - - - --
799
7 _ Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
797
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Yadkin- PeeDee
Watershed:
Irish Buffalo Creek, Existing Conditions, TI-1
XS ID
XS6 Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.37
Date:
2/17/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, K. O'Briant
Station
Elevation
0.0
802.00
2.7
802.27
4.8
801.88
6.3
801.65
8.5
801.41
10.1
800.59
11.2
799.73
12.2
799.05
14.0
798.47
15.7
798.06
16.9
797.95
17.9
797.79
18.6
797.66
19.1
796.12
20.0
796.03
20.7
795.95
21.6
795.85
22.4
795.90
23.4
795.90
24.1
795.86
26.9
796.06
27.7
796.32
27.9
796.56
28.2
799.35
29.2
799.94
30.1
800.28
32.2
801.15
33.5
801.34
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
797.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
8.6
Bankfull Width:
9.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
798.0
Flood Prone Width:
14
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
9.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.6
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XS6
809
_ _ _ _ Bankfiill
807
Flood Prone Area
805
803
0
801
W
799
_______________________________ ____
797
795
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Yadkin- PeeDee
Watershed:
Irish Buffalo Creek, Existing Conditions, TI-2
XS ID
XS8
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.37
Date:
2/10/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, A. Helms
Station
Elevation
0.0
800.07
0.9
799.93
1.7
799.83
2.3
799.33
2.8
798.55
3.6
793.78
3.7
793.35
4.1
793.04
4.5
793.11
5.2
793.15
5.6
793.19
6.2
793.31
6.5
793.42
7.1
793.56
8.1
794.47
8.3
794.99
9.5
795.56
10.3
795.99
11.2
796.26
12.1
796.57
12.7
797.02
14.0
797.18
14.9
797.56
15.9
798.12
16.9
798.08
18.1
797.86
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
795.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
11.4
Bankfull Width:
6.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
798.4
Flood Prone Width:
>16
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
W / D Ratio:
3.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.9
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XS8
802
_ _ _ - B-kfWl
800
Flood Prone Area
--- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------- - - - - --
- - - - - --
798
0
796
W
794
792
0 10 20
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Yadkin- PeeDee
Watershed:
Irish Buffalo Creek, Existing Conditions, TI-2
XS ID
XS9 Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.38
Date:
2/10/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, A. Helms
Station
Elevation
0.0
798.28
2.4
798.04
3.9
798.05
5.4
797.88
7.3
797.61
7.9
797.17
9.5
796.56
11.3
795.46
12.7
794.76
13.8
794.02
14.3
793.66
14.8
792.25
15.8
792.15
16.6
792.19
17.7
792.22
19.1
792.27
20.3
792.34
21.5
792.54
22.2
792.67
23.3
793.99
24.1
794.78
25.7
795.45
26.9
795.76
30.0
795.93
33.1
796.04
36.2
797.29
40.0
797.15
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
793.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
12.0
Bankfull Width:
9.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
795.5
Flood Prone Width:
15
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
6.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.6
Bank Height Ratio:
2.2
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XS9
800
_ _ _ _ Bankfiill
798
_ _ _ Flood Prone Area
796
0
----------- - - - - -- ---- --------------- - -- -----------------------
794
---------------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ----------------------------
W
792
790
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Yadkin- PeeDee
Watershed:
Irish Buffalo Creek, Existing Conditions, TI-3
XS ID
XS10 Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.4
Date:
2/10/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, A. Helms
Station
Elevation
0.0
791.28
3.3
791.47
9.6
791.72
11.4
791.62
13.0
791.18
14.4
790.60
15.6
790.23
17.2
789.71
18.3
788.88
19.0
788.18
19.8
787.71
20.6
787.15
20.7
786.32
21.4
786.20
22.2
786.15
22.8
786.12
23.2
786.80
24.1
787.43
25.0
788.17
25.8
788.74
26.7
789.06
27.5
789.75
28.7
790.36
30.3
790.95
31.7
791.28
33.7
791.28
35.5
791.29
37.8
791.69
41.0
791.78
44.0
791.64
46.7
791.45
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
788.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
12.1
Bankfull Width:
7.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
791.6
Flood Prone Width:
26
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
5.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.9
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XS10
795
Bankfiill
793
Flood Prone Area
791
0
789
__________________________ --- ____-----------------------
W
%-�
787
785
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

Station E
Elevation
0.0 8
Yadkin- PeeDee
Irish Buffalo Creek, Existing Conditions, T2A
XS11
0.06
2/10/2012
River Basin:
A. French, A. Helms
t+
r ,
I• R.� c:
b e=
'.
.t
Watershed:
XS ID
Drainage Area
(sq mi):
Date:
Station E
Elevation
0.0 8
806.20
Field Crew:
A. French, A. Helms
Station E
Elevation
0.0 8
806.20
SUMMARY DATA
Banfull Elevation: 799.95
Banfull Cross - Sectional Area: 3.4
Banfull Width: 6.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 801.0
Flood Prone Width: 11
Max Depth at Banfull: 1.1
Mean Depth at Banfull: 0.5
W / D Ratio: 12.8
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.7
Bank Height Ratio: 6.3
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XSll
808
806
804
0
� 802
_---- - - - - -- --------------------- - - - - --
800 ---- Bankfull
- - - -Flood Prone Area
798
0 10 20 30 40
37.7 805.85
Station (feet)
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
XSll
808
806
804
0
� 802
_---- - - - - -- --------------------- - - - - --
800 ---- Bankfull
- - - -Flood Prone Area
798
0 10 20 30 40
37.7 805.85
Station (feet)

Existing Conditions
Sediment Data

Pebble Count Plots
Size (mm)
Cross - Section
1
D35
1.1
100 %
1.9
Particle Size Distribution
Jacob's Landing Stream RestorationSite
(XS1) T2 -1
2.9
D84
Particle
Millimeter
9.4
Count
Silt /Clay
< 0.062
S/C
4
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
1
2
12
14
;
°
18
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
24
E
s0 r°
5
12
L) 60%
R
L 40%
4
1
U_ 20 °i°
2
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
Type
silt/clay
4%
sand
47%
gravel
48%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
cobble
0%
Total
99
boulder
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood /det
0%
artificial
0%
Size (mm)
D16
0.42
D35
1.1
D50
1.9
D65
2.9
D84
6.5
D95
9.4
Size Distribution
mean
1.7
dispersion
4.0
skewness
-0.06

Cross - Section
3
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Jacob's Landing Stream RestorationSite
(xS3) T2 -2
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt /Clay
I < 0.062
S/C
13
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
3
8
21
19
°%
14
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
11
E
s0 °
60%
3
4
L)
R
L 40%
txss
3
1
o
1
20%
0%
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.36
0.61
1.1
3.1
8
Size Distribution
mean 0.4
dispersion 7.5
skewness -0.11
Type
silt/clay
13%
sand
64%
gravel
23%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
cobble
0%
Total
101
boulder
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood /det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross - Section
4
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Jacob's Landing Stream RestorationSite
(XS4) T2--2
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt /Clay
I < 0.062
S/C
25
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
14
7
9
3
°%
5
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
10
3
4
1
6
2
2
6
E
s0 °
60%
L)
R
L 40%
t XS4
-
20%
1
0%
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
1
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
1
1
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
0.062
0.1
0.34
2.3
13
40
Size Distribution
mean 0.9
dispersion 21.9
skewness 0.28
Type
silt/clay
25%
sand
38%
gravel
34%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
IF-,
cobble
3%
Total
00
boulder,
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood /det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross - Section
6
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Jacob's Landing Stream RestorationSite
(xs6) T1 -1
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt /Clay
I < 0.062
S/C 1
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
2
5
5
12
°%
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
21
E
s0 °
60%
14
7
L)
R
L 40%
t XS6
4
9
3
3
3
20%
0%
7
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
2
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
2
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
1.2
2.8
4.5
7.4
25
61
Size Distribution
mean 1 5.5
dispersionj 4.7
skewness 0.07
Type
silt/clay
1%
sand
24%
gravel
71%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
cobble
4%
Total
100
boulder,
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood /det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross - Section
9
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Jacob's Landing Stream RestorationSite
(XS9) T1 -2
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt /Clay
I < 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
3
7
°%
15
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
28
E
s0 °
60%
18
14
L)
R
L 40%
XS9
11
5
1
o
20%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
1.3
2.6
3.8
5.4
8.2
12
Size Distribution
mean 3.3
dispersion 2.5
skewness -0.07
Type
silt/clay
0%
sand
25%
gravel
75%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
cobble
0%
IF—TO—t
102
boulder
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood /det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross - Section
10
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Jacob's LandingStream RestorationSite
(XS10) T1 -3
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt /Clay
I < 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
6
2
6
°%
6
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
21
E
s0 °
60%
14
14
L)
R
L 40%
XS10
23
7
2
o
20%
0%
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
1.3
3.3
5.3
7.5
10
14
Size Distribution
mean 3.6
dispersion 3.0
skewness -0.18
Type
silt/clay
0%
sand
20%
gravel
80%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
IF-,
cobble
0%
Total
01
boulder
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood /det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross - Section
11
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Jacob's LandingStream RestorationSite
(XS11) T2A
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt /Clay
I < 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
.062-.125
.125-.25
.25-.50
.50 - 1
1 -2
S
A
N
D
S
2
°%
13
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2 - 4
4-5.7
5.7-8
8 - 11.3
11.3 - 16
16-22.6
22.6-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
25
E
s0 °
60%
6
22
L)
R
L 40%
XS11
25
1
3
0
1
1
20%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeters
Small
Small
Large
Large
64-90
90-128
128-180
180-256
C
O
B
L
1
Small
Small
Medium
Lrg- Very Lrg
256-362
362-512
512-1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
Size (mm)
2.1
3.5
6.3
7.7
9.8
18
Size Distribution
mean 4.5
dispersion 2.3
skewness -0.17
Type
silt/clay
0%
sand
15%
gravel
84%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
cobble
1%
Total
100
boulder
0%
Note:
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood /det
0%
artificial
0%

S
u
B � � � � � �
S Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm)
A
M <1.0 r r r r r r r r
P Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (o re Weight (oz FeW*e
L 30
E
g Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights L T_ Total Net Total Net Total N et Total Net Total Net Total Net Total Net Total Net TotalTNet
2 1 1109.0 64.0 25.0 8 0 �I IF
Point / Side BAR -BULK MATERIALS SAMPLE DATA:
Size Distribution Analysis
Party: AF, AH
Location: Jacob's Landing T1
Date: 2 -22 -2012
Notes: Bar sample 0 -6 inches
6
10
14
Jet Wt. Total 06. Grand Tot. 0
lccum. % _< %
NOTES
SURFACE
MATERIALS
DATA
( Two Largest Particles)
Dia. I WT.
Bucket
+ Materials
Weight_
Bucket
Tare
Weight_
Materials
Weight
(Materials less than:
mm.)
Be Sure to Add
Separate Material
Weights to Grand
Total
228.0 109.0 44.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 532.0
42.9% 20.5% 8.3% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
69.7% 90.2% 98.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% I100.0% 100.0% GRAND TOTAL
SAMPLE WEIGHT

Smallest Sieve
Passed mm
Weight
oz
% Item
Percent
Finer Than
<1
143
26.9%
26.9%
1.0
228.0
42.9%
69.7%
2.0
109.0
20.5%
90.2%
4.0
44.0
8.3%
98.5%
8.0
8.0
1.5%
100.0%
16.0
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
31.5
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
128.0
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
256.0
0.0
0.0%
1 100.0%
> 256.0
0.0
0.0%
1 100.0%
Totald
532.0
1 100%
Watershed:
Location:
Note:
• ' ME iii■
wprdiilil Moll i11• , In "NON MEMO
'
■■■111111■
Fii111111■■■1111111
■110111111■
■■1IIIII
• ,
■■■111111
■�IIIII
■■
■III
IIII
■�
1
■�IIIII■
■
■�IIIII
■
■
■�Illll�i
i
■�IIIII
■■
■III
IIII
■�
1
■�IIIII■
■
■�IIIII
. • '
■■■E1111II
■■111111■■■1111111
■110111111■
■■illlll
• , '
■
■
■�IIIII
■
■
■�IIIII
■■
■III
IIII
■�
1
■�IIIII■
■
■�IIIII
,
■
■
■�IIIIGi
���IIIII
■■
■III
IIII
■�
1
■�IIIII■
■
■�IIIII
• ,
■■■111111■
0011111
■■
■1111111
■110111111■
■■llllll
,
■■■111111■
■1110111110
■
■1111111
■110111111■
■■illlll
•
•
• •• ••• ••••
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type

S
u
B � � � � � �
S Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm) Sieve Size (mm)
A
M <1.0 r r r r . r � r r r
P Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (oz) Tare Weight (o re Weight (oz FeW*e L 30
E g Sample Weights Sa mple Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights Sample Weights L T_ Total Net Total Net Total Net Total Net Total Net Total Net Total Net Total Net Total Net
1 104.0 74.0 79.0 83.0 P31.0 17.0
2 46.0 51.0 3 39.0 45.0
Point / Side BAR -BULK MATERIALS SAMPLE DATA:
Size Distribution Analysis
Party: AF, AH
Location: Jacob's Landing T2
Date: 2 -22 -2012
Notes: Bar sample 0 -6 inches
6
10
14
Jet Wt. Total
Grand Tot. 13.9%
lccum. % _< 13.9%
NOTES
SURFACE
MATERIALS
DATA
( Two Largest Particles)
Dia. I WT.
Bucket
+ Materials
Weight_
Bucket
Tare
Weight_
Materials
Weight
(Materials less than:
mm.)
Be Sure to Add
Separate Material
Weights to Grand
Total
164.0 179.0 99.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 533.0
30.8% 33.6% 18.6% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
44.7% 78.2% 96.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% GRAND TOTAL
SAMPLE WEIGHT

Smallest Sieve
Passed mm
Weight
oz
% Item
Percent
Finer Than
<1
74
13.9%
13.9%
1.0
164.0
30.8%
44.7%
2.0
179.0
33.6%
78.2%
4.0
99.0
18.6%
96.8%
8.0
17.0
1 3.2%
100.0%
16.0
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
31.5
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
128.0
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
256.0
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
> 256.0
0.0
0.0%
100.0%
Totald
533.0
1 100%
Watershed:
Location:
Note:
• ' M■V■®■�111■
mFjiilil ■■Nil li111Q,, I■` "NON MEMO
•
■■■111111■
■11111111■■■1111111
■110111111■
00111111
•
■■
■111111■
Dii111111
■■
■1111111
■110111111■
■■1IIIII
■■■111111■
V1
■111111■
■■1111111
■110111111■
■■111111
• ,
■■■111111■
��
■�IIIII
■■
■III
IIII
■�
1
■�IIIII■
■
■�IIIII
■
■
■�IIIII!
S
■�IIIII
■■
■III
IIII
■�
1
■�IIIII■
■
■�IIIII
'
■
■
■�IIIIII�
�
■11111
■■
■III
IIII
■�
1
■�IIIII■
■
■�IIIII
•
■
■
■�IIIIIII
■
■11111
■■
■III
IIII
■�
1
■�IIIII■
■
■�IIIII
'
■
■■111111!
■ii11111
■
■
■1111111
■110111111■
■■llllll
■
■
■�IIIII■
1101911111110=11111
1111
■110111111■
■■illlll
•
• •• ••• ••••
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type

BEHI

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T1 -1) Reach: 45 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Moderate Ratina
Material Description: Bank Sketch
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 29.7
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Moderate
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 85.0 I:
1.7
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0 3.9
2.0
3.9
-
2
r
--------- - - - - --
Choice
--------------
V: I:
- - - - --
---------------------
V: 0.60 I:
3.4
•--------------
V: I:
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
V: 45.0 I: 3.2
---------------------
V: I:
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0.30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30
O
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
-------
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
4.0
---------------------
5.9
-- ---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
- --
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: 36.0 I:
5.4
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6 0- - - - - --
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0-------- 7.9 - --
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 - --
�e
c
Choice
V: 1.6 I:
6.0
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
>2.8
--------------------
<0.05
---------------------
<5
---------------------
>119
-------------- - - - - --
<10
---------------
- - - --
EXTREME
Index Range
•---- - --
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
10
-v--------- ------------
10
--------
- - - - --
10
- - - - -�: - - - - --
10
--------- ---
- - - - --
Choice
1-
I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
Material Description: Bank Sketch
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 29.7
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Moderate

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T1 -1) Reach: 60 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 37.1
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 High
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
2.0
19
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.50 I:
3.9
V: I:
V: 45.0 I: 3.2
V: 75.0 I:
3.6
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30----
0
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: 35.0 I:
5.5
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: 1.8 I:
7.0
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
>2.8
--------------------
<0.05
---------------------
<5
---------------------
>119
-------------- - - - - --
<10
---------------
- - - --
EXTREME
Index Range
•---- - --
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
10
-v---------
- - - - -•
10
- - - - --
10
- - - - -1: - - - - --
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
Choice
1-
1---
v---------- I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
24.1
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 37.1
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 High

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T1 -1) Reach: 70 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Very Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 40.0
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
2.0
19
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 50.0 I: 3.4
V: 60.0 I:
3.5
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30----
0
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.35 I:
5.4
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: 28.0 I:
6.1
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: 2.5 I:
8.6
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v---------
- - - - -•
---------------------
10
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -1: - - - - --
---------------
10
-v: --------
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
1---
v---------- I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
27.0
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 40.0
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T1 -2) Reach: 40 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 37.2
The BEHI was conducted at one location on T1 -2 at a representative bank feature. BEHI RATING1 High
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 80.0 I:
1.9
Value Range
1.11
1.19
0.9
0.50
79
55
21.0 60.0
79
55
LOW
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------------
2.0
3.9
---------------------
2.0
3.9
•--------------
2.0
- - - - --
3.9
------------------------------------------
2.0 3.9
2.0
3.9
-
2
r
--------- - - - - --
Choice
--------------
V: I:
- - - - --
---
V: I:
----------------------------
V: I:
-------------- - - - - --
V: 45.0 I: 3.2
---------------------
V: I:
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30
O
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
- --
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.30 I:
5.9
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0- - - - - --
- - - - --
7.9 ........
------------------------------------------
6_0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6 0- - - - - --
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0--- - - - - -7 9 - --
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 - --
�e
c
Choice
V: 1.7 I:
6.5
V: I:
V: 24.0 I:
6.7
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v--------- ------------
---------------------
10
--------
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -�: - - - - --
---------------
10
--------- ---
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 37.2
The BEHI was conducted at one location on T1 -2 at a representative bank feature. BEHI RATING1 High

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T1 -3) Reach: 143 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Moderate Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 29.8
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -3 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Moderate
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 90.0 I:
1.5
Value Range
1.11
1.19
0.9
0.50
79
55
21.0 60.0
79
55
LOW
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------------
2.0
3.9
---------------------
2.0
3.9
•--------------
2.0
- - - - --
3.9
------------------------------------------
2.0 3.9
2.0
3.9
-
2
r
--------- - - - - --
Choice
--------------
V: I:
- - - - --
---
V: 0.50 I:
----------------------------
3.9
V: I:
-------------- - - - - --
V: 40.0 I: 2.9
---------------------
V: I:
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30
O
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
- --
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: 1.2 I:
4.0
V: I:
V: 48.0 I:
4.5
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0- - - - - --
- - - - --
7.9 ........
------------------------------------------
6_0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6 0- - - - - --
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0--- - - - - -7 9 - --
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 - --
�e
c
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v--------- ------------
---------------------
10
--------
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -�: - - - - --
---------------
10
--------- ---
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 29.8
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -3 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Moderate

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T1 -3) Reach: 150 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 32.1
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -3 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 High
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 85.0 I:
1.7
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.50 I:
3.9
V: I:
V: 40.0 I: 2.9
V: I:
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30
O
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
- --
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: 1.4 I:
5.3
V: I:
V: 37.5 I:
5.3
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v---------
- - - - -•
---------------------
10
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -1: - - - - --
---------------
10
-v: --------
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
1---
v---------- I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
19.1
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 32.1
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -3 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 High

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T1 -3) Reach: 135 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Very Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 41.4
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -3 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
2.0
19
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 50.0 I: 3.4
V: 55.0 I:
2.0
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30----
0
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: 2.0 I:
7.9
V: 0.20 I:
7.2
V: 15.0 I:
7.9
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v---------
- - - - -•
---------------------
10
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -1: - - - - --
---------------
10
-v: --------
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
1---
v---------- I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
28.4
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 41.4
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1 -3 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T1A) Reach: 23 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Moderate Ratina
k Material Description: I Bank Sketch
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
k Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENT
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 29.8
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1A at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Moderate
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
-----------------
1.0
----------------------
1.1
1.0
----------------------
0.9
100
------------- ---------•---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
100
•-------------- -------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
-----------------
1.0
----------------------
1.9
1.0
----------------------
1.9
1.0
------------- ---------•---------------------------
1.9
0 1.9
-1.0 --------- -
1.9 ------
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 90.0 I:
1.5
Value Range
-----------------
1.11
--- 1.11
1.19
0.9
------- --------
0.50
---- --------
79
--------- ---------•---------------------
55
21.0 60.0
79
•-------------- -------
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0 3.9
2.0
3.9
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.52 I:
3.8
V: I:
V: 45.0 I: 3.2
V: I:
y
Value Range
1.2
1.5
0.5
0.30
54
30
61.0 80.0
54
30
+'
d
MODERATE
--
Index Range
----------------- -
---- --------
4.0
- ---
- -
5.9
----
- -
4.0
----
- ------
5.9
----
------------- ---------•---------------------
4.0
----
5.9
----
4.0 5.9
---------------------
•----------------
4.0
•--------------------
---
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: 1.5 I:
5.9
V: I:
V: 36.0 I:
5.4
V: I:
V: I:
C
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0_15
29
90.0
lL
HIGH
-- -
Index Range-
----------0
6.0
- --
7.9
-- -0.29 - - - - --
6.0
- --
7.9
----
-- -- - - - - --
6.0
----
---
7.9
----
--81.0 ------0.0
-- --
6.0 7.9
--------------------
• - -- ----- - - - - --
6.0
•--------------------
- --
7.9
Y
c
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
m-----------------
Value Range
2.1
----------------------
2.8
0.14
----------------------
0.05
14
------------ ----------•--------------------
5
91.0 119.0
14
•-------------- ------
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
-----------------
8.0
----------------------
9.0
---- 8.0 -----------
9.0 ---------
8.0 --------- --
9.0 -------•----
8.0 ----------- 9.0
------
8.0
---- 8.0
9.0 ------
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
Index Range -
Index Range
-----Choice----
-
10
-V----------1--------
-
10
-V: ---------1:
-------
10
-�: ---------�:
-------
------------------
10
•-V°---------I°------
---- ------
10
•-�°---------I°------
v = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
�.
k Material Description: I Bank Sketch
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
k Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENT
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 29.8
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1A at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Moderate

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T1A) Reach: 35 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1A at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
2.0
19
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 45.0 I: 3.2
V: 70.0 I:
3.2
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30----
0
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.37 I:
5.2
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: 1.6 I:
6.0
V: I:
V: 29.0 I:
6.0
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v---------
- - - - -•
---------------------
10
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -1: - - - - --
---------------
10
-v: --------
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
1---
v---------- I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
25.8
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1A at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T1A) Reach: 107 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Very Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 40.1
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1A at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
2.0
19
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 45.0 I: 3.2
V: 70.0 I:
3.2
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30----
0
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.37 I:
5.2
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: 1.6 I:
6.0
V: I:
V: 29.0 I:
6.0
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v---------
- - - - -•
---------------------
10
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -1: - - - - --
---------------
10
-v: --------
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
1---
v---------- I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
27.1
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 40.1
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T1A at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T2 -1) Reach: 275 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Moderate Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 29.3
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Moderate
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 95.0 I:
1.2
Value Range
1.11
1.19
0.9
0.50
79
55
21.0 60.0
79
55
LOW
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------------
2.0
3.9
---------------------
2.0
3.9
•--------------
2.0
- - - - --
3.9
------------------------------------------
2.0 3.9
2.0
3.9
-
2
r
--------- - - - - --
Choice
--------------
V: I:
- - - - --
---
V: 0.50 I:
----------------------------
3.9
V: I:
-------------- - - - - --
V: 40.0 I: 2.9
---------------------
V: I:
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30
O
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
- --
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: 1.3 I:
4.6
V: I:
V: 45.0 I:
4.7
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0- - - - - --
- - - - --
7.9 ........
------------------------------------------
6_0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6 0- - - - - --
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0--- - - - - -7 9 - --
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 - --
�e
c
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v--------- ------------
---------------------
10
--------
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -�: - - - - --
---------------
10
--------- ---
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 29.3
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Moderate

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T2 -1) Reach: 145 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 80.0 I:
1.9
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 45.0 3.2
V: I:
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30
O
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
- --
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: 1.7 I:
6.5
V: 0.29 I:
6.0
V: 20.0 I:
7.2
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v---------
- - - - -•
---------------------
10
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -1: - - - - --
---------------
10
-v: --------
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
1---
v---------- I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
24.8
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T2 -1) Reach: 340 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Very Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 40.4
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
2.0
19
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 50.0 I: 3.4
V: 60.0 I:
3.5
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30----
0
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: 2.0 I:
7.9
V: 0.28 I:
6.1
V: 18.0 I:
7.5
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v---------
- - - - -•
---------------------
10
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -1: - - - - --
---------------
10
-v: --------
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
1---
v---------- I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
28.4
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 40.4
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -1 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T2 -2) Reach: 305 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Moderate Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 28.9
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -2 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Moderate
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 85.0 I:
1.7
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.57 I:
3.6
V: I:
V: 40.0 I: 2.9
V: I:
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30
O
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
- --
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: 1.2 I:
4.0
V: I:
V: 45.0 I:
4.7
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v---------
- - - - -•
---------------------
10
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -1: - - - - --
---------------
10
-v: --------
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
1---
v---------- I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
16.9
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 28.9
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -2 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Moderate

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T2 -2) Reach: 385 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 39.9
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -2 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 High
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 80.0 I:
1.9
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 45.0 I: 3.2
V: I:
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30
O
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
- --
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.22 I:
7.0
V: 17.6 I:
7.5
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: 2.3 I:
8.3
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v---------
- - - - -•
---------------------
10
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -1: - - - - --
---------------
10
-v: --------
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
1---
v---------- I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
27.9
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 39.9
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -2 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 High

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T2 -2) Reach: 230 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Very Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 42.5
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -2 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
2.0
19
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 45.0 I: 3.2
V: 75.0 I:
2.3
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30----
0
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.20 I:
7.2
V: 16.0 I:
7.8
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
--------------------
10
--------------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
---------------------
---------------------
10
•--------------
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
-------------- - - - - --
---------------
10
---------------
- - - --
- - - --
Choice
V: 3.5 I:
10.0
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
30.5
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
Few stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 42.5
The BEHI was conducted at several locations on T2 -2 at representative bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T2A) Reach: 85 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Moderate Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH
Bank Height (ft):
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
BEHI RATING1
Moderate
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 85.0 I:
1.7
Value Range
1.11
1.19
0.9
0.50
79
55
21.0 60.0
79
55
LOW
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------------
2.0
3.9
---------------------
2.0
3.9
•--------------
2.0
- - - - --
3.9
------------------------------------------
2.0 3.9
2.0
3.9
-
2
r
--------- - - - - --
Choice
--------------
V: I:
- - - - --
---
V: I:
----------------------------
V: I:
-------------- - - - - --
V: 40.0 I: 2.9
---------------------
V: I:
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30
O
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
- --
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: 1.2 I:
4.0
V: 0.50 I:
4.0
V: 40.0 I:
5.1
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0- - - - - --
- - - - --
7.9 ........
------------------------------------------
6_0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6 0- - - - - --
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0--- - - - - -7 9 - --
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 - --
�e
c
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•---- - --
--------------------
10
-v: --------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
-v--------- ------------
---------------------
10
--------
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
- - - - -�: - - - - --
---------------
10
--------- ---
- - - --
- - - - --
Choice
1-
I:-
v:-----
�-
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH
VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9
40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one)
GRAND TOTAL
29.7
The BEHI was conducted on the entire T2A reach due to similar bank features throughout.
BEHI RATING1
Moderate

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T2A) Reach: 45 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH
Bank Height (ft):
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
BEHI RATING
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 85.0 I:
1.7
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 40.0 I: 2.9
V: I:
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30
O
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
- --
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.29 I:
6.0
V: 20.0 I:
7.2
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
•-- ------------
9.0
- - - - --
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
--------------------
10
--------------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
---------------------
---------------------
10
•--------------
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
-------------- - - - - --
---------------
10
---------------
- - - --
- - - --
Choice
V: 0.4 I:
10.0
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
27.8
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH
VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9
40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one)
GRAND TOTAL
The BEHI was conducted on the entire T2A reach due to similar bank features throughout.
BEHI RATING

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Jacob's Landing (T2A) Reach: 125 Linear Feet Date: 2/21/12 Crew: AH
Very Hiah Ratina
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 45.8
The BEHI was conducted on the entire T2A reach due to similar bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High
Bank Height (ft):
Bank Height/
Root Depth/
Root
Bank Angle
Surface
Bankfull Height (ft):
Bankfull Ht
Bank Height
Density %
(Degrees)
Protection%
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.0
--------------------
1.1
1.0
---------------------
0.9
100
---------------------
80
0.0 20.0
-------------- - - - - --
100
---------------------
80
VERY LOW
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0
---------------------
1.9
1.0 1.9
-------------- - - - - --
1.0
---------------------
1.9
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
--------- - - - - --
1.11
--------------------
1.19
0.9
---------------------
0.50
79
•--------------
55
- - - - --
21.0 60.0
------------------------------------------
79
55
LOW
Index Range
2.0
3.9
2.0
3.9
2.0
19
2.0 3.9
2.0
19
R
r
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: 45.0 I: 3.2
V: 65.0 I:
3.1
rValue
Range
1.2
1_5
0_5
0_30
54
61.0 80.0
54
30----
0
a---------
MODERATE
Index Range
- - - - --
- - - - - --
4.0
--------------------
--------
5.9
- - - - --
4.0
---------------------
-------
5.9
---- - - -
4.0
•--------------
-30
5.9
- - - - --
4.0 5.9
------------------------------------------
- - - - - --
4.0
5.9
c
O
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
O
Value Range
1.6
2.0
0.29
0.15
29----
81.0 90.0
29
15
W
HIGH
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
--------------
6.0
- - - - --
7.9
------------------------------------------
6.0
7.9
-- - - -
- -6.0 -------
-15
7.9 ---
------------------------------------------
- -- 6.0 -------- 7.9 ---
- -- 6_0 - - - - - --
7.9 ----
�e
c
Choice
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
m•---------
Value Range
- - - - --
2.1
--------------
2.8
- - - - --
0.14
---------------------
0.05
14
•--------------
5
- - - - --
91.0 119.0
------------------------------------------
14
10
VERY HIGH
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------------
9.0
8.0
------------------
9.0
--
8.0
9.0
8.0 9.0
-------------- - - - - --
8.0
---------------
9.0
- - - --
Choice
V: I:
V: 0.14 I:
9.0
V: 9.8 I:
8.5
V: I:
V: I:
Value Range
>2.8
<0.05
<5
>119
<10
EXTREME
--------- - - - - --
Index Range
•--------- - - - - --
--------------------
10
--------------
- - - - --
---------------------
10
---------------------
---------------------
10
•--------------
- - - - --
-------------- - - - - --
10
-------------- - - - - --
---------------
10
---------------
- - - --
- - - --
Choice
V: 6.0 I:
10.0
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V: I:
V = value, I = index
SUB -TOTAL (Sum one index from each column)
33.8
Material Description:
Mostly smaller gravel mixed with sand
Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand /gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5 -10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
BANK MATERIAL
Stratification Comments:
stratified layers were observed
Stratification
Add 5 -10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr5
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5 -9.9 10 -19.9 20 -29.9 30 -39.9 40 -45.9 46 -50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 45.8
The BEHI was conducted on the entire T2A reach due to similar bank features throughout. BEHI RATING1 Very High

NCDWQ Stream Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: February 21, 2012
Project/Site: Landing M-1)
Latitude:
Evaluator: AH
County: Rowan
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Enochville
Stream is at least intermittent
if ? 19 or perennial if -e 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial,'
p
e. Quad Name:
g'
A. Geomorphology {Subtotal - ­X),'-D)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
,a, 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,
sequence
0
1
1
3
-ripple-pool
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
i 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 i
`artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = )
12, Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
' 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
p`',
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
X05,)
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
C 0.5;,
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
N)t= 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal=
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3.,`.
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3'
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1 `'
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks:
0%
1
2
3
22. Fish
0°
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
r�4`.
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
k,0
0,5
1
1.5
25. Algae
4 017,
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 DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: February 21, 2012
ProjectlSite: Landing (T1 -2)
Latitude:
Evaluator: AH
County: Rowan
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Enochvi 1.1 e
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if 30" �j
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thaiweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
sequence
0
12
.1
3
-ripple-pool
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
(1-)
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 i= 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = �s ]
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
03
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
r 0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 a;
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?
No 0
Yes = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal=
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3"
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3.."
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1�
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
(4
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
a, 0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI = 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: February 21, 2012
ProjectlSite: Landing (T1A)
Latitude:
Evaluator: AH
County: Rowan.
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Fnochville
Stream is at least intermittent
if a 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = £ `s "-' )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
10 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
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
c
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
it 3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
0.5
3
8. Headcuts
0
12
j; 0`
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 °j
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. FlArolociv (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
23
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
(`0 `;
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
X0.5?
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No(= 0)')
Yes = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = __I
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
g`,
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
00'1
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
j; 0`
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL T 1.5
Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: February 21, 2012
ProjectlSite: Landing (T1 -3)
Latitude:
Evaluator: AH
County: Rowan
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Enochville
Stream is at least intermittent
L if �� 19 or perennial if �! 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
I
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
17
2
-3
3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
1,5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1 k
2
3
8. Headcuts
FACW = 0.75; OBI = 1.5 Other = 0
2
3
9. Grade control
Notes:
0..5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
2
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
060
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 = C
Yes = 3
U. LiloloqV (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3",.,
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
C
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
0,5
1
1,5
24, Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: February 21, 2 012
ProjectlSite; Landing (T2-1)
Latitude:
Evaluator: AH
County: Rowan
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Enochville
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if 2:30* t
2
(„ 3
A. Geomorphology.. (Subtotal = : w' <<. )
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,
ri le- ool se uence
0
1
2
�.__..
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
(3 i
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
(3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2 s
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2" ;
3
8. Headcuts
3 „o..';
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. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal= ` ' S )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
1
11 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
1.6
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
Nod 0
Yes = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = _1 )
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
(9 ;
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks;
0)
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. Algae0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI = 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: February 2 1, 2 p 12
Project/Site: Landing (T2 -2)
Latitude:
Evaluator: .AH
County: Rowan
Longitude:
Total Points:
r
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Fnochville
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30* _
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = t )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 "Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
� 3
21 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
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1
3
8. Headcuts
0`
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes f,= 3N
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = q C_- ")
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
l 3'
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
-.,,3 „
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1 t
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
i0.5
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. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
, 3'.:a
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
-.,,3 „
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1 t
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 A
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: February 21, 2012
ProjectirSite: Landing (T2A)
Latitude:
Evaluator: AH
County: Rowan
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Rnochville
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or psrqnnial if >_ 30
2'°
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = =' - `' )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. 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'
°,
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
31`,
5. Activelrelict 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
I)';:
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. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
f_3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0;r
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
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0 'r
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3`
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
L3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0`'
.0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
'?
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
4 ``
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:

Reference Reach Data

UT to Fisher River Reference Site

River Basin:
Yadkin
Watershed:
UT to Fisher River
XS ID
XS #1 Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.38
Date:
6/9/2005
Field Crew:
G. Mryncza, A. S iller
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0.0
2.22
100.00
3.0
2.15
100.07
5.0
2.50
99.72
7.0
2.98
99.24
8.0
3.49
98.73
8.8
4.00
98.22
9.0
4.96
97.26
12.0
5.03
97.19
14.0
5.25
96.97
16.0
5.16
97.06
17.0
5.20
97.02
18.0
5.06
97.16
18.7
4.00
98.22
19.5
2.65
99.57
20.0
1.66
100.56
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.22
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
10.40
Bankfull Width:
10.00
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.47
Flood Prone Width:
13.10
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.25
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.04
W / D Ratio:
9.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.30
Bank Height Ratio:
2.08
Slo a ft/ft):
0.013
Discharge cfs
42
Stream -Type: B4c
Yadkin River Basin, UT to Fisher River, XS #1 Riffle
110
105
w
m
0
100
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
m
W
95
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
90
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Yadkin
Watershed:
UT to Fisher River
XS ID
XS #2 Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.38
Date:
6/9/2005
Field Crew:
G. Mryncza, A. S iller
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0.0
2.68
100.00
3.0
2.94
99.74
5.0
3.61
99.07
6.0
4.10
98.58
6.8
4.56
98.12
7.0
4.70
97.98
9.0
4.94
97.74
11.0
5.21
97.47
12.0
5.64
97.04
13.0
6.00
96.68
15.0
6.59
96.09
17.0
6.42
96.26
18.0
6.50
96.18
18.2
4.93
97.75
19.0
3.56
99.12
20.0
2.80
99.88
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.12
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
13.40
Bankfull Width:
11.62
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.15
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.03
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.15
W / D Ratio:
10.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
0.81
Slope (ft/ft):
0.001
Discharge cfs
56
ream T e: B4c
Yadkin River Basin, UT to Fisher River, XS #2 Pool
110
105
w
m
0
100
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
m-
W
95
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
90
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Yadkin
Watershed:
UT to Fisher River
XS ID
XS #3 Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.38
Date:
6/9/2005
Field Crew:
G. Mryncza, A. S iller
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0.0
1.33
100.00
3.0
1.78
99.55
5.0
2.35
98.98
5.5
2.82
98.51
5.7
3.81
97.52
6.0
4.52
96.81
6.5
5.79
95.54
8.0
5.82
95.51
9.0
5.50
95.83
10.0
5.02
96.31
11.5
4.80
96.53
13.0
3.90
97.43
14.0
3.55
97.78
16.0
3.03
98.30
20.0
2.66
98.67
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.78
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
11.60
Bankfull Width:
8.35
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.05
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.27
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.39
W / D Ratio:
6.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
0.85
Sloe ft/ft):
0.001
Discharge cfs
52
Stream T e: B4c
Yadkin River Basin, UT to Fisher River, XS #3 Pool
110
105
w
m
0
100
W
95
Bankfull
-Flood Prone Area
90
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Yadkin
Watershed:
UT to Fisher River
XS ID
XS #4 Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.38
Date:
6/9/2005
Field Crew:
G. Mryncza, A. S iller
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0.0
4.62
100.00
3.0
5.54
99.08
7.0
6.01
98.61
8.5
6.34
98.28
9.0
7.04
97.58
9.5
7.66
96.96
11.0
7.67
96.95
12.0
7.79
96.83
14.0
7.58
97.04
16.0
7.57
97.05
17.0
7.51
97.11
17.5
6.34
98.28
19.0
5.90
98.72
21.0
5.06
99.56
25.0
4.37
100.25
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.28
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
10.70
Bankfull Width:
9.00
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.73
Flood Prone Width:
20.50
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.45
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.19
W / D Ratio:
7.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.30
Bank Height Ratio:
1.00
slope /ft):
0.013
Discharge cfs
46
Stream T e: B4c
Yadkin River Basin, UT to Fisher River, XS #4 Riffle
110
105
w
m
0
100
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
m
W
95
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
90
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Pebble Count
Material
Size Range (mm)
Count
Note:
UT to Fsher River
silt/clay
0
0.062
0
Surry County, NC
very fine sand
fine sand
0.062
0.13
0
Riffle #1 (Sta. 01 +00)
0.13
0.25
0
medium sand
coarse sand
very coarse sand
0.25
0.5
0
100% 25
90%
0.5
1
5
1
2
8
very fine gravel
fine gravel
fine gravel
medium gravel
medium gravel
coarse gravel
coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
2
4
21
4
6
9
20
6
8
8
80%
8
11
11
11
16
6
70%
60%
15
16
22
7
22
32
2
s
32
45
9
50%
40%
10
45
64
6
small cobble
medium cobble
large cobble
very large cobble
64
90
5
30%
90
128
2
128
180
1
180
256
0
20%
lo%
5
small boulder
small boulder
medium boulder
large boulder
very large boulder
256
362
0
362
512
0
0% 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
f cumulative % #o 1 particles
512
1024
0
1024
2048
0
2048
4096
0
total particle
count:
100
bedrock
clay hardpan
detritus/wood
based on
sediment
particles only
size percent less than (mm)
D16 D35 D50 D65 D84 D95
particle size distribution
gradation geo mean std dev
2.208 4.18 7.7 13 42 79
4.5 9.6 4.3
artificial
based on
total count
percent by substrate type
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock hardpan wood/det artificial
total count: 100
0% 13% 79% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Pebble Count
Material
Size Range (mm)
Count
Note:
UT to Fsher River
silt/clay
0
0.062
1
Surry County, NC
very fine sand
fine sand
0.062
0.13
0
Riffle #2 (Sta. 02 +55)
0.13
0.25
0
medium sand
coarse sand
very coarse sand
0.25
0.5
0
100% 18
90%
0.5
1
8
1
2
10
very fine gravel
fine gravel
fine gravel
medium gravel
medium gravel
coarse gravel
coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
2
4
16
4
6
16
16
6
8
10
80%
14
8
11
12
11
16
12
z 70%
60%
12
16
22
7
22
32
4
s
10
32
45
3
50%
40%
8 w
45
64
0
small cobble
medium cobble
large cobble
very large cobble
64
90
1
30%
6
90
128
0
128
180
0
4
180
256
0
20%
10%
2
small boulder
small boulder
medium boulder
large boulder
very large boulder
256
362
0
362
512
0
0% 1 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
f cumulative % # of particle s
512
1024
0
1024
2048
0
2048
4096
0
total particle
count:
100
bedrock
clay hardpan
detritus/wood
based on
sediment
particles only
size percent less than (mm)
D16 D35 D50 D65 D84 D95
particle size distribution
gradation geo mean std dev
1.625 4.00 5.8 9 16 29
3.1 5.0 3.1
artificial
based on
total count
percent by substrate type
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock hardpan wood/det artificial
total count: 100
1% 18% 80% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Pebble Count
Material
Size Range (mm)
Count
Note:
UT to Fsher River
silt/clay
0
0.062
0
Surry County, NC
very fine sand
fine sand
0.062
0.13
0
0.13
0.25
0
Reach Pebble Count
medium sand
coarse sand
very coarse sand
0.25
0.5
2
100%
90%
80%
60%
50%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
16
1 1 1 1 F 14
12
10
8 °n
6
4
2
0
10000
# of particles
0.5
1
7
1
2
15
very fine gravel
fine gravel
fine gravel
medium gravel
medium gravel
coarse gravel
coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
2
4
13
4
6
9
6
8
10
8
11
9
11
16
5
16
22
7
22
32
6
32
45
7
45
64
6
small cobble
medium cobble
large cobble
very large cobble
64
90
4
90
128
0
128
180
0
180
256
0
small boulder
small boulder
medium boulder
large boulder
very large boulder-L_2048
256
362
0
362
512
0
512
1024
0
1024
2048
0
1 10
particle size
100
(mm)
1000
4096
0
total particle
count:
100
f cumulative %
bedrock
clay hardpan
detritus/wood
based on
sediment
particles only
size percent less than (mm)
D16 D35 D50 D65 D84 D95
particle size distribution
gradation geo mean std dev
1.382 3.60 6.7 11 34 60
4.9 6.8 4.9
artificial
based on
total count
percent by substrate type
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock hardpan wood/det artificial
total count: 100
0% 24% 72% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

wr

UT to Irish Buffalo Creek Reference Site

River Basin:
Yadkin- PeeDee
Watershed:
Irish Buffalo Creek, TI
XS ID
XS -Riffle (REFERENCE)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.16
Date:
2/17/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, K. O'Briant
Station
Elevation
0.0
804.36
1.3
804.11
3.0
804.18
4.1
803.88
4.9
802.68
6.2
801.85
7.8
801.91
9.1
801.56
10.2
801.30
10.7
801.05
11.3
800.38
11.8
799.94
12.4
799.89
13.1
799.86
13.8
799.86
14.5
799.89
15.2
800.17
15.4
800.52
16.3
801.50
17.5
801.77
20.0
801.79
23.1
801.81
24.7
802.02
26.4
802.18
28.3
803.75
30.9
804.12
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
801.6
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
8.4
Bankfull Width:
8.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
803.4
Flood Prone Width:
23
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
7.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
UT to Irish Buffalo Creek Reference (T1)
809
807
805
0
803
W
------ - - - - -- - - -- ------- - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- --- - - - - --
801
- -- -Ball
-Flood Prone Area
799
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

803
802
801
c
0
0
800
W
799
798
UT to Irish Buffalo Creek Reference Reach (TI)
Longitudinal Profile
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Station (ft)
♦ Water Surface —*-- Thalweg Bankfull

UT to Irish Buffalo Creek Reference Stream Photos
Looking downstream on reference reach. 2 -17 -2012
m
:R
1
�
O
.�' L. S.�t��'� .- '
I- � Y�� -:yy �_. � - -•.a- :'��.Ct ?+:.�~��e.f�i yf. �.
Looking downstream on reference reach. 2 -17 -2012
Looking downstream on reference reach. 2 -17 -2012

Morphological Design Criteria

Morpholouical Design Criteria
Variables
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Ref. Reach
UT to Irish
Buffalo
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
*Tl -1
*Tl -2
*Tl -3
*T2 -1
*T2 -2
Tl -1
++ T1-2
T1-3
T2 -1
T2 -2
Rosgen Stream Type
G4
E4
G4
E4
F4
E4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enh.2
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
N/A
Restoration
Enh.2
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Drainage Area (mi)
0.37
0.38
0.40
0.23
0.31
0.16
0.37
0.38
0.40
0.23
0.31
Bankfall Width (Wei (ft)
9.1
6.5 -9.0
7.9
8.8
11.1 -12.3
6.9
11.5
11.5
12.2
10.4
11.6
Bankfall Mean Depth (dbko (ft)
0.9
1.3 -1.8
1.5
1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
Bankfall Cross - Sectional area (Abkri (fe)
8.6
11.4 -12.0
12.1
9.2
11.3 -11.7
7.4
11.2
11.2
12.6
9.1
11.1
Width/depth Ratio (Wbra dbkf)
9.6
3.7 -6.8
5.2
8.4
10.9 -12.9
6.4
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
Maximum Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
1.1
1.7 -2.7
2.8
1.8
1.3 -1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.5
Width of flood prone area (Wf,O (ft)
1 -14
15 -16
26
20
17 -19
23
25 -40
25 -40
27 -60
23 -35
26 -50
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
1.5
1.6 -2.5
3.3
2.3
1.4 -1.7
3.4
2.2 -3.5
2.2 -3.5
2.2 -4.9
2.2 -3.4
2.2 -4.3
Sinuosity (stream length/valley length) (K)
1.15
1.09
1.07
1.45
1.09
1.18
1.11
1.09
1.12
1.31
1.16
Pool Depth (ft)
-
-
*
1.3
*
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
Riffle Depth (ft)
0.9
1.3 -1.8
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
Max Pool Depth (ft)
-
*
2.2
*
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.8
Pool Width (ft)
-
*
7.0
*
**
15.0
15.0
15.5
14.0
15.0
Riffle Width (ft)
9.1
6.5 -9.0
7.9
8.8
11.1 -12.3
6.9
11.5
11.5
12.2
10.4
11.6
z
Pool XS Area (sf)
-
*
9.2
*
**
20.7
20.7
22.1
18.3
20.6
Riffle XS Area (sf)
8.6
11.4 -12.0
12.1
9.2
11.3 -11.7
7.4
11.2
11.2
12.6
9.1
11.1
Pool depth/mean riffle depth
-
*
1.3
*
**
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
q
Pool width/riffle width
*
0.80
*
**
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Pool area /riffle area
*
1
*
**
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.9
Max pool depth/dbkf
-
*
2.2
*
**
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
1.6
1.9 -2.2
1.9
1.5 -2.0
2.9 -4.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Mean Bankfall Velocity (V) (fps)
5.4
3.9 -4.0
4
3.4 -3.5
3.5 -3.6
3.3
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.6
3.6
Bankfall Discharge (Q) (cfs)
46.3
45.5 -46.5
48
30.7 -32.3
41.0 -41.2
24.7
45.2
45.2
47.4
32.5
40.2
Meander length (f,,,) (ft)
96 -110
75
*
65 -130
*
43- 102
65 -95
75
90 -125
60 -130
85 -115
Radius of curvature (R,) (ft)
6 -19
15 -30
*
8 -35
*
12-25
20 -45
20 -35
25 -45
20 -40
20 -45
Belt width (WbIO (ft)
13 -26
22 -26
*
10 -60
*
14-38
25 -35
22 -26
25 -50
23 -50
25 -43
Meander width ratio (Wbi,/Wbko
1.4 -2.9
3.4 -4.0
*
1.1 -6.8
*
2.0-5.5
2.2 -3.0
1.9 -2.3
2.0 -3.5
2.2 -4.8
2.2 -3.7
Radius of cury ature/bankfall width
0.7 -2.1
2.3 -4.6
*
0.9 -3.9
*
1.7 -3.6
2 -4
2 -3
2 -4
2 -4
2 -4
Meander length/bankfall width
10.5 -12.1
11.5
*
7.3 -14.7
*
6.2-14.8
5.7 -8.3
6.5
7.4 -10.2
5.8 -12.5
7.3 -9.9
Valley slope
0.0130
0.0260
0.009
0.012
0.009
0.009
0.012
0.012
0.008
0.013
0.010
Average water surface slope
0.0140
0.0080
0.009
0.010
0.007
0.007
0.010
0.010
0.007
0.010
0.009
Riffle slope
0.007 -0.043
0.007 -0.010
0.006 -0.011
0.003 -0.011
0.006 -0.009
0.011 -0.025
0.009 -0.010
0.007
0.010 -0.012
0.006 -0.017
0.008 -0.010
Pool slope
0.007
0.001 -0.007
0.001 -0.006
-
0.000 -0.001
0.001 -0.005
0.001 -0.006
Pool to pool spacing
-
28 -57
30 -60
20 -75
30 -95
40 -70
Pool length
16-23
14 -17
-
12 -30
8 -35
9 -25
Riffle slope /avg water surface slope
0.5 -3.1
0.9 -1.3
0.7 -1.2
0.4 -1.1
0.9 -1.3
1.6 - 3.6
0.9 -1.0
0.9
1.4 -1.7
0.6 -1.7
0.9 -1.1
Pool slope /avg water surface slope
0.7
0.2 - 1.0
0.1 -0.6
-
0.0 -0.1
0.1 -0.5
0.1 -0.7
Pool length/bankfull width
-
2.3-34
1.2 -1.5
1.0 -2.5
0.8 -3.4
0.8 -2.2
Pool to pool spacing/bankfull width
4.1 -8.3
2.6 -5.2
1.6 -6.1
2.9 -9.1
3.4 -6.0
T 1 -1, T 1 -2 and T2 -1 are mostly composed of riffles and runs, therefore no pool data was shown.
* T 1 -3 and T2 -2 are not meandering channels and are mostly composed of riffles and runs, therefore no pattern data and pool data are shown.
** No pool cross - section were surveyed for Ref. Reach UT to Irish Buffalo, TI -1, or TI -2.

IL is Variables
Existing
Existing
Ref. Reach
UTFR
Proposed
Proposed
T1A
A
Rosgen Stream Type
E4
G4
B4c
B4c /C4
B4c /C4
Mitigation Type
Enh. I
Enh. II
N/A
Enh. I
Enh. II
Drainage Area (mil)
0.21
0.06
0.4
0.21
0.06
Bankfull Width ( bkf) (ft)
7.7
6.6
9.0 -10.0
8.5
6.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) (ft)
0.8
0.5
1.1 -1.2
0.7
0.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional area (Abkf) (ft)
6.4
3.4
10.4 -10.7
6.2
3.5
Width /depth Ratio (°° bkidbkf)
9.3
12.8
8.0 -10.0
12.0
12.0
Maximum Depth (dmbkf) (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.3 -1.5
1.2
0.9
Width of flood prone area (°° r a) (ft)
15
11
13 -21
19
14
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
1.9
1.7
1.3 -2.3
2.2
2.2
Sinuosity (stream length /valley length) (K)
2.10
1.16
1.20
1.11
1.13
Pool Depth (ft)
-
-
1.2 -1.4
1.2
1.0
Riffle Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
1.1 -1.2
0.7
0.5
Max Pool Depth (ft)
-
-
2.1 -2.4
2.4
2.0
Pool Width (ft)
-
-
8.4 -11.6
11.2
8.6
Riffle Width (ft)
7.7
6.6
9.0 -9.9
8.5
6.5
Pool XS Area (sf)
-
-
11.6 -13.4
13.5
8.6
0
Riffle XS Area (sf)
6.4
3.4
10.4 -10.7
6.2
3.5
Pool depth /mean riffle depth
-
-
1.0 -1.3
1.7
2.0
Pool width /riffle width
0.8 -1.3
1.3
1.3
Pool area/riffle area
1.1 -1.3
2.2
2.5
Max pool depth /dbkf
-
-
1.9 -2.0
3.4
4.0
Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
2.2
1 6.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
Mean Bankfull Velocity (V) (fps)
4.8
3.3
4.1 -4.5
4.4
3.3
Bankfull Discharge (Q) (cfs)
30.5
11
42 -46
27.1
11.5
Meander length (L,) (ft)
25 -50
50 -63
93 -136
50 -55
50 -63
Radius of curvature (R,) (ft)
8 -24
10 -12
13 -42
10 -25
10 -25
Belt width ( blt) (ft)
20 -75
8 -15
45
19 -24
8 -15
Meander width ratio (Wbir/Wbkf)
2.6 -9.7
1.2 -2.3
4.5 -5.0
2.2 -2.8
1.2 -2.3
Radius of curvature /bankfull width
1.0 -3.1
1.5 -1.8
1.3 -4.4
1.2 -2.9
1.5 -3.8
Meander length /bankfull width
3.2 -6.5
7.6 -9.5
9.0 -15.0
5.9 -6.5
7.7 -9.7
Valley slope
0.012
0.035
0.016
0.02
0.039
Average water surface slope
0.023
0.019
0.013
0.017
0.014
Riffle slope
0.013 -0.019
0.010 -0.017
0.013 -0.028
0.010 -0.012
0.010 - 0.0012
Pool slope
0- 0.0010
0.001 -0.008
0.000 -0.001
0
Pool to pool spacing
30 -59
22 -34
22 -42
y
Pool length
3 -25
7 -14
4 -15
Riffle slope /avg water surface slope
0.7 -1.0
0.6 -1.0
1.00 -2.20
0.6 -0.7
0.7 -0.9
Pool slope /avg water surface slope
0
0.1 -0.5
0.0 -0.1
Pool length /bankfull width
0.3 -2.5
0.8 -1.6
0.6 -2.3
Pool to pool spacing/bankfull width
3.3 -6.0
2.6 -4.0
3.4 -6.5
- T1A and T2A are mostly composed of riffles and runs; therefore no pool data was shown.

Appendix D
Project Plan Sheets

tQ
0
ti
N
•
!.
U
00
I
O
O
ti
U
O
U
RQAO
PROJECT
ENTRANCE
PP�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
VICINITY MAP
PRELIMINARVOESIGN - SIISMITTEO - MITIGATION PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
S
SUBMITTED FOR LANG QUALITY PERMIT
JUNE 3012
BEGIN
DIRECTIONS TO SITE
\\ REACH
SEPT 2013
\ T1A
FROM RALEIGH, TAKE I-00 WEST.
\
SLIGHT LEFT ONTO 7 -85 BUS &US -29
\
SOUS -70 W (aig- for High Poin6Ch -1- e).
\
\ BEGIN
FOLLOW I -85 SOUTH TO EXIT 68.
\ REACH
MERGE ONTO US -29 CONNECTOR
\T1
SOUTH. TURN RIGHT ONTO NORTH
\
CAROLINA 152 W /CHURCH STREET.
\
TURN LEFT ONTO SAW ROAD. TAKE
\
A RIGHT AT THE TWO STORY HOUSE
\
AT 350 SAW ROAD. FOLLOW THE DIRT
DRIVE THROUGH THE CATTLE FIELDS
TO THE SITE
INDEX OF SHEETS
I TITLE SHEET
2 GENERAL NOTES & PROJECT LEGEND
3-4 DETAILS: STABILIZATION
5 TYPICAL CROSS- SEC77ONS
6.41 SITE PLAN AND PROFLEE
12 PLANTING PLAN
13-22 SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
GRAPHIC SCALES
—40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
PLANS
—40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
—4' —2' 0' 4' 8'
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
PROJECT DATA
ROWAN COUNTY
LOCATION: JACOB'S LANDING
CHINA GROVE. NORTH CAROLINA
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM MITIGATION
CONTRACT NUMBER
003984
A
PRELIMINARVOESIGN - SIISMITTEO - MITIGATION PLAN
-3013
S
SUBMITTED FOR LANG QUALITY PERMIT
JUNE 3012
C
EDITS PER IRT COMME-
SEPT 2013
REVISIONS
STREAM RESTORATION LENGTH = 4,015 FEET
STREAM ENHANCEMENT I LENGTH = 465 FEET
STREAM ENHANCEMENT II LENGTH = 109 FEET
\ �yo
\
Prepared In fhe Offlce of:
KCI d`C1SS®Cnan es P.A. of Noiri n Carolina, P
SUITE 220 LANDMARK CENTER 11, 4601 SIX FORKS RD., RALEIGH, NC
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • ECOLOGISTS
ALEX FRENCH
NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN
PROJECT ENGINEER
Prepared for.
GARY M. MRYNCZA, P.E.
r�
g ement
PROGRAM
GUY PEARCE
P.E. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
h

GENERAL NOTES:
CONTROL POINTS
>w�
z
BEARINGS AND DISTANCES:
5
ALL BEARINGS ARE NAD 1983 GRID BEARINGS.
POINT NORTHING FASTING ELEV
ALL DISTANCES AND COORDINATES SHOWN ARE HORIZONTAL (GROUND)
KCI #1
664976.29
1504398.61
801.43
0
VALUES.
KCI #2
665302.76
1504918.92
806.58
KCI #3
665525.99
1505032.18
801.94
UTILITY /SUBSURFACE PLANS:
KCI#4
665848.59
1505257.14
808.23
NO SUBSURFACE PLANS ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS PROJECT. EXISTING
KCI #5
666044.78
1505627.02
816.76
a
UJ
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED.
KCI#6
666203.11
1505696.64
813.59
j
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING A UTILITY LOCATOR
KCI #7
666320.77
1505815.72
819.84
F
a z
AND ESTABLISHING THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY
KCI #8
666069.52
1505777.72
825.43
N
o
AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE PROJECT REACH.
KCI #9
666224.30
1505878.01
829.38
;
t
KCI #10
665537.37
1505186.95
809.24
<
°
IT IS BROUGHT TO THE CONTRACTORS ATTENTION THAT A WATER
KCI #11
665608.89
1505387.92
821.87
w
m
EASEMENT IS LOCATED ON THIS PROJECT (SEE SHEET 7).
KCI #12
665427.41
1505456.87
836.44
a
y W
KCI #13
665449.71
1505627.32
827.06
<
m
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING TEMPORARY
KCI #14
665329.42
1505589.64
852.09
ACCESS ACROSS STREAMS FOR LAND OWNER DURING
KCI #15
665446.58
1504086.68
795.07
CULVERT REPLACEMENT.
KCI #16
664838.13
1504605.20
810.80
KCI #17
665446.57
1504086.65
795.14
KCI #18
665613.87
1504130.73
800.92�s
KCI #19
665725.78
1504068.23
800.51
f r
KCI #20
665796.34
1504030.77
799.88
KCI #21
665904.94
1503965.82
802.15
KCI #22
665981.40
1503816.35
799.51
KCI #23
666098.42
1503801.43
802.46
KCI #24
665950.46
1503684.90
801.59
KCI #25
666381.98
1505581.60
845.94
KCI #26
666341.16
1506134.54
851.82
x
o
u
xa
�J
0
0
PROJECT LEGEND-
Proposed Thalweg -
Existing Woods Line
w
w /Approximate Bankfull Limits -------- - - - - --
Single Tree
a
ProProposed Lo Drop
p 9 P
v
w
W
U
Minor Contour Line
_____ _______________________________
--
p
Proposed Step Pool ______________________________
D!
Z
o
Major Contour Line
720 - - --
°
o
Proposed Riffle Grade Control -------- - - - - -- NE0
z
�
Z
Existing Barbed Wire Fencing
-------------
- - - - -- x x
x
Y) (D
0
Proposed Soil Lift
o P:
a
��
o
Proposed Rif le Enhancement ---------- - - - - --
w
>
RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT MATERIAL.
MINIMUM OF 6" DEPTH OF SURGE STONE,
CO
Q
WASHED IN WITH NATIVE BED MATERIAL.
Z
EXTEND INTO'RUN' SECTION OF POOL AREA.
x
U
Proposed Channel Block ------------------ - - - - --
-1: JUNE 2012
N.T.S.
PROJECT
Existing Channel to be Filled
LEGEND &
NOTES
SHEET 2
OF 22

FA
j
a
N N
w
Z w
m
BANKFULL WIDTH BANKFULL WIDTH BANKFULL WIDTH
g
FILTER FABRIC SILL AND FOOTER
( INSTALLON NE,
UPSTREAM SIDE) BOULDERS
Z
p
SEE PROFILE SHEETS FOR
= J b ROCK TIED INTO
D
V)
STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS
FOR BEGIN AND END OF
LL STREAM BANK
Z O o ° A
F
r
O
RIFFLE
�n -
o
Ln
TAPER STONE INTO
'RUN' SECTION OF POOL
O
°
Ld
O
p K WATER FLOW NO GAPS BETWEEN
FLOW —►
D
FILTER FABRIC °° ROCKS
(INSTALL ON � D
r
m
�
z
UPSTREAM SID^
JE)
O w
O
O
POOL
SILL AND FOOTER ROCKS
STONE, BOULDERS
0
f
m
p
Occ
z O
D
z
STONE FOR ER USE STONE FOR EROSION
D
2
CONTROL, C CONTROL, CLASS 1
ALONG TOE OF SLOPES
w
2 f2
m
Om
aLL
a
N w
SECTION (PROFILE VIEW)
D D
Q
m U
A
PLAN VIEW
LAY FILTER FABRIC
OVER UPSTREAM TOP
EDGE OF SILL ROCK(S);
BEHIND SEE PROFILE SHEETS FOR
�
y y SEE CROSS- SECTION SHEETS
z p z FOR EXACT DIMENSIONS
BACKFILLINTH #6BRIC,
STONE, CLASS A OR B STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS
[�¢
E2
r O m O
RIP RAP AND /OR
NATURAL STREAM
MATERIALS.
�p
LAY FILTER FABRIC FROM
THE SECOND STEP OVER
1' MIN.
�--I
SEE NOTE �°
EPEAT
PROFILE SILL SPS ROCK(S) AND REPEAT
#1 BELOW
N
WITH FILTER FABRIC FROM
FLOW -
T
► END OF FIRST STEP
BASEFLOW PROPOSED
STREAMBED
CROSS - SECTION VIEW
_ -111-111-1 _ ELEV.
iiiiiiii _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ =
V V
STONE
o z
0
FILTER STO NE FOR EROSION FILTER
` ' o �a
FABRIC BOULDERS CONTROL, CLASS A FABRIC
L2 o �'
(KEY IN
_
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
UNDER
SECTION A- A' (PROFILE VIEW)
<�
STREAM����
c5 o
SCALE: NTS
BED)
° s
DOUBLE STEP POOL
w J
Nore
SCALE: NTS
1. START BY INSTALLING CLASS STONE. THEN ADD SURGE STONE
NOTES:
w
TO FILL IN VOIDS. FINISH BY WASHING IN NATURAL STREAM
MATERIAL TO OBTAIN FINAL GRADE.
1. ALL SILL OR FOOTER ROCKS ARE STONE, BOULDERS.
2. DETAIL SHOWN IS FOR A DOUBLE STEP POOL
ADJUST ACCORDINGLY FOR SINGLE STEP POOLS.
(SEE PROFILE SHEET TO DETERMINE AMOUNT OF STEPS)
Q
3. SUBSTITUTE ALL CLASS A STONE FOR CLASS I STONE
Z
FOR DOUBLE STEP POOL AT THE END OF REACH T7 -3
J
(SEE SHEET 7)
O
d'
W U
O
TRENCH, STAKE &
z O Z EACH SOIL LIFT SHOULD BE
k
Z d Q
FILL END OF COIR a Yz OF THE MAX BANKFUL
o O HEAVY m O DEPTH. BACKFILL SOIL LIFTS
Z
FIBER MATTING. USE
"MIN DEPTH) COIR MATTING WITH SUITABLE ONSITE MATERIAL. 3 MIN.
Z
(8
ON ALL LIFTS
O
Z Q
III
< U
RL
EXISIN BED MAT IA
III
m
SEE SECTION X 3 A v
SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS
SL
Q
Q >
l t IC
L >
V
BASEFLOW
- -- -
STAKE WOODEN STAKES ON 10ENTERS. 0 0 0 TAPER ROCK SUBGRADE u
O OOO O 60 O O O
O
O
STAKE E ACH LAYER. STAKES SHALL BE NOTCHED
O 0 INTO POOL BOTTOM � O 00 O
O
OR HAVE A NAIL AT TOP. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 00 0O O O O O O �
Q
w >
O
(BOTTOM LAYER STAKING NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) 1=
a.
��2' MINIMUM
SECTION
co
SEE RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
SEE PROFILE SHEETS DETAIL NOTE #1.
FORSTATIONS(ELEV. SECTION
2
SEE CROSS SECTION NOTE:
0
SHEETS FOR DIMENSIONS MATCH ALL SPECS FROM
SOIL LIFT/ RIFFLE GRADE
CONTROL" DETAIL.
CAE. JUNE 2012
SOIL LIFT/ RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
N.T.S.
SOIL LIFT DETAIL FOR OUTER BENDS / POOLS
NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
DETAILS:
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES MAY REQUIRE FOR ONLY ONE,
THICK LAYER SOIL LIFT TO BE INSTALLED. TO BE DETERMINED
STABILIZATION
BY DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FIELD.
SHEET 3 OF 22

PROPOSED
RCPCULVERT
O
EM BO O
EMBEDMENT O� �O01 0 00 OO 000 0
oo0Oo0 O O
RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT
NOTE- MATERIAL. SEE SHEET 2.
CULVERT SHAPE TO BE DETERMINED
AT FINAL CULVERT DESIGN.
EMBEDDED CULVERT
SCALE: NTS
_ _ _ _ _ F_LOODPLAIN_
UNITS — —
7•
STABILIZED DRAINAGE
p110N �
TREATMENT OUTFALL. SEE DETAIL.
AREA
O
---- - -_ - -- 00
ABILIZED ROCK OUTLET o — — — — — — — — —
PLAN VIEW
STABILIZED SPILLWAY
NTr
DETENTION AREA STREAM
MAX DEPTH APPROX. 05' O CHANNEL
��
SECTION A-A' (PROFILE VIEW)
NOTE-
EXACT SIZE AND LOCATIONS
OF WETS TO BE DETERMINED
BY DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AREA WQT
IN FIELD. SCALE NTS
FILTER 8" CLASS B STONE
FABRIC
?'7
OO OO
STABILIZED DRAINAGE OUTFALL
SCALE:NTS
UN COMPACTED BACKFILL
1 MIN. COMPACTED
FINISH GRADE 5' BACKFILL
0 5' FLOW
COMPACTED CHANNEL
BACKFILL MIN. 1.0'THICK �y., 2y INVERT
SEDIMENTCONTOLSTO E
CLASS ISTONE
CHANNELBLOCK
SCALE: NTS
7 W r
Q Z W
� � y
5
a
0
F
F
� N
Z
F r O
N
p w >
w n
r
Q
m N
J
N O Z
Z p w
O � f
N O
w
O r
¢ K
G w
zi
a
� N
6 w W
r �8
�a
�I
N o
in a a
V �J
0
1� L2
0
x�
a
z
Z
J
0
W U
2
CD i
Z d z
z
gQ o
cn (7 U
m~_ z
O C� O
� c �
Q LL
NW O
N w
0
cn
_z
2
U
DETAILS:
STABILIZATION
SHEET 4 OF 22
A
W
0
B'
1
� B
O
J l 5' MIN' ~
' MIN- —
T
FILTER
�i EXTEND LOG
FABRIC
INT BANK
0
A
PLAN VIEW
SEE PROFILE SHEETS FOR
STAPLE FILTER FABRIC TO
STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED CROSS LOG
12" MIN_ DIAMETER
CROSSLOG
F�
CLASS'A' PROPOSED
STONE
STONE STREAMBED ELEV
O O
$
BACKFILL
(-
MIXTURE OF (157
STONE, CLASS A OR B
RIPRAP, AND NATURAL
STREAMBED MATERIALS.
EARTH FILTER
FILTER
FABRIC
BACKFILL FABRIC
FOOTER ROCKS (BOULDERS).
OR SUBSTITUTE 2 LOGS FOR FOOTERS.
UNDISTURBED
GROUND
SECTION B-B' (PROFILE VIEW)
SECTION AN (CROSS - SECTION VIEW)
LOG
DROP DETAIL
SCALE: NTS
PROPOSED
RCPCULVERT
O
EM BO O
EMBEDMENT O� �O01 0 00 OO 000 0
oo0Oo0 O O
RIFFLE ENHANCEMENT
NOTE- MATERIAL. SEE SHEET 2.
CULVERT SHAPE TO BE DETERMINED
AT FINAL CULVERT DESIGN.
EMBEDDED CULVERT
SCALE: NTS
_ _ _ _ _ F_LOODPLAIN_
UNITS — —
7•
STABILIZED DRAINAGE
p110N �
TREATMENT OUTFALL. SEE DETAIL.
AREA
O
---- - -_ - -- 00
ABILIZED ROCK OUTLET o — — — — — — — — —
PLAN VIEW
STABILIZED SPILLWAY
NTr
DETENTION AREA STREAM
MAX DEPTH APPROX. 05' O CHANNEL
��
SECTION A-A' (PROFILE VIEW)
NOTE-
EXACT SIZE AND LOCATIONS
OF WETS TO BE DETERMINED
BY DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AREA WQT
IN FIELD. SCALE NTS
FILTER 8" CLASS B STONE
FABRIC
?'7
OO OO
STABILIZED DRAINAGE OUTFALL
SCALE:NTS
UN COMPACTED BACKFILL
1 MIN. COMPACTED
FINISH GRADE 5' BACKFILL
0 5' FLOW
COMPACTED CHANNEL
BACKFILL MIN. 1.0'THICK �y., 2y INVERT
SEDIMENTCONTOLSTO E
CLASS ISTONE
CHANNELBLOCK
SCALE: NTS
7 W r
Q Z W
� � y
5
a
0
F
F
� N
Z
F r O
N
p w >
w n
r
Q
m N
J
N O Z
Z p w
O � f
N O
w
O r
¢ K
G w
zi
a
� N
6 w W
r �8
�a
�I
N o
in a a
V �J
0
1� L2
0
x�
a
z
Z
J
0
W U
2
CD i
Z d z
z
gQ o
cn (7 U
m~_ z
O C� O
� c �
Q LL
NW O
N w
0
cn
_z
2
U
DETAILS:
STABILIZATION
SHEET 4 OF 22

REACH T1 -1
STATION 10 +00 TO 13 +03 = RESTORATION
REACH T1 -2
STATION 13 +03 TO 14 +61 = ENHANCEMENT II
"C4" STREAM TYPE
REACH T1 -3
STATION 14 +61 TO 24 +12 = RESTORATION
"C4" STREAM TYPE
SEE PLAN SHEETS ----]
FOR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
(TYPICAL BOTH SIDES)
-
11.5
TIEBACK TO EXISTING
GRADE AT 2:1 SLOPE
PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
(TYPICAL BOTH SIDES)
12.2'
TIE BACK TO EXISTING
GRADE AT 2:1 SLOPE
2.3' 2.3'
f
I
3.2' I 2.5' 2.6' I 3.2'
(TYPICAL)
P1�
r
3.4' 2.7' 2.7' 3.4'
y. * � * �
TYPICAL
( )
Ty
r 1
3.2'
T-
Wfpa
(TYPICAL)
ly
Q10
I r
_
-�° - -1 _ _�_
_ _ _ -
r
Wbkf
- --
Wbkf-
r-
-
m
O
TYPICAL RIFFLE
TYPICAL RIFFLE
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
EE PLAN FOR F OODPLAINSEXTENTS
FOR F OODPLAIN EX TEN TS
9.3' f 5.T
` 5.0'
9.4' r 6.1'
5.0'
WTpa
-1 - -- I --
bo
yybkf
ED
Wbkf
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
VVbkf
- I m
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
0 -THALWEG LOCATION
REACH T1A
STATION 40 +00 TO 41 +78 = RESTORATION
"134c / C4" STREAM TYPE
TIE BACK TO EXISTING 8.5
GRADE AT 2:1 SLOPE
(TYPICAL) 4' 24' 1.8' 1 -8' 2.4' I 4'
�Iy I I I
N
TYPICAL RIFFLE
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
I Wbkf
--F - .
N
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
4' 4.3' 7' 3'
-VVb f I
'v
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
0 -THALWEG LOCATION
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
REACH T2 -1
STATION 50 +00 TO 66 +32 = RESTORATION
"C4" STREAM TYPE
SEE PLAN SHEETS ----]
11.6'
FOR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
(TYPICAL BOTH SIDES)
r
2.9'
2.3' 2.3'
2.9' 1
TIEBACK TO EXISTING
GRADE AT 2:1 SLOPE
(TYPICAL)
Ij
I�
P1�
Wbkf
GRADE AT 2:1 SLOPE
r
a
3.2'
2.8' 2.6' _
N
(TYPICAL)
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
TYPICAL RIFFLE
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
6.8' 5.2' 5.0'
- - - - - LWbkf - -
N
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
FOR PLAN FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS FOR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
5.0' 6.1' 9.4' _ 5.0' 5.2' _ 8.8'
vwpa wrva I
-__ Wbkf - - - - - - -_ Wbkfj _
al
N m
N
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
0 = THALWEG LOCATION -4' -2' 0' 4' 8' 0 = THALWEG LOCATION
REACH T2A
STATION 100 +00 TO 104 +65 = ENHANCEMENT I
"134c / C4" STREAM TYPE
TIE BACK TO EXISTING 6.6
GRADE AT 2:I SLOPE -
(TYPICAL) 2' 1.8' 1.4' 1.4' 1.8' 1 2'
I oli li
S V fpa i
Wbkf - r --T
TYPICAL RIFFLE
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
2' 5.3' 3.2' 2'
t l�s
_ -�Wbkf _
I
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
2' 3.2' 5.3' 2'
\ T- -1 VVbkf +-
N
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
REACH T2 -2
STATION 66 +32 TO 77 +45 = RESTORATION
"C4" STREAM TYPE
SEE PLAN SHEETS
11.6'
FOR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
TIE BACK TO EXISTING
(TYPICAL BOTH SIDES)
GRADE AT 2:1 SLOPE
r
3.2'
2.8' 2.6' _
3.2' -I1
(TYPICAL)
ly
p�p
I r
I
- --
Wbkf-
r-
-
O
SEE PLAN SHEETS
FOR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
TYPICAL RIFFLE
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
9 -2' 5 -8' 5.0'
-Wfpa - - -
N _ 1
TYPICAL POOL - RIGHT MEANDER
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
SEE PLAN SHEETS
�- FOR FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
5.0' 5 -8' 9.2'
Wfpa
_ - Wbkf� - - - - -
iD
N
TYPICAL POOL - LEFT MEANDER
0 = THALWEG LOCATION
<Zw
� � m
5
a
z
� N
z
F r O
i N
W
w n
r
Q
m m
J
m O Z
Z p w
m o
w
O r
a K
G w
zi
a
z w o
CL m w
w
Tom,
N �
V �J
0
0
x�
a
z
z
H 0
W U
C7 o
Z d z
z0
gQ o
cn (7 U
m C~ >z
O G >
C O
Of
LU
��W/ 0
LL w
H �
cn
_Z
2
U
TYPICAL
CROSS
SECTIONS
ISHEET 5 OF 22 1

REACH T1A
RESTORATION
810
806
802
798
794
790
786
40 +00
REACH T1 -1
RESTORATION
802
798
794
790
786
782
778
10 +00
41 +00 42 +00
O
Q
BEGIN J
REACH T1A
ALL BARBED WIRE FENCING
WITHIN CONSERVATION
EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
STABILIZED INCOMING
DRAINAGE WITH CLASS
B STONE. SEE DETAIL
SHEET4.
EXISTING CULVERT
TO BE RESET
_
11 - 805 -_ -
BEGIN
- - -- -- r - -' --
m ;�
^z 16
- - r - - -' -- - -
° NNm -
- -' -- - -', -' --
- -', - - -- - -r --
--
mr
\ � g
H
9
Z'
^
o
m
V
n
WWkNy
DD
/
1 N.
m
N
- - m
-
N
- -
°a
-- --
>
--
W >
-
-I'
___
d
>GU d'
>
wq
W d
�N
C_Q��
- - EMENT �-- - - --
- CONSERVATI
Q��
'
- -- -
- --
-
- -
-- -
-- -
>
111 d
O o
F,
Fn
/
O
w mm
o'Ai
W
m
a
�Q y`
R
w
m
o_¢ o
z
-O-
o
p`a
ze',
Z�
m
¢,
H
O
-
Z
.-
z
w
m
o v
---- - - - >
-W
-
'tea'
w._
Q.
¢
-- G'O
-d
o,
- -
wa
>
m>
a'
__�
d
w'
m
Q
N
�
ap
+
n - -N
�I�
r
a -+
cn d
J
-
-
w d w
> - w w
REACH T1 -1
RESTORATION
802
798
794
790
786
782
778
10 +00
41 +00 42 +00
O
Q
BEGIN J
REACH T1A
ALL BARBED WIRE FENCING
WITHIN CONSERVATION
EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
STABILIZED INCOMING
DRAINAGE WITH CLASS
B STONE. SEE DETAIL
SHEET4.
/ // \✓ � »fix -
•ANTS
� I I
ooi 1I
EXISTING CULVERT
TO BE RESET
_
11 - 805 -_ -
BEGIN
SEEP PROTECTION AREA.
R CH T1 -1 INV= 797.7
DO NOT DISTURB DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
1 V '�
STONE. STABILIZE BANKS
WITH CLASS B STONE.
\ � g
Z'+
m m
m R
-
/
1 N.
m
N
- - m
-
N
- -
°a
-- --
-- - -
- -
- -
_
_ --
805 -
- -
- --
- - EMENT �-- - - --
- CONSERVATI
- - - --- \-- -- -
Q__ - ---
'
DETAIL
SHEET4
/ // \✓ � »fix -
•ANTS
� I I
ooi 1I
REACH T1 -2
ENHANCEMENT II
_ GitAg1NG W� BEGIN \ ?
\ i . .. / /�... FLDODPWN - \ REACH T1 -2
ON EASEMENT \
_ CONSERVAT�
/ \ 50 -FOOT EASEMENT) \
- - - - EXCEPTION BEGIN \ \
REACH T1 -3 \ .
\ - - - _ _
VV�Ay\
EXISTING CULVERT
TO BE RESET
_
11 - 805 -_ -
BEGIN
/
R CH T1 -1 INV= 797.7
-
-
1 V '�
STONE. STABILIZE BANKS
WITH CLASS B STONE.
\ � g
REACH T1 -2
ENHANCEMENT II
_ GitAg1NG W� BEGIN \ ?
\ i . .. / /�... FLDODPWN - \ REACH T1 -2
ON EASEMENT \
_ CONSERVAT�
/ \ 50 -FOOT EASEMENT) \
- - - - EXCEPTION BEGIN \ \
REACH T1 -3 \ .
\ - - - _ _
VV�Ay\
EXISTING CULVERT
TO BE RESET
_
11 - 805 -_ -
^
/
-
-
STABILIZE INLET OF
CULVERT WITH SURGE
STONE. STABILIZE BANKS
WITH CLASS B STONE.
%/-__ --
/-_-
,-820-
REACH T1 -3
RESTORATION
PROPOSED
PROFILE
EXISTING
GRADE
NOTE:
GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES;
AS DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
�''�
'�
^
Z'+
m m
m R
-
/
1 N.
m
N
- - m
-
N
- -
°a
-- --
-- - -
- -
- -
_
_ --
-
- -
- --
_
_
__
- -- -
- --
-
- -
-- -
-- -
- -
a
O o
F,
zo
/
O
w mm
o'Ai
W
m
a
�Q y`
R
m
¢,
H
¢ ¢
O
-
Z
.-
z
w
m
o v
IF
>_�
a'
__�
-
aZ_
wl� -
F
_
-_�
F
-¢'� 1-- `
z
- -'��1
+
�p
ap
+
n - -N
�I�
r
a -+
�� ¢_�_
_'�
m
m
T
_
m - -'.o
�m
�
-
--
- -'-
''___ _'''''__
__'__ -__`__'_____'__'__
-__'____
-__'__'___'__
__'___'__ __'___
o ,_
n_'__
'111 �i ✓y
-a --
Wm
1�
a �r,¢
N
e
yy
o
a - -
_ - - -__ _
- - - -
_
-`;
vOZ'v_ZJ__
^, +
W
'n_
n �m
- --
-
'__'r
- - --
- - - -, ------------------
- - -, --
-- - - -- -- -
____
_�'___ __'r _
- _
_ _ -
a
_
-
z
Q '�_
�r___''r__'�
m
z
a
F
¢ H'�O
o
1 5Z
L o
�0Z
K
.
N- �d
--
� �¢+.�� rmr
_ _-__-
__
_- _-
_,�'�'. ___�g
_-- _-N
_-_r___- _ _- _-'r _- _r'_n
_- _- _- _-_- '^�_-�- •✓- __-_-6-
_-
��-'e -
'- '_- _-.
- '�'�- _,�- ',r�_ __��,�_J_'��
�
N w �
1 1
��N >_
H ¢
a
z
o-w
z�
-
- -_�r'_m �
- - --
�ir -2
- - -
�
-�J m�
_
m m�
_
�r '�Irnm
- r
� r'l �m -_-
r
��_-- --
----------
r�
�
�
' >
W
-- --
_- y-
cOzt
H
Q
OWm w
O
__
-
N-
ra-
-
Q
_--_�W ��+ _
- � ',
_ +_ -
-_
_ �m_�
-N -
'_-
° _
__-_
____
___ -- __
------- -
-N_ -
_ _�1_
� _¢
_�
_�__ _ ___
� '�_ �__ _�__
i
yN
O
I Z
vi_-i
o-
l
?
111
w
m J m
m
a��
O
Z
¢ F�
¢aa
N
¢a
O
+
____ ___
__
___
z
r
=
mm
'
W
____'____
_
_O
dl
-
_°
+J d��
_ _ - - --
- __ w -- `
__ ___m>_ �'� W __ w �w -
�_ __
-__ >
� ��
,� _m ��-
¢ W
-
- ti
�
¢ � �
_
�__d
_
_y ¢
�aWJ
c
p
+
ONo
Z
amm
_1
_ �-_- _
_aQ
•
_��
W
u -
0! S,
�~WW'
g
WW
_H
�
¢
a
¢
F
O
p
n m
D
�
�
>
N
aD
'-
`-------
`------ `------
`- -- - ---------------
'
-t�
--N_
'Z
--- - - --
'
- ` ------- `-------
`-------
------- -------
--- -
WC
'-- `- -
-QZYO
� >La' - -
Q
a
Z ~1_
3
,
n
Z
O
--
- - - -. --
-
1
>-----
W•
0 0
Z n
a
O
Z
F r O
N
O w >
w
m m
rn O Z
Z p w
O � �
m o
w
O r
zis �
G w
z d
a w ww
f ��s
r�
to
V �J
0
0
X�
a
z
J
H O
W U
O ~
C7 i o z
Z d Z a
zz
r � r
Q O
U) (7 U H
M � z Q
0 -
Q DC LU
Q L U
0 W
0
:n Q
_Z
U
SITE PLAN
& PROFILE
!SHEET 6 OF 22
11 +00 12 +00 13 +00 14 +00 15 +00 16 +00 17 +00 18 +00 19 +00 20 +00 21 +00

L � J
•V•• �.. �.........
.I.....
_
-' - - __- __-
_
- - - - --
- - - - -�
-__ -- � �\
\ \ FEET
LINE
A \ WATER R LINE
EASEMENT
\ \ \ V 1 I
\ \ I 1
\ I 1
-
_
-�
-
_
lOOpp�IN
\
__
'.�!•yG
STBBILIZE 1NCOM[NG'
g
�T_
GOING
PROPOSED OUTLET DITCH.•'NTg
I
ONE SEE DET, I -
-
v v
- �- - _ , - - _ - / I l l
1
- _.SHEET
...........
r-
�\ -S
V I ,
\ I v
\ 1 \
798
794
790
786
782
778
774
14 +00
i
/ k
\/ o
b0 '
- \ \ \ \ - _ 5 ETENTIONAREA - - - -
GTIN - - - - ---- - - - - -- � - _\ -_\
INTO OUTLET DITCH- _- - -_ - -_ ----- - - \ \ I I I I I I I X I
--- _ - - - -- �v�v - - -wo -- - - - - --
\CONSERVATION EASEMENT - - - - - \- - - - '
32.5 ET
• � /v - --�� - - - -- I ' o v vvvv `vvv - -- \ / ` I � II I I I /
�/ .••
•V•• �.. �.........
.I.....
- -1 I
//
�X _
N
o
-�
-
_
lOOpp�IN
\
__
'.�!•yG
�T_
GOING
PROPOSED OUTLET DITCH.•'NTg
I
__
-
v v
- �- - _ , - - _ - / I l l
1
\LINE WITH CLASS B STONE
AND GRADE TO DRAIN INTO
...........
r-
__
_� ____
PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTION,
�\SEE DETAIL SHEET 4.
....
__ ___
Q
Q
r,
z
,_
i °_O,__,�
+n
z-
0
_�
p - -;
,Z___'�
-
`Z
®
R
-z'
- -°
r_ -F�_N�
m ____,__
'_ m__
ALL BARBED WIRE FENCING
WITHIN CONSERVATION \
/ _ - - - \
\
,
\ \ \:,, `
' • \ _
-- \
EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED \
CONSERV T(ON EASEMENT"
- - - - "__ - -_
-- -_'___'__•____-'-_
\ '\
\ ti-
¢
F
Q¢
H
¢
F-
O
�+
O� m
z m
N'o-
_�
NOTE
GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES;
AS DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
REACH T1 -3
RESTORATION
Vv v V 1 I I V •/ V I
v vv v
`o�\
\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
V A V A V A V A A \
PROPOSED
PROFILE
EXISTING
GRADE
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
DOUBLE STEP POOL.
SEE NOTE#3 ON SHEET 3.
STABILIZE FLOODPLAIN
DRAINAGE WITH CLASS
B STONE TIE INTO
PROPOSED STEP POOL.
SEE DETAIL SHEET 4.
\ \ II IIIIIIOMM rn \ \ \ \\
- -/ ///// ///III 1 1 1 1VA
I / ///11111 l\\\
• IIIIHIII HM VAAA
STREAM CULV
(2j 18" DIA .,20'OLONG FLOODPLAIN CULVERTSR(CMP)
• r /1111 /111111 \ \ \ \ \ �
•',I Iii ///�1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\
\`y
1 1AAA \ \V AYE
I Il/
+00
SEE SHEETS &10
FOR REACH T2
PROPOSED
STREAM CULVERT
�JQ
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
15 +00 16 +00 17 +00 18 +00 19 +00 20 +00 21 +00 22 +00 23 +00 24 +00 25 +00
0 0
Z n
5
z
O
Z
F r O
N
p w >
Zi
w n
y O Z
z p w
O � s
m p
w
o r
s g
z G a
s f2
a w ww
f
r
Im
r�
N o
oz
V of
0
0
� o
z
J
0
W U
O F
CD of
0
I L
Z Z
oz
z O
g:
U) � 0 a
m p: z W
O 2
O
W
a i

REACH T2 -1
RESTORATION
818
814
810
806
802
798
794
50 +00
-- `----- S9B - - - -'�
---- - - -_ -- --
NOTE:
GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES;
AS DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
X048
LLJ
oa8' CONSERVATION EASEMENT / J.
< o
/ / — V A _ _ / l 4 1 GRADE LINES SHOWN TO
0'// / A�V °� 1 // // 1 ®�g A fly - -_— V ^ i � �� \1 _ I ILLUSTRATE SLOPE GRADING zj 2 f2
T EXACT
SEEDETAIL -s �e- OUTS DETERMIN ED BY CROSS
HEE SECTION TIE OUTS.
—SEE DETAIL a m w
¢ m o
• / � /) /� \ 1 SHEET4
� �_ /// / )�.� — �`— •i �Q �'� � / � I � / / % /// V / � / / _ pie � l 1 I � � / � w
/;.•• h II• — / � —s�8 VA •, �'�— -- !•' / /�� �// �// � —.,— � � � A � All �l• > -� w
III' — I /( /YC i -- � /,•/ / /� /i�� /� / l __ �— v ��� \Vv /. A —���7 / w
I• O ljl /•�-- A / / / / /iii /�� Ill �I —' �����A — m +i�r
p
BEGIN :II `1 +�� �" /� I� // i• / / / /o // 1 �� v v v t w
\ v / r/ // / v v� ?
REACH T2 1 � � �V',AV ECG � � l F ��� ����� 2a� � AA � � / /•/ / / /// / A A / / � _ A A V A � -
��.� r � _ A ✓ iii / � A 1 / � A �-�
�/ _
FLOODPLAIN v �/ //� — AAA V1 1 / / /i / O STABILIZED INCOMING
GRADING EXTE �' A / /�,� -- �A A \ \I / /DRAINAGE WITH CLASS B A
\
STONE TO INTO
SE
PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTION. , \ —
+V /ANDBLIVESTAIO= SCOIRMATTING — —
\ -- - -- A
- - --
�// /iii \ EE DETAI
H €ET 4:
STABILIZED DRAINAGEWI H INCOMING
STONE TO DRAIN INTO
PROPOSED RIFFLE SECTION. / / / — — c — ) / / /iG /� — — — — �\ �+ sZg_
STABILIZEWITH COIR MATTING
AND LIVE STAKES.
- - -�\ ALL BARBED WIRE FENCING l �o as
WITHIN
EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
cv
a
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
PROPOSED
PROFILE GRAPHIC SCALE
EXISTING
___ __�_ _�___ - ______ - ____ a,______ __ ______ __ �_____f
- -� -� - j � m > �i OF ay N irbi� z
____ •_____________ "________________ _________•______•______ ____•______ - ____ - __aa __ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - _
_ d m Z c�m+� O m ��1
�WW m �Q N rQ� Q a� Ob O NZ nZ� mm C;,
�m S ��p� NO numb L11 Nt'T N�
______ _______�____�__�____�__�____�__ ______�_______�_______�__ ___.___---- _ W - N n +_ aifl a+m Z�b -Z- -- - _- -m� -
---- - -` - -I - I- - _ _ - _ _ --
,__•__'__, - ---- '-- • - -' -- - -` '___'__• ----- '- - - -' -- - - _'
— — -
- - -� - - - -� -- -- - - - - - - - - --- - - - -_- -- - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- --- - - - - -- -� - -- -� -- -- -- - - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- -- --
a �� d a �', m > � y Q F j r F Q r F Q r O 'm O m a °m z
_ __ _ ___ W D W j fif > w a n m W y yQ ~¢ m a w a w r Q O Q O
51 +00 52 +00 53 +00 54 +00 55 +00 56 +00 57 +00 58 +00 59 +00 60 +00 61 +00
z
H 0
w U
O
o!
Z (L z
go ZF
U) U U
M � a w
O
U � o
Q w
NNw o
''H^^ '0'^
co V
_Z
U
SITE PLAN
& PROFILE
ISHEET 8 OF 22 1
m
m
O m
b -
N -
m a
_ m
m
v
- - - }
} b
- Q
Q O - - -' -- N
-Z- _
_'_
M z
z N
m m
m e
as $
-
-- - --
/ a
a w
> z
a r
b M
r �
ow o
o a
N a
$$ N
N
m w }
b -
-, -
- - -- -
--
-- -
- -- -
-- -
-� - -- -
- -- �
�- -- -
-- --
- -
- >
_ m
�,
} o
o m
-
- -
i `
`�+ o-r °
° .
.- m
m .
. .
. - - -- -
- -
--
-- -
- -
- �- -
-- - -
- - -- - - -- -
- - -- -
- - - - - -- -
- - -_ -
-- -
- -
- -
-- -
- - - -
-- -
- -�- - -- -
- -
- -- - -
-_� -- -
-- - -
5C g
g�:
- - -- -
- - -- -
- -� - - -_ -
-- -
- - -� - -
- - - -- -
--- -_� - -� - - - -- -
- - -� - -- - -
- - - - -- - - - -� -- -
- -- - - - - -� --
WN H
HQ�FF �
� Q
Q�LL� �
��aTz O
O+D +
+Z� +
+""� �mo� �
� � � �m M
M�
-
� s
-
_ r
a �
d ,
______ n
n
-
s
gi
-- -- - -- o
_ _
- �
_
3 d
. '
a r
- b
� +
-- � r
-_ - - m N
N m
r g
'
r Q
O- '
r b F
-
m -
-
__ _
___ ____ _
W
- - w a
a_ �� _� J
J
~_ _
¢� Q
---- l
- -_ R
J'- -� - -N> ~
___ ¢
Q -� -
- ___ +__m- _
______ _
__tam
51 +00 52 +00 53 +00 54 +00 55 +00 56 +00 57 +00 58 +00 59 +00 60 +00 61 +00
z
H 0
w U
O
o!
Z (L z
go ZF
U) U U
M � a w
O
U � o
Q w
NNw o
''H^^ '0'^
co V
_Z
U
SITE PLAN
& PROFILE
ISHEET 8 OF 22 1

810
806
802
798
794
790
786
59 +00
V BEGIN
REACH 72A III f 11� Il�ll�ll VA \VA \Vl // �/
vv A (SEE SHEEJ 11) !III ICI /// /// -
v III,
-
\
°�q I 1 I11)) /�j 1AA \A1A11 �III1AAAAAVAA� sZa- �� _ NOTE:
GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES;
4� 111 Illl 11111 AAAA VAA �_��� �_ j, v_ AS DETERMINED BY DESIGN
\ \ _ _ REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
I I1111111�11 VAA�AAA
-
\\
A1\V1\
--
v
/ VA VAAVAA V AAAA�A\ _ r
A \_
A \ \ ---- GFWDELINESSHO
ILLUSTRATE SLOPE GRAD! G �' / 1 vA �A VA1) 1- v V A /
�
-- /AVAV A � OUTS DETERMINyED BY C6EOSS/ / � A V� A�� vA"oA AV _ - _ - _ _ --- - - - -_/ �
vA V A A \ SECTIONSIEOSITS. __ /
_ - - -- _ - --
VAA / -
m
50-FOOT SEMENT
EXCEPTION WITH
16-FOOT-CROSSING
mi
• \\ \� �\ � -� � �� - - i� -- -i- _ - =„ -fig J,,S v� 1, , \,_� - -- _�� ___` _ -_ ��
vv •I Vvv_____ _ "� "-i .ice °: _- "" - �1 // 0 --
co
• V A \ V 1 ✓ X �..• / �J• -� 1 BEGIN - -_
REACH T2-2 \ 1 I / / A \ m
2 4' DIA., 20' LONG STREAM CULVERT (CONCRETE)
18" DIA, 20' LONG FLOODPLAIN CULVERTS (CMP
STABILIZED INCOMING -
DRAINAGE WITH CLASS B
STONE. SEE DETAIL
SHEET 4.
PROPOSE
CULVERT
PROPOSED REACH T2 -2
PROFILE -11 RESTORATION
EXISTING
GRADE
—40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
m
m
FLOODPLAIN -:L
n
GRADING
EXTENTS
y
Ali'__ - --
-- -_____ -
TIE STEP POOL INTO
EXISTING ROCK SILL
STABILIZED INCOMING
DRAINAGE WITH CLASS
"-- ��;__-
"-
- -_ -_-
_
\\\���
B STONE -SEE DETAIL
SHEET4-
_ _-
_\_-- _
_--
\ \\
__�
z- _+
T
-
- - --
m •�`
°"
�'^-
I,m
°m
__'
m
PROPOSE
CULVERT
PROPOSED REACH T2 -2
PROFILE -11 RESTORATION
EXISTING
GRADE
—40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
m
m
n
z p��
O -- _bap
Q
__�
z- _+
T
__*
-
m •�`
°"
�'^-
I,m
°m
__'
m
m o
m
mN
ma
-
mew
-
`-
- -
-
-- --
- - - --
-
-- --
--
-- -
-- --
- - --
-- - -
1�
w
Q H
-
r --
0 . -.,
m ion
moon
--
-
•-
- • -
• •
- •
--
•- - --
-
-- - -
- --
-- - -
- - - -•
- - --
-- - --
-
w
'
p 26"6128&Z
m
*Z�
Om-
,rar¢G?-�
O1K
se-�
- - -"
n
n --
-
- -- -
- -
- -
- - -- --
` - - - -` -
- - -`- -- `--
- - -' -- -
- -' - -- ` - --
-' --
-- `- -
- - - --
-`- -' --
- - - --
- - - •-
-
•- - --
- --
-
- =g
- --
�,¢�
- - - --
- a -J
- --
m
-a
�irm
?p,
- --
-
- --
-- -
-
- - -- --
�__
- -
- - - -- - - - -
- -- ------- •- - - -
- -- - - - - - -- - -
- - - -- -- - - --
-- - - -- -- - -
-- -- - - -- --
- - - - - -- -------
•------- •- -
- - - -- - - - - - --
-- - - -- -- --
�m
n
�
--r �- --�a-
a
rnQ �n
i�Q n
b
fd
fW •
Q Fy1 ~
b dC
__-
,.
�J
��_ :_'� __
_ m -
OQ
Q_
-_�
- o
m
mN �-
Z¢o-' �
''����r
O
N� +-
--�
gy O m
rm
-"T
m
.
^. �
-
\� -
/
>
w _
_-m
, \_r Y -
w
a >>
w W .N�
jIJ L �r_ �>P
F�
�m '
-~
• ___�_
O
�
OmNrmQ - �
9-s
$ _- _
•'�
mwzp- _-_-_-
- _ 4
�- _
_
• _ _
'-_-
_ • _ _
'
'
-
�.
- �
Q
m � ' r -_- -
yyW
Na>+-_��''Z �
g
Q
o-�Q
_
Z r
n
°-
N
o,m
&
\-- _
'®
\
•`
a
�-
m
m
r
/+
0
IQ
�W
�m''�-
`
`1
g
_ -:
_-d
'�� _ -
-_-_ __ -
>
-yQa>
W'
_
_- _
_: �
�r _Z �0 _
> w _ �
W
_-_m
�O
' -- ----
- -
ar��''a
'-
-
- -
' - -'`�
- -
m.
_�`
_m°Z
�a - __
'
-'- ' --
a-
µ
m
�
�
�
- - ' - -� m ^
-
ZOlr�� - - -
_ lep �
"--
�
-� m
>
ad
r
m
.
6
4i
¢
? s
e
a
¢
o - -�
,
e-m
- -�p
w -
_
a�W
n>
y
- --
- - --
W
a
©-
z
>
>
- -
-- - -
N
w
w
`------ `--
- -- -
-' -' - --
w
O
O
��z
$z-
�
a
n
- --
>
>w
r
o2
- S
+
W
FL
r
p
ID vm
q:
O Z �
K, +
z�m
g
g
�
h
�
r '<
>
W>
0 0
5
a
0
Z
F r O
N
o w >
zi
w
y O Z
Z m w
O � �
m p
w
o r
s �
w
� a
f2
a w °w
N
V �J
0
1� L2 w
0
w �
z
J
0
W U
Q
O
x N
C') LY ~
Z d Z z
Z O a
gp:
Q O
U) 0 U
M p: z H
OV co
2 W 0
Lu > a
Ifs 0
� (7
fn ¢
_Z
2
U
SITE PLAN
& PROFILE
!SHEET 9 OF 22
60 +00 61 +00 62 +00 63 +00 64 +00 65 +00 66 +00 67 +00 68 +00 69 +00 70 +00

FLOODPLAIN
GRADING EXTENTS
—40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
802
798
794
790
786
782
778
67 +00
NOTE:
GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES;
AS DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
50 -FOOT EASEMENT
EXCEPTION WITH A
16 -FOOT CROSSING
/ / -- - - - - -- - -
- -- - -_ _--
- _ = j 1 - -_
_
� ua aav��vase a s°
� �aaiCiisiia
111
1�
EA EN /
x
^m
/
—
WQT O
anmi'_ }_�_
c• -W�
--`gym
-- �----
$`'---
_ii\ -� -- __
•' -O�\
G DETAIL 11 1
__ }__�_____�__
- -�
_ _ _______�__�__�__�__
Q�d SHEET4 J )
__�__�__�__�__
__�__�__�__�____
}__�__�__ }__
__ �_ }__�__�____�__�__�__�_____�__
/\v
_�__�__
__�__�__�__�____�__�__�__�__
__ �__}__ �__ � ____�__�__�__�_____�__�__�__�__
__�__�__�__�__
/
/
n
s.
w
vt w v1,
',d
�>>
'- m
— _ —_ —_— — — —_ \_f_`_
"
- `''o\
— _ --- _-- - - - -'�
f +
--
ON S
°�
'�-
--
`,
`, -
- --
`-
--
- - -- --
- - --
— — — PROPOSED
PROFILE
'�- --
-- --
EXISTING
GRADE
>
WI
O�
^X
- STABILIZED INCOMING
Lr) k
n \ DRAINAGE WITH CLAS"
_ - STONE. SEE DETAIL SHEET 4
(1) 4' DIA., 20' LONG STREAM CULVERT (CONCRETE) \ ✓ I / / /
2 18" DIA., 20' LONG FLOODPLAIN CULVERTS (CM)
—ALL BARBED WIRE FENCING
WITHIN CONSERVATION
EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED
0
PROPOSED
STREAM CULVERT
1�
/
SEE SHEETS 6 &7
FOR REACH T1
m
^m
anmi'_ }_�_
c• -W�
--`gym
-- �----
$`'---
_ii\ -� -- __
__�__ _�_ __
__�____ }__�_
__ }__�_____�__
___
_ _ _______�__�__�__�__
__�__�__�__�__
__�__�__�__�____
}__�__�__ }__
__ �_ }__�__�____�__�__�__�_____�__
_�__�__
__�__�__�__�____�__�__�__�__
__ �__}__ �__ � ____�__�__�__�_____�__�__�__�__
__�__�__�__�__
s.
w
vt w v1,
',d
�>>
'- m
Z`$
"
- `''o\
z
f +
--
N
°�
'�-
--
`,
`, -
- --
`-
--
- - -- --
- - --
- --
'�- --
-- --
>
WI
m_
-'a
_
n
��__'
O
- @
-�
-Z
b lq��
``T.,
_
__
___
-
__
>_Ll_
�' - --
a.
>
1__m
�
J-
��W
N
+�I
~
-w �m
- -a
�j- __
-
-
- -'�
z
- r - -I - -n
__ �N�Z-
_
0
0
__
N z n
z --
m
-
m
- ^� -- --
m____ N
.�,�-
�pW
-=gin
i(1
,r '�n;o--
- - - -;m ��o -� --
-- �' - - -- --
��---- ,�- -�� - -� -,� --
- -- - -� - -� --
- - : - -� - - - : - -
-- - -; - -- - -� --
- -� --- - -� - - � --
m
w�
w
_
w
w
m>
H¢ d
n O n
O
Z^
-
y
a---
X s
W--
> > W-
allZ
YF-
m- $
- a -o
^
_-_� _
_-_, _--_
_
�'
-- -- --
--
- - -
>
---
y
O
,
W
� m
a
-
- - - -
-_-
O.
�y
7
r
- - - - - - -- - -
I
- -__ - �- --
0 � 10- o n
Z
v
m
m °
N
F`I
n
n
_ r _
_
_-_ _-_� _
—
Q
�m
0
-_-_�--
-
- - - -�m
---- -� - -
Q
O
Z
�
V
-0
ap
'
�m
x4
- - - ---
`
--- - - - ---
------------
'
- -- --
- -- --
w' w
w w �
'
O
a
°w
^ W*
z �
z" '
9
r
aa_
_
m
---_J__ L _______L____J__1____J__1____J--
--------- -----
J - - - - --
____________
___________---------
- - - - --
------- _------------
- - - - --
____________
__________________________
_____ ______________
____________
__
_ ______
______
__ _
_ _____
_
_________
w
_
_
>
w
ru W
>
68 +00 69 +00 70 +00 71 +00 72 +00 73 +00 74 +00 75 +00 76 +00 77 +00 78 +00
N N
r W F
Q Z W
� � m
a
O
F-
Z
F r O
Zi
o w >
w
m a m
J
rn O Z
Z O W
m 0
w
O r
< g
w
� a
f2
a w ww
f ��s
r
r�
V �J
0
0
x�
w �
z
0
W U
O
C7 it o!
Z d z
z 0 N
gI­_
U) U U
m z
O
Q LL LLF
W Q
L� �
r
c
_Z
U
SITE PLAN
& PROFILE
ISHEET 10 OF 22 1

�\ v v /.�l / /lV A /VAA �UllllllVAAA / / / /// �- - -.
\I��I���� cI
\ REACTi f �\ ���y \ \ \ \ \ \ \1 // / - - -0£8
\1 l
\ \ � ( l � � � III ( \ \�����li -_ _ �_�_
--
V - -) 1 V AVA 1 111AAAAAAAAAVAA ___ szs- v v
\o \1� \ \\ \ \ \\ RIIIA \ \ \\ \ -__ _- - _ \\
�8v -_ -� IIII1����11� 1A \�1� IIIIIIIIAAAAAA VV _,_ - + vv
11 `llllAA _� -
NOTE:
_ GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES;
Q
z a
' w
m
�I���11 I f VAAA� �� v
�� -� ���� 1��111�11�11�1 AAAAA VA AA����� _ 1/ v�
1 I \) \\ \ /
-_,
�_
REPRESENTIATIVE NDFIE D.
g
n
X11
� X111 VAAV A� \��V AVVAAAA� ��wvw� � ��� � -�_
\ '
�'
��I���
/ 1 1 111 \ \ \\ � \ \ \��\ \ \ \\ � \ii �%�� � � -
/� \` _\
/ / III \ \ \1�\ \d�%�� \�
l
\ -
QO
U'
/ \ \. \l� \ \ \ %l \
\ + ' / / / \ \ \ \����� \11111 \ \'�G`` _'� ��\ \�� �\dLC
__
~
r
N
O
`V �
\ \ V A \\ VA AV - -_ ,A � � _
\V / A\ \��AVA A_
y - -_
-- A - - --
r
�
d
\AAAV�vVA�-
/ / / \ \ \A \��\ �A��� V �\ VA -� \ \V '���
-
\ \ ��_
\, _____
-� -- /
�+
\V -
\VA
�T V'�
AVAAA VA VAA VAAA V A \ VA- _ -_
p
- --
Z
O W
�O�^y
V A\ \v
��_ - /' /� A� \�VAV AA VAAA�` V ( II�V ��AVVVVV`-
'
- -- A AV A A +
z
w
v / S VA VAAVAA ,� VAA vA�A\
v v i / / A \ \ 1A ��A
vvA V v vst '
r
�_ Na
°w
v
v _ _ 1'l'jl \ AAA UvA vv
a
w
�/� A V A \
._vvvvAvv\
/ v v v
\ - - -- / / vAA V( \� v��
a / / AAA VAA
V A GRADE LINES SHOWN TO / A Q
_ v� Ao
/ vvAs
- -T w v A /
i �/ __
/ --
i
W
v
--
v v / V // �.V
-'vA AV A\ v ILLUSTRATE SLOPE GRADNG / � � A VA AV vA`� AV �
vv� �� A A \v - -�, EXTENTS/SCALEEXACTTIE ' / v vvv��A ��/ �A �B�VA V A
A ��
_' _-------- -- --
-- - - - -�_
-- - -_-
-/� ,
/
/
- - -AA\
// VAA
,_ -- OUTS- p €TERMINED BY ROSS/ /
A \1 A - -_� SECTIONTIEOUTS- l� / / o A
\� \v�A�A�\
�V A� \� A 1 \�J
- -- -
' ,A \��_ �� �_ -_ �/ / , � - / III /// / // A A \VAS_ %S' � _�
\\j,\�,�_
``
m•\
\ \
�
\\ � �'' �� ��� -- � i' -- _�- _ - - ///
-fig J11S � // / \\
\ / __��-
/
vv -_ -- -- / r
- - - 6 / o
_
�n
to
V A \ V 1 ✓ y. e� m,./ �J' -_ —;,� 1 BEGIN - - -- vv
\ V A / _ - -� t9 i i /// i' / -._ ,5p8_ -� ,� REACHT2 -2 - -- A V �/ /vim \
\ '. '. _ - � i �
OW
o
V� \
- /�- ��\ >'� - -_� / ��
EXCEPTION WIMHA
1CFOOTCROSSING
\
\ `_
// -_ `n"
_ - _ y y_- /
v -_ --
\ \ --
-
\ - -\
iw
�` u
° "'
-
-
-
((1) 4' DIA.,
(2j18TA.,
20' LONG STREAM
20'LONG FLOODPLAIN
CULVERT (CONCRETE�
CULVERTS
(CMP)
\ /
/�
- _� _ _ -/ / - - _ _�
- -__- -� �� �, - -� - -\ - _ G i� - -- _ -_ _ - -- _ ��_�_�,_-
- _ _ - _- _ _ _ _ _
_- _- _ - -_ --
a _
�- '� -__ - �_-
N
`; �'•
Ida
wow
--
-- /ii
STABILIZEDINCOMING
DITCH WITH CLASS B
STONE.SEEDETAIL
SHEET4.��
- %- _ = -_-__ -_ -_ -_s[e _- -_-
a, _
- �,' _ _'_ _s[ \\; ���� \ -- _- �,� = / /%' ;_- _- __ -_ -_ _ -__ --
- - ------ __- _-- ____- __ - -_ - -/ �� %��- ___ -__- -- TIE STEP POOL INTO
- - - _ _ - _ - - - EXISTING ROCK SILL
- - -_ -_ ----- _- _'- __-_ -__ ,'�_ %�- - - --
= g
''
GRADING - _
EXTENTS _ -_ -_-
STABILIZED INCOMING
DITCH WITH CLASS B
STONE. SEE DETAIL
SHEET4.
------ \_\\\__\ --
= -S ��� ��- _-----
��;.,oZg= �;- _;�� = - --
_
��'�- �������--
-� _` ,_��_=
- - -_
_ -����
- -_-
-
- - - - --
-
r
,y�
�OlU
-
w
�w
',
_-- _S-
-_ - -` _ - �' '�
- -- -
__- __
- -'_�
_ _ - - -_-
- -_ --
- - - - --
- 40' -20' 0' 40' 80'
a
z
REACH T2A
J
ENHANCEMENTI
GRAPHIC SCALE
�!
w
EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED
PROFILE
W
U
810
O
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
U' �^
O
mAWN� rya
• - •
- �-
_� ___
__
- -
__ _�
-
__
__
-
�_ __
__
�_ __
__�
I
_�_ ___
-
__ __
__
} ___
__
�_ __
__ __
Z L.L
Z
H
�'
O 0 �
$OPryc
+O °
n $
d o
w
mo'mm M
N
- -, °d_
- -
,_ __
- - •
•_
__
__ '_
-
'_ __
__
'_ '__
__•
_•_ ___
-
__ ___
__
_' ____
'__•
- - __
__ __
Z
Q
806
o
°
p'
r -FQ-
r
r¢ Q r r
S zS 'a #
�' �O
— O
� r r�
Q
a
O O'
o
O Z
�O�
w$r
n
mQ m
m
`O¢�K
- n'
-
O m
__
- ___
-_
--
- - -_
__
_�
�_ _____
___ ____
__
____
___
'_ __
_____
L
r
g
j
r
m
c
m
mmw!�l -J-
aJaJ- �u-
r r ¢
-mm J�
w
r rQl<nr m
¢Q¢rµQr
<o
_
az #
^O o
+�in$n',
°O,' N
nS $$ m
nnm �°
m
a_ S
_N m$a
O
U
2
U
m
>w >�wj -w� -
-� � � �
-
-- a J � �
>w w_
m�m� �-
- - -�
J1 �
}Q',
�w
c
_�r
� Q -� -
tn,w'�
0 z
__' � -'O
z, + n +R o,
� N � -f
'�,o z�
$°�i 0
'� _._
°,� ^°+pan °m
�_ � �__�
_
� __
mF�
_ _ - -
- � �- �- �
�- � �___�__
- -' -' - -'
-- �--- �-- r - -� --
-- r-- �--- �-- r-----
�-- r-- � - - -� --
-- r__ �__.__ r ____.__r__�__,_____�__,__r__�__
-- r-- �--- �-- r-----
�--
r-- � - - -� --
-- �___ �__ r__ r ____.__r__�__._____�__,__r__�__
-- r-- �--- � - -r --
_
802
-
>w
>
yw _
�¢'¢F Q�
ma m>
gz,o
-
¢r
�n
�o O o z+
�oa
n n
^$
mm mW�n
v
—
_, -
Mxmm'
___ �.
-
f `w�
>
_ -w �w
d J'
yw�..,�J
W w
rQ r ¢,Q
uy��}
w dJ m
-
r pMn
r r
mym¢'r �Y OO
m m
Mrs--
OZ
#
�p
- +;$-
Oz 3ZOL
`O
-, -;
Z
-; --
Q C
0
D!
e�m
mmo
- - --
n n
r_
-
- ___
- __
W -R; E[
�
aJ ��Q
w w~
> �aJm>
`O
QF- -K
rar
�O� °O
< d W
¢r
D __
r l
_�_ �__
___
- �__
.
._ ___
__
___ ___
__
_� ____
___
�_ __
__ r__
G
Q
W
o a
`o
�i m
m
N
-m
--
- - -
- -'
--
�wl
W
r¢
¢ --
Yry
- --
- --
- - --
--
- -- - - --
--
- - - --
- --
- --
-- - --
Sa +
on oM
C� � m mm�m
SfO
—J
a
O.J
-
aJ
O
798
TS
r ¢r
QG-¢
mWm>
O
'r
Od
o,
���
zS
#
z t
QO
n n
°'.o +io
as
z
a
� m- ;S
m
mmm�
m'�
_ __
\�—
>w
>w
ppp
f_
_�_ �__
�___
_�_ �__
_�
�_ �___
-_
-__ ______
__ ________
__
__ _ -__
;^
'^
V
_
w
F¢..Qf
m
Q
y
r'a
Q r
r
N'¢F
O�
}F'r
0 ZO�Z �+
Q¢ z9
n +mm
Z
+1�dm�
Or
m�mcmo�
pryp �WOmN YI
N -til. mOR
n
a'^��ON
- -
—
-
-
/ - -�
- -�- - - -
- -_�
- -�- - - -
- -�
-� - - --
--
- -� - --
-----
_� - -
- - -�
-� - --
- - - -� --
V'
Z
>dJ�LL
'---
,- >W'y--
a'm
>
J
--6
tlY
- -�1K
N��
QN_'�•¢
�-
Q
ryZ
¢
-�aN
o
N�Zr.�W �rO
o
nom W -gym
�
mmm
-M .N
- -�'-
-- '_ -�' -
-•
/ -• - -•
- _' - -• --
-- •- _'-- , - -• - --
-
- --
-
-- -
- --
-
- - --
-
- -�
ya
w r
W J a J ern
t= Q
F- p
O o O, o O o
O+ n# m
$ ry �$
� °'
w rn
a
(�
794
__� -�__
�______
w
> --
J
- - -J
waw�w�
J
w
J+n
�? -'J_w
¢Q
> r
a
r
w m
F
S
¢,�
r¢r
4
�p
Q
a o z
__�M o_�°Z�
- r¢�a�
m',
aln
',N W- vy
�+
- ,�
_____
____________
__________________________
________ _______________________________
_____
__ ____
__'__. �_
____�__ .___
- �__
_____ '__'_ '__
'_
'__'
_ > -w
>
�jw
-
1m
IwJna
>¢
__
W -
__yN.
-��c
o�z
_o'
$z z
o__ O_�
- _
adP __'__'__'
__'__' _ __'__
__ __'__ __ ____
__ __'__'__
__'__'__•__'_____•__`__'__
_____'__
__ __'__
__ __'__ __ ____
__
__'__ __
__'__'__ __'_____•__'___'__•_____'__
__`__'__
__ __'__ __ __
- -�'
-
-' -m
yw
>'W
-
wm��m'r
_r<'�c_a'r
d4 __ --
- - - - - --
- - - -- -
- - -- - - - --
- - - -- - - -
-- - - - - - --
- - -- -
- - - -- - - - --
- - - --
- - -- - - - - --
- - - --
- - -- - - - --
-- - - - --
J.
W' a
-•W
_ W m
m W
790
'°' > w
>
__ - '__'_____
__ __ ___
_ __ __
__ _ ___ _ _
_ _', __ __
__ - __'__
__ __'__•__ ____•__
_____'_
__ ___ __ ___
__ __'__ __
__'__ __ __'__
__ __'__ __ - -
-- -- __'__•__
__'__•__•__'_____•__`__'__
_____'__
__ __' --
-- - -`- __ - -
-- --
__' -- --
- _'__•__ __'_____•__'___'__•_____'__
__`__' --
-- - -' -- __ __
SITE PLAN
& PROFILE
786
SHEET 11
OF 22
100 +00
60 +00
61 +00
62 +00 63 +00 105 +00 65 +00 66 +00
67 +00
68 +00 69 +00 70 +00

BEGIN —
REACH T2A
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o o o o \
0 o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 o o 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 o
0 0 o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0
0 0
0 o 0 o o o o o o 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 o o o. 0 0 o 0 o 0 o o o o o o o o 0 0 o o 0 o
o o o o o 0 o 0 o o O o 0 c o o o o 0 0 o o o o o O o o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0
o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 o o o O O O o o o o o o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O
-BEGIN o o o 0 o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o 0 o o o 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 o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
REACH T2 o 0 o o o 0 o o o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o ° o 0 0
o o o o o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 Q 0 0 o o ° o
0 0 0 ° o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0° o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
RIPARIAN
ZONE
PIEDMONT ALLUVIAL PLANTING ZONE= 11.70 ACRES (508,738 SQ.FT.)
12" - 18" BARE ROOT MATERIAL
El
680 STEMSIACRE (8' X 8' SPACING), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
% OF TOTAL
# OF PLANTS
RIVER BIRCH
BETULA NIGRA
25
2,000
GREEN ASH
FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA
15
1,200
TULIP POPLAR
LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA
15
1,200
SYCAMORE
PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS
20
1,600
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK
QUERCUS MICHAUXII
15
1,200
WILLOW OAK
QUERCUS PHELLOS
10
900
8,100
MESIC
ZONE
17 MESIC MIXED HARDWOOD PLANTING ZONE = 1.13 ACRES (49,337 SO FT.)
12" - 18" BARE ROOT MATERIAL
680 STEMSIACRE (8' X 8' SPACING), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
% OF TOTAL
# OF PLANTS
PIN OAK
QUERCUS PALUSTRIS
20
150
TULIP POPLAR
LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA
20
150
SOUTHERN RED OAK
QUERCUS FALCATA
15
120
WILLOW OAK
QUERCUS PHELLOS
15
120
WHITE OAK
QUERCUSALBA
15
120
PERSIMMON
DIOSPYROS VIRGINIANA
15
120
780
STREAM
ZONE
Hb ZONE
LIVE STAKES 1.5' TO 2' LENGTHS, 1/2' TO 2" DIAMETER,
2 ROWS AT 3' CENTER SPACING (SEE DETAIL), RANDOM SPECIES PLACEMENT
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
BLACKWILLOW SALIX NIGRA
SILKY WILLOW SALIX SERICEA
SILKY DOGWOOD CORNUSAMOMUM
ELDERBERRY SAMBUCUS CANADENSIS
NOTE: AT LEAST THREE OF THE LISTED SPECIES MUST BE
INSTALLED AND NO SINGLE LIVE STAKING SPECIES
SHALL COMPOSE MORE THAN 40% OF THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF LIVE STAKES TO BE INSTALLED.
BANKFULL Q------------ - - -J\T
BASE FLOW Q
LIVE STAKE J
PROPOSED
STREAM BANK
SECTION VIEW
SQUARE CUT
BUDS
Q
II
o o o o o o
O
r
(0.5" TO 2 "DIAMETER
y
°�5°
z
LL
1
I
0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0
LL
O
Q
3'
I
O
0
0 0 0 o 0 0 o
J
1
CD it
OOU
J
o ° 0 0 0 0
O
o
Y
3'
Z0
gQ o
LL S LL
O
U) 0 U
w w
0 0 o 0 0 0
~
O a
° O
0 0
0 0 o
o
0 c� p
G
Gp0�9
a/
I
<
LLF
0 0 0 0°
0 0
SQUARE CUT
BUDS
(FACING UPWARD)
NO
o o o o o o
r
LIVE CUTTING
(0.5" TO 2 "DIAMETER
y
°�5°
z
ANGLE CUT 30
NOTES:
- LIVE STAKES TO BE INSTALLED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT
SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND AS
DIRECTED BY THE DESIGN REP.
- LIVE STAKES SHALL BE REDUCED
ON INNER BAR LOCATIONS (INSIDE
MEANDER BENDS) AS DIRECTED BY
Z THE DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE.
9
LIVE STAKES DETAIL
SCALE: NITS
/o 0 o o o° o o
o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o c c o o c
o o o
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BEGIN
REACH T1A
N N
r W r
2 W
� � y
5
a
O
F
Z
F r_ O
N
O w >
w n
Ld
r
Q
m N
J
y O Z
Z 0 W
O � �
N
w
O o
r
s g
Z G a
C w
a w w
_b�
fm
�o
�u
V �J
0
0
x�
a
SHEET 12 OF 22
Z
o o o o o o
o o o
o 0 o o 0 0
0 0 0 o o o o
0 0
J
0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0
W U
o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 o 0 0 o
CD it
° o o o o
Z d z
o ° 0 0 0 0
o
Z0
gQ o
U) 0 U
0 0 o 0 0 0
~
O a
° O
0 0
0 0 o
o
0 c� p
G
Gp0�9
a/
<
LLF
0 0 0 0°
0 0
W >
w
0 0 0
0
co Z
o
0
0 o a
U
0 0 0 o
E. JUNE 2012
0 o
E. 1 " =80'
o ° ° c o
— 100' -50' 0' 100' 200'
° ° ° ° ° ° BEGIN
PLANTING
° o ° o ° o REACH TI
o
GRAPHIC SCALE
PLAN
SHEET 12 OF 22

\
Np\ \ y
MARTHA MYERS DEAL
\ ` REVOCABLE TRUST
\ \ PARCEL ID# 234 023
V A DB 915 PG 687 (PAR. 2)
/
BEGIN
\ REACH
.--- -- T1A—
- - -- - --
v -� - - - -- -- - - - - -- i ' ✓ /
\ REACH `V ; i ; /� --------- T - -� - -- —��
\ T1 A / / / A
41
N/F
V A OSCHO ROY DEAL
REVOCABLE TRUST ; /i
PARCEL ID# 234 024
DB 875 PG 742 (PAR. 1)
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i \ _
1
c
�t
- 150' -75' 0' 150' 300'
GRAPHIC SCALE
/ BEGIN
REACH T2
I /
/
/ /
/ /
/
\/
�/ BEGIN
/° REACH T2A
\
\
\
\ I\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
ACCESS DRIVE
/
E ,
`V
11TH oF'INNAPOns
PAROEL IRK 235 025
\ DE� 1022 PQ 874
N/F
, / iPINEW00D HOMES INC TR.
_ --------- PARCEL ID# 236 086
DB 873 PG 976
\ \ �4 /
---- - - - - --
\- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/F
OSCHO ROY DEAL
PARCEL ID# 234 028
DB 1122 PG 670
DB 756 PG 923
LEGEND:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE _ _ _ _ _
_ _ SCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ------------- - - -
- - - LOD
SILT FENCE---------------------- - - - -
-- SF
STRAW WADDLE_________________________
- --- -- --- --
ROCKSILTSCREEN----------------------
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING_____________
—
SILT FENCE ROCK OUTLET
TEMPORARY STOCKPILE
SLOPE STABILIZATION
PROPOSED STREAM THALWEG
- -
W/ APPROX . BANKFULL LIMITS_______________
EXISTING STREAM THALWEG
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE = 22.4 AC
,
N/F
WILLIAM CORRIHER
/ PARCEL ID# 234 025
/ DB 1117 PG 976
JACQUELYNFFULCHER
---- - - -_ -- I PARCEL ID #234044
------------- - - - - -I DB 1036 PG 76
N/F
E &L HOLDINGS LLC
PARCEL ID# 236001010
PARCEL ID# 236 004
DB 1070 PG 976
N/F
ERIC LEONARD DEAL
PARCEL ID# 234 062
DB 875 PC 743
DB 234 PG 62
N/F
ERIC LEONARD DEAL
PARCEL ID# 234 099
DB 1098 PG 954
I �
cd
O
y
N N
> w
Z w
� � y
5
a
O
N
z
F r O
UU
o w
w n
r
m N
J
y d Z
Z p w
N o
w
o r
s g
w
� a
f2
a w °w
f
r
lm
!�I
N
t a¢
OZ
V o`
0
�a �U
0
X�
w
z
z
H 0
W U
O
CD of
Z d z
z
Z
(n � U
m p: z
O C�C O
� G
Q L
W O
w
H 0
fn Q
_Z
2
U
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
ISHEET 13 OF 22 1

LEGEND:
\
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE _ _ _ _
_ _ _
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ___________________
LOD
SILT FENCE ____________________________
SF
STRAWWADDLE _________________________
ROCKSILTSCREEN ------ ________________
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING_____________
—
SILT FENCE ROCK OUTLET
TEMPORARY STOCKPILE
SLOPE STABILIZATION _____________________
o o
PROPOSED STREAM THALWEG
W /APPROX. BANKFULL LIMITS_______________
`805_--- . \ /[l / /��_—
EXISTING STREAM THALWEG _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ ---------
BEGIN
REACH T1A
O �I
O
— - ----
805 —
/ ____-- -- - - -- LOU \ \
Le
SF— � to r _ — — -- —
_ BEGIN
REACH TI -2
.' �V�V /�V 2 to'D OD
00 _L0D
BEGIN \ \
REACH T1 -3 \
NOTE:
GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES;
AS DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
N N
w
Z w
� � y
5
a
O
Z
F r O
N
o w >
w n
ui
Q
m N
J
y d Z
Z 0 W
N f
W 0
0 r
s g
G w
� a
f2
a w ww
r�
N o
V �J
0
0
Q
Z
O
W U
O ~
it z
z
Z a Z a
z
Z
gQ o
cn (7 U H
m p: Z Q
O � H
DOC LU
Q LL U
0 W
co
_Z
x
U
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
SHEET 14 OF 22
\
GIN11 - - - --
CH T1 -1 V�V
AIII —'
_ - - - -_-
V 805
/l
- --
`805_--- . \ /[l / /��_—
BEGIN \ \
REACH T1 -3 \
NOTE:
GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES;
AS DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
N N
w
Z w
� � y
5
a
O
Z
F r O
N
o w >
w n
ui
Q
m N
J
y d Z
Z 0 W
N f
W 0
0 r
s g
G w
� a
f2
a w ww
r�
N o
V �J
0
0
Q
Z
O
W U
O ~
it z
z
Z a Z a
z
Z
gQ o
cn (7 U H
m p: Z Q
O � H
DOC LU
Q LL U
0 W
co
_Z
x
U
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
SHEET 14 OF 22

\ � V vvv /vv v v v �`�`�v`v���v1v vvvv 1nvv ��yv 1 1 1111v �
\ \ vvvv v/ v �,. '�ov�vvvvvvv v v 1vvv vvvv v 1° -1111 �, /i
\ V �v v vv � v v� v 1v vIv vyv 1 1 1 1 1 1 v v vvv vv l i 1 1 1 1,
V \ oo>
v� ��\ v vv1 y1 111 ,1
v v v �
v�,y v �� / v vvv11 111 11 11 1v v vv v v_ I
vvv���iilvv�vbvvvvv
V ��� �— �, -- v �v ( �� � II11vvv1�wvvvvvvvvvv� vvv 111111vvvv�vv �`I I
OO \IAI vvAA���VAVAVA1� /1sN11 11AVA��1�
-� e�5� 17 +0p
- - - - - -' ��� �– / � �' �
-- \ V I I
- - – –�_ �� ��� \ \ \ V 1 – ����� j 111 / / / /JIIIIIIII ll \VA \ \VAAVAA,
A \ \ V �A v vy �J l / / /JN 1VA V A V A
— — — — – ' l ILL VAV 1 IIIIIIII l(llll
J If 111 11 \VA\
\ — ---- - - - - -- - — OO��n+11 \� -- - - - - - -/
- - - - -- 70 FEET WIDE \ \ 1 1 1 �j
�' -- – – – – – – –� A EASEMENT
– – WATERLINE
7�+- o '/ I/ IIP l \VAVAA V A
- --�� �� - - - - -- �� – -- 1 1 � 111V AA
� -- v� �� / /� // /lull i/� - - - -- �y�A� – V \ 0 1 11 1 1 I I u,A
\l( /A
_ —_ —_ II /I // - -- _-- - - - - -- \ of �l \V A 111
aoo - - - - -- -- _– _ –_ –_ -- \ �I V1 ,11 j (1A .
LOD - -� - - - -- — _
_____ _ - - --
V, — - -� 95— — — — — - --
- - -- v�
O v v V� - - - - --
1
06�1 �� A – —
_ 1
NOTE:
GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES;
AS DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD.
LEGEND:
Q
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - - - - -
- -
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ LOD
SILT FENCE ____________________________
SF
STRAWWADDLE________ _________________
ROCKSILTSCREEN ------- _______________
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING_____________
—
SILT FENCE ROCK OUTLET
TEMPORARYSTOCKPILE
SLOPE STABILIZATION --------------- - - -
- - - o o
PROPOSED STREAM THALWEG
- -
W /APPROX. BANKFULL LIMITS_______________'
EXISTING STREAM THALWEG
gP
O
1,00 /
I �
STAGINGAREA
Q "v v \ v
vvVvv vvv � � �
o 0
Z N
5
a
0
z
r r O
w n _ >
r _ w
zi
o=
m
N
d
Z m w
m o
w
O r
z �
G w
� a
zj > f2
m w ww
+pp
eC
r�
SEE SHEETS 18 -18
FOR REACH T2
in
� r
oz
V of
0
0
XI
o 0
a
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
SHEET 15 OF 22
Q
Z
0
W U
2
Z d Z
oz
Z O
gP
(n < U
U
m p: Z
<1
0 O
2 Ix
a Lj
?e
W &
H 0
co Q
Z
—40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
T
GRAPHIC SCALE
- JUNE2012
SCALE: V" 40'
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
SHEET 15 OF 22

LEGEND:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SCE 00
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ___________________ LOD D0; a
001 N N N
SILT FENCE ____________________________ SF
CIO ¢ Z n °
STRAWWADDLE _________________________ – __– __ –__ –_ OOT ' m
ROCKSILTSCREEN ------
________________
z
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING_____________ n
– _ – – STOCKPILE & z
SILT FENCE ROCK OUTLET ® �� STAGING AREA p
r
TEMPORARY STOCKPILE
SLOPE STABILIZATION _____________________ o
PROPOSED STREAM THALWEG o
O
I
y
W /APPROX. BANKFULL LIMITS_______________ ly o > Ln
w
Ld
EXISTING STREAM THALWEG _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ��_� = 0C
O AS - - - < Zi
m
m O Z
2 m W
c 0
ys W C U
O r
m g
\0 z G w
� � a
VIP 6 N w
A vv�'� -- - - -- �� i�— '�• -VVVA V v / / // �\ I// _ - -- A '��A,� 1! Il \�� 1 ill /111AA ���,���� _ �a
9
-- I �x -9�2— \IV `iP / / // - I /���� - - - - -V A A /1A/ /��
°z
�/l /� /' %NI / / / / 6 ��-- �— —0n
X — v v III 11 III f / CT v� w
S / / / /// —etev w —
/��_ V I l /A
�'' I l / r�i // l
BEGIN I � S z
REACH oz
— ¢
Op A 1 V /�v it v - /G�-
0
Lu U
V011AIIA11�Ay�f
/i /� ,0\ \` ����. =� /i— I 1 I !��i _ \ \`\ ��� _ - -_ 06i O
i— — - - - - -- - - - - -- v vv A Z F N
—sze., - -- — v vv� vv \
! ¢ w
It
LL
0
co (7
z
NOTE: U
GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES; 007
AS DETERMINED BY DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD. 00 E= JUNE 2012
ys —40'-20' 0' 40' 80' E.
y
's> GRAPHIC SCALE SAND N
EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
SHEET 16 OF 22
O

LEGEND:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE _ _ _ _
_ _ _
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ___________________
LOD
SILT FENCE ____________________________
SF
STRAWWADDLE _________________________
— __— __ —__ —_
ROCKSILTSCREEN ______________________
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING_____________
—
SILT FENCE ROCK OUTLET
TEMPORARY STOCKPILE
SLOPE STABILIZATION _____________________
0 o
PROPOSED STREAM THALWEG
-
W/ APPROX . BANKFULL LIMITS_______________
EXISTING STREAM THALWEG----------------
---------
007
0
ys�
y
00
\ BEGIN - - --
-v \ REACRT2A
v AV v /I III \III
—
v AA lAIIII111I --
V
NOTE: p
1 1 111 11 I �� A GRADING MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED
V j 11 �II X111 111l11�VAAA vAV ������ v IN CERTAIN AREAS TO AVOID TREES;
i 1 II II lA11 A \h VAAAAA A�w� v��� cif v_�� AS DETERMINED BY DESIGN
v 1 1111 \ Ill U 1A \\ VA � VAvAA v`/ _ REPRESENTATIVE IN FIELD. i
F r O
w
r - tz
Zi
\ N = r
o
1 -- i 1 VA VAA VAAA AVAA _ \VVA- — o
v� / 1 \ VAVAA VAA�AAVAAA OVA A�VA - - - -_V A V -- z w w
- - - - -- AAV v w m f2
N
v —AO
vvv - - -- -
O �>
ad"
�.��V111AI \� / / /��
op
`vvvs��vy`fir/ v� v�: ��Ill1 \VAv i
i�
— — Yx
O
/ Y
ys
% - -_ - -- -
Z7 _— _— �5L9_��_ _ - - --
_ - -_
0
a�
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
f
r
1
r�
N
V �J
0
�L2 �v
0
z
Z
0
W U
2
O 0 �
Z d z
z0
gQ o
fn (7 U
m ~ z
O � O
2 W
Q LL
W
ow
H 0
fn Q
_z
x
U
ISHEET OF 22 1

LEGEND:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE _ _ _ _
_ _ _
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ___________________
LOD
SILT FENCE ____________________________
SF
STRAWWADDLE _________________________
ROCKSILTSCREEN ------ ________________
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING_____________
-
SILT FENCE ROCK OUTLET
TEMPORARY STOCKPILE
SLOPE STABILIZATION _____________________
o o
PROPOSED STREAM THALWEG
W /APPROX. BANKFULL LIMITS_______________
EXISTING STREAM THALWEG _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ ---------
w
w
w
Z
2
a
K o fro
-40'-20' 0' 40' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
iT14&15
N N
> w
Z w
� � y
5
a
O
Z
F r O
0 w >
w n
LLJ
Q
m N
J
y 0 Z
Z 0 W
N 0
W �
0 r
s g
z G a
w m f2
d 0
a w w
�o
�J
0
�Q
xa ��
0
x�
a
z
J
WO
W U
o
Z d z
z o N
gP:
Q O 2
cn C7 U U
m� z
o�
0
�2 W
Q LLF
W 0
w
H 0
cn
_z
x
U
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
SHEET 18 OF 22

SEEDBED PREPARATION
THE SEEDBED SHALL BE COMPRISED OF LOOSE UNCOMPACTED
SOIL. THIS MAY REQUIRE MECHANICAL LOOSENING OF THE SOIL.
SOIL AMENDMENTS SHOULD FOLLOW THE FERTILIZER AND LIMING
DESCRIPTION IN THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS. FOLLOWING SEEDING,
MULCHING SHALL FOLLOW THE BELOW APPLICATION METHODS AND
AMOUNTS.
MULCHING
SEEDED AREAS ARE TO BE PROTECTED BY SPREADING STRAW MULCH
UNIFORMLY TO FORM A CONTINUOUS BLANKET (75% COVERAGE = 2
TONS/ACRE) OVER SEEDED AREAS. CONTRACTOR MAY PROPOSE
ALTERNATE METHODS OF SEED, FERTILIZER AND LIMING (HYDRO-SEEDING)
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE DESIGNER OF CALCULATIONS SHOWING
THE EQUIVALENCY OF THE PROPOSED METHOD.
STOCKPILED
EARTH
\ SF 5F
SILT FENCE
� SIF
-- - - - - -- 190---- - - - - --
NOTES
STOCKPILE LOCATIONS DEPICTED ON SITE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE
AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE
TEMPORARY SEEDING MUST BE APPLIED TO STOCKPILES IF NOT
RELOCATED WTHIN 7 DAYS
ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE WITHIN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
SLT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED DOWN GRADIENT OF ALL STOCK-
PILES- ANY STOCKPILE LOCATED BETWEEN BOTH THE EXISTING AND
PROPOSED STREAM CENTERLINES WILL REQUIRE SILT FENCE TO BE
INSTALLED COMPLETELY AROUND THE STOCKPILE.
STOCKPILE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
TEMPORARY SEED MIX
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE THE FOLLOWING SEED /FERTILIZER
MIX IN SEEDING ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS:
WINTER MIX (AUG.ISMAY 1)
RYE GRAIN - - - - - - - - SECALE CEREALE - - - - -20 LBS /ACRE
WHEAT- - - - - - - - - - - TRITICUM AESTIVUM - - - 10 LBS /ACRE
SUMMER MIX (MAY 1- AUG.15)
GERMAN MILLET- - - - - SETARIA ITALICA - - - - - -5 LBS /ACRE
BROWNTOP MILLET- - - UROCHLOA RAMOSA--- 5 LBS / ACRE
FERTILIZER 500 LBS /ACRE
LIMESTONE---------------------- - - - - -- 4000 LBS I ACRE
FERTILIZER SHALL BE 10 -20-20 ANALYSIS. UPON WRITTEN APPROVAL
OF THE SITE SUPERVISOR, A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS OF FERTILIZER
MAY BE USED PROVIDED THE 1 -2 -2 RATIO IS MAINTAINED AND
THE RATE OF APPLICATION ADJUSTED TO PROVIDE THE SAME
AMOUNT OF PLANT FOOD AS A 10 -20 -20 ANALYSIS.
PERMANENT SEED MIX
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE THE FOLLOWING SEED MIX
SUMMER MIX (MAY 15 - AUGUST 15)
COMPACTED FILL
<
N N
N
w �
Z w
Z
-
AND FERTILIZER SPECIFICATION IN ALL AREAS INSIDE THE
SPECIES
APPLICATION RATE (IN MIX)
% MIX LBS /ACRE
g
n
WAY BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IT
RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONES, INCLUDING THE STREAM BANKS:
ORCHARDGRASS - DACTYLIS GLOMERATA
5
1.5
p
PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE
NEXT RAIN AND TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE
WIRE INTO TRENCH
1
BLUESTEM - ANDROPOGON GLOMERATUS
5
1.5
- -
4. REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND
VRGINIA WILDRYE- ELYMUS VIRGINICUS
5
1.5
PROPERLY STABILIZED, INSPECTED AND
FERTILIZER AND LIMESTONE SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE RATE
RIVER OATS- CHASMANTHIUM LATIFOLIUM
5
1.5
NOT TO SCALE
OF 500 LBS /ACRE AND 4000 LBS /ACRE, RESPECTIVELY.
PURPLE LOVE GRASS - ERAGROSTIS SPECTABILIS
5
1.5
DEERTONGUE- PANICUM CLANDESTINUM
25
7.5
F
r
FERTILIZER SHALL BE I0 -20-20 ANALYSIS. UPON WRITTEN
SWITCHGRASS- PANICUM VIRGATUM
25
7.5
APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE, ADIFFERENT
PEARL MILLET- PENNISETUM GLAUCOMA
25
7.5
°w
ANALYSIS OF FERTILIZER MAY BE USED BASED ON SOIL
TOTALS
100
30
r
a
TESTING RESULTS AND AS APPROVED BY THE DESIGN
m
<
REPRESENTATIVE.
WINTER MIX (AUGUST 15 - MAY 15)
rn
m
z
APPLICATION
RATE (IN MIX)
p
SPECIES
% MIX
LBSIACRE
ORCHARDGRASS- DACTYLIS GLOMERATA
5
1.5
rn
BLUESTEM - ANDROPOGON GLOMERATUS
5
1.5
wo
¢ U
VIRGINIA WILDRYE- ELYMUS VIRGINICUS
5
1.5
>
0
RIVER OATS- CHASMANTHIUM LATIFOLIUM
5
1.5
<
v
PURPLE LOVE GRASS - ERAGROSTIS SPECTABILIS
5
1.5
?
G w
DEERTONGUE- DICHANTHELIUM CLANDESTINUM
SWITCHGRASS- PANICUM VIRGATUM
25
25
7.5
7.5
w
a
m f2
RYE GRAIN - SECALE CEREALE
25
7.5
a
w w
TOTALS
100
30
STRAW WATTLE STRAW WATTLE
- V1bkf -
WOODEN STAKE
TYPICAL SECTION
NOTES:
WATTLES SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURERS
SPECIFICATIONS.
WATTLES SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON PLANS FOLLOWING CHANNEL
GRADING. SEE PLAN SHEETS 1418 FOR EXACT LOCATIONS.
WATTLES SHALL BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO THE TOP OF THE STREAM
BANKS IN ANY OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE SOIL DISTURBANCE WILL
OCCUR IN PROXIMITY OF THE STREAM CHANNEL.
METAL POST
1b PER
LINEAR FOOT)
USE FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM
OF 38" IN WIDTH AND FASTEN
ADEQUATELY TO THE POSTS AS
DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER.
PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE
SELF FASTENER ANGLE STEEL TYPE.
STRAW WATTLE
NOT TO SCALE
18 MAX.
FILTER FABRIC
1 2' -0" DEPTH
I
B�
0 o
o °00000 ° °�0
B
PLAN
12"
�y,L1
SILT FENCE
4
1 NATURAL GROUND
SECTION AA
CLASS B STONE SILT FENCE 12 957 STONE
z` o O ° °o ?/
FLOW
0 00 Oo
SECTION BE NATURAL GROUND
SILT FENCE ROCK OUTLET MAINTENANCE-
1. REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN IT ACCUMULATES TO ONE -HALF THE DESIGN VOLUME.
2- CHECK STRUCTURE AND ABUTMENTS FOR EROSION, PIPING, OR ROCK DISPLACEMENT.
REPAIR IMMEDIATELY.
3- REMOVE ROCK OUTLET WHEN CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN
PERMANENTLY STABILIZED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED- REMOVE ALL WATER AND
SEDIMENT PRIOR TO REMOVING SCREEN. DISPOSE OF WASTE MATERIAL IN DESIGNATED
DISPOSAL AREA.
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE ROCK OUTLET
NOT TO SCALE
U
Iml
U
W
i
O
it
Z a
z
V) 0
mp:
O C�
� c
Q
W
r�
0
oz
oz
0
�o
0
x,
�o
os
a
Q
Z
O
U
F
D'
O
rZ
F
O
U
>Z
O
w
UL
O
w
0
_Z
2
U
z
O
N
w
0'
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
ISHEET 19 OF 22 1
FILTER FABRIC
COMPACTED FILL
SILT FENCE MAINTENANCE
1- INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES WEEKLY AND AFTER
-
EACH RAINFALL EVENT
2- SHOULD FABRC TEAR, DECOMPOSE, OR IN ANY
WAY BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IT
— III —III 8„ 1
IMMEDIATELY.
EXTENSION OF
3- REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS PROMPTLY TO
FABRIC AND
PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE
NEXT RAIN AND TO REDUCE PRESSURE ON THE
WIRE INTO TRENCH
1
FENCE- TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING
FENCE DURING CLEANOUT
- -
4. REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND
UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AFTER THE
CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN
PROPERLY STABILIZED, INSPECTED AND
APPROVED- BRING THE DISTURBED AREA TO
SILT FENCE DETAIL
GRADE AND STABILIZE AS SHOWN IN THE
VEGETATION PLAN.
NOT TO SCALE
1 2' -0" DEPTH
I
B�
0 o
o °00000 ° °�0
B
PLAN
12"
�y,L1
SILT FENCE
4
1 NATURAL GROUND
SECTION AA
CLASS B STONE SILT FENCE 12 957 STONE
z` o O ° °o ?/
FLOW
0 00 Oo
SECTION BE NATURAL GROUND
SILT FENCE ROCK OUTLET MAINTENANCE-
1. REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN IT ACCUMULATES TO ONE -HALF THE DESIGN VOLUME.
2- CHECK STRUCTURE AND ABUTMENTS FOR EROSION, PIPING, OR ROCK DISPLACEMENT.
REPAIR IMMEDIATELY.
3- REMOVE ROCK OUTLET WHEN CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN
PERMANENTLY STABILIZED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED- REMOVE ALL WATER AND
SEDIMENT PRIOR TO REMOVING SCREEN. DISPOSE OF WASTE MATERIAL IN DESIGNATED
DISPOSAL AREA.
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE ROCK OUTLET
NOT TO SCALE
U
Iml
U
W
i
O
it
Z a
z
V) 0
mp:
O C�
� c
Q
W
r�
0
oz
oz
0
�o
0
x,
�o
os
a
Q
Z
O
U
F
D'
O
rZ
F
O
U
>Z
O
w
UL
O
w
0
_Z
2
U
z
O
N
w
0'
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
ISHEET 19 OF 22 1

NOTES:
- - --
- MATTING SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR
COIR MATTING
TO THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER TO
UNDERLAIN BY STRAW,
A STREAM SECTION.
SEED, AND FERTILIZER
-ALL DISTURBED AREAS INSIDE FLOOD -
EXTEND TO BOTTOM
PLAIN EXTENTS SHALL BE SEEDED DAILY.
OF BANK EQUIVALENT
- GROUND SHALL BE PREPARED AND SEED
BANKFULL WATER SURFACE
& FERTILIZER APPLIED ACCORDING TO
GROUND SURFACE
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
COIR MATTING
- MATTING SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG
NOT TO SCALE
BOTH SIDES OF NEW STREAM LENGTH.
- MATTING SHALL EXTEND FROM TOE
_
OF SLOPE TO THE TOP OF BANK. umuimu
- MATTING SHALL BE APPLIED AND STAKED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT
SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
COIR MATTING
SCALE: NTS
ROCK SILT SCREEN MAINTENANCE:
1. REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN IT ACCUMULATES TO ONE -HALF THE
DESIGN VOLUME.
2. CHECK STRUCTURE AND ABUTMENTS FOR EROSION, PIPING, OR
ROCK DISPLACEMENT. REPAIR IMMEDIATELY.
3. REPLACE AGGREGATE ON INSIDE FACE OF STRUCTURE WHEN
SEDIMENT POOL DOES NOT DRAIN BETWEEN STORMS.
4. ADD FINE GRAVEL TO UPSTREAM FACE OF SCREEN IF SEDIMENT
POOL DRAINS TOO RAPIDLY FOLLOWING A STORM.
5. REMOVE SILT SCREEN WHEN CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA
HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED, INSPECTED AND
APPROVED. REMOVE ALL WATER AND SEDIMENT PRIOR TO
REMOVING SCREEN. DISPOSE OF WASTE MATERIAL IN
DESIGNATED DISPOSAL AREA.
TRENCH IN MATTING
AT TOP OF BANK
1" x 2" NOTCHED
GRADE STAKE
ANCHORING
"— BASE OF STREAM ---�
TOP OF BANK
NOTES: TOP VIEW
USE CLASS I STONE FOR STRUCTURAL TOP OF BANK
STONE. STONE #57 2
USE STONE NO. 57 STONE FOR 1' -6" MIN. � �
SEDIMENT CONTROL.
1 a °OO 3'MAX.
CONSTRUCT DAM A MAXIMUM OF 1 FT.
ABOVE NORMAL FLOW DEPTH. STREAM BED }
STRUCTURAL
STONE l'-6" MIN-
CROSS SECTION FRONT VIEW
i
TEMPORARY ROCK SILT SCREEN
NOT TO SCALE
CLASS'A'STONE
8 IN. MIN. DEPTH
(OVER FILTER FABRIC)
NOTES:
1. TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMODATE LARGE
TRUCKS SHALL BE PROVIDED.
2. ENTRANCE(S) SHOULD BE LOCATED TO PROVIDE FOR UTILIZATION
BY ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES.
3. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT
TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC
TOPDRESSING WITH STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
4. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE CLEANED
UP IMMEDIATELY.
5. GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE LOCATED AT ALL
POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED.
FREQUENT CHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE
MUST BE PROVIDED.
SCE MAINTENANCE:
1. INSPECT ENTRANCE/EXIT PAD AND SEDIMENT DISPOSAL AREA
WEEKLY AND AFTER HEAVY RAINS OR HEAVY USE.
2. RESHAPE PAD AS NEEDED FOR DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF CONTROL.
3. TOPDRESS WITH CLEAN STONE, AS NEEDED.
4. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE MUD AND SEDIMENT TRACKED OR WASHED
ONTO PUBLIC ROAD.
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE /ACCESS ROAD
SCALE: NTS
_ Wbkf - -
- - --
TYPICAL RIFFLE
Wbkf
TYPICAL POOL
EXTEND TO BOTTOM
OF BANK EQUIVALENT
-
BANKFULL WATER SURFACE
GROUND SURFACE
COIR MATTING
EXAMPLE COIR MATTING PLACEMENT
NOT TO SCALE
STREAM CROSSING MAINTENANCE:
1. INSPECT TEMPORARY CROSSING A]
AFTER EACH RAINFALL EVENT FOR
ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS,
BLOCKAGE, EROSION OF ABUTMENTS
AND OVERFLOW AREAS, CHANNEL i
SCOUR, RIPRAP DISPLACEMENT, OR BRIDGE MAT
PIPING ALONG CULVERTS.
2. REMOVE DEBRIS, REPAIR AND
REINFORCE DAMAGED AREAS I w
IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT FURTHER —J
DAMAGE TO THE INSTALLATION. \
STRE�
FLOW
1 r��
] CLASS "1" STONE
A FOR APPROACH
STABILIZATION
PLAN
EXISTING
CHANNEL
FFABRICAINAGE
SECTION AA
NOT TO SCALE
1. BRIDGE LOCATIONS DEPICTED ON SITE PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND
ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE AREA THAT IS BEING
WORKED UPON.
2. WIDTH OF EACH MAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE SIZE OF THE EQUIPMENT
MEANT TO CROSS IT.
3. DISTANCE BETWEEN MATS IS DEPENDENT ON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
TRACKS ON THE EQUIPMENT MEANT TO CROSS IT.
4. APPROACH STABILIZATION, COMPOSED OF CLASS 1 STONE, WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR EACH SECTION OF THE BRIDGE.
BRIDGE MAT STREAM CROSSING
PLACE AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANS AND APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER
> w F
Z w
� � y
a
0
� N
z
F r O
V)
0 w >
Zi
w n
m N
N O Z
Z 0 w
N 0
w �
o r
G a
w m
a w °w
�.r
r.
o
V �J
0
0
a
Z
Z
J
0
W U
O
CD it
Z (_ Z
z
gQ o
U) (7 U
mp: a
O � O
Q LLF
W >
Ow
t— 0
co
_Z
2
U
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
ISHEET 20 OF 22

EXAMPLE OF PUMP - AROUND OPERATION
NOT TO SCALE
I
UTILIZE A STABILIZED _\ a / SILT BAG WITH
OUTLET FOR THE �� � ROCK PAD
DISCHARGE OF 1 r
CLEAN WATER
II DEWATERING
\ PUMP
IMPERVIOUS DIKE I
II \\ I EXISTING
I STREAM
CHANNEL
I
TEMPORARY I \ I IMPERVIOUS DIKE
FLEXIBLE HOSE I I
I \ MAY UTILIZE
ACCEPTABLE R MATERIALS TO
INCLUDE SHEET PILES, SANDBAGS,
FLOW INLET FOR CLEAN
AND /OR THE PLACEMENT OF AN
I
I WATER TO BE RAISED
ACCEPTABLE STONE LINED WITH
OFF OF STREAM
1
POLYPROPOLENE OR OTHER
I
BOTTOM. THIS MAY
I
IMPERVIOUS FABRIC. EARTH
I
REQUIRE PLACEMENT
MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE USED
\ OF GRAVEL OR INTAKE
TO CONSTRUCT THE IMPERVIOUS
I I \ STRUCTURE UNDER
DIKES.
INTAKE.
1 \
PUMP- AROUND \ `\
PUMP \
SEQUENCE OF DEWATERING OPERATIONS
*ANY DEVIATION FROM ABOVE DEWATERING PLAN — — WILL REQUIRE DESIGNER AND NCDLQ APPROVAL.
1. INSTALL SILT BAGS(S) AND ROCK PAD(S).
2. INSTALL UPSTREAM PUMP AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE.
3. PLACE UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING
OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION.
4. PLACE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING
APPARATUS. DEWATER ENTRAPPED AREA.
5. PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS.
6. EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL
OF IMPERVIOUS DIKES. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS, AND
TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE (DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKES FIRST).
7. REMOVE SILT BAG(S) AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREA WITH SEED
AND MULCH.
STILLING BASIN MAINTENANCE:
1. SEDIMENT BAGS SHOULD BE REPLACED WHEN THE CAPACITY OF THE SEDIMENT
BAG HAS EXCEEDED 50 %.
2. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF IN A DESIGNATED
DISPOSAL AREA.
3. SPENT BAGS SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND NOT BURIED.
4. GRAVEL PADS SHOULD BE CHECKED DAILY DURING USE TO ENSURE THAT
GRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN WASHED AWAY OR BEEN CHOKED BY EXCESSIVE
SEDIMENTATION.
5. REPLACE PAD WITH CLEAN GRAVEL, AS NEEDED.
EXISTING TERRAIN
SILT BAG
15.0 - 20.0 ft.
FILTER FABRIC
STREAMBANK
8.0 IN., STONE FOR EROSION CONTROL, CLASS A
NOTE: PROVIDE STABILIZED OUTLET DOWN BANK TO STREAM
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN (SILT BAG) WITH ROCK PAD
NOT TO SCALE
7 W r
Q Z W
� � y
5
a
0
N
z
F r O
o w >
w n
r
N O Z
Z 0 W
N p
w
� o r
a
G a
- � N
6 w W
V �J
0
1� L2
0
x�
Q
Z
H 0
W U
2
C7 o
Z D_ Z
z
gQ o
U) (7 U
m~_ a
O � O
Q >
W ow
t- 0
fn Q
_Z
2
U
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
ISHEET 21 OF 22

SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, AS DIRECTED BY THE
DESIGNER. CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED IN THE SPECIFIED MANNER UNLESS OTHERWISE
DIRECTED OR APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER. THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, ALONG WITH THE
INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE PLANS, CONSTITUTE THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
GENERAL SITE NOTES:
I. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY CONDUCT STREAM WORK, INCLUDING ALL IN- STREAM
STRUCTURES, GRADING, STABILIZATION MEASURES, AND SEEDING, MULCHING, AND MATTING
WORK, ON A SECTION OF STREAM THAT SHALL BE ENTIRELY COMPLETED WITHIN A SINGLE DAY.
EACH SECTION OF COMPLETED STREAM MUST BE STABILIZED AND MATTED BEFORE FLOW
CAN BE RETURNED INTO THE CHANNEL
II. IF APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER, THE CONTRACTOR MAY WORK SIMULTANEOUSLY ON MORE
THAN ONE PHASE OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF PHASES 2 -5.
III. WHEN WORKING IN STREAMS WITH NO ACTIVE FLOW THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO HAVE
APPROPRIATELY SIZED PUMPS AND MATERIALS TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN A TEMPORARY
STREAM DIVERSION IN ANTICIPATION OF PENDING STORM EVENTS. WORKING IN A DRY CHANNEL
DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE CONTRACTOR FROM HAVING TO COMPLY WITH NOTE I ABOVE.
PHASE 1: INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
A. IDENTIFY PROJECT BOUNDARY, LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE, SENSITIVE AREAS, STAGING AREAS,
STABILIZED ENTRANCES, AND ACCESS POINTS WITH THE DESIGNER.
B. CONSTRUCT ENTRANCES AND STAGING AREAS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL DEVICES IN A MANNER TO SUPPORT EXECUTION OF THE STREAM RESTORATION IN
PHASES AS INDICATED IN THE PLANS AND AS DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER.
PHASE 2: REACH T1 STA. 10 +00 TO STA. 24 +12
A. PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION FROM STA. 10 +00 TO STA. 13 +03.
i. CLEAR VEGETATION AS NEEDED TO INSTALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES.
INSTALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ALONG EXISTING CHANNEL AS
DEPICTED ON THE PLANS.
ii. CONDUCT CLEARING NECESSARY TO COMPLETE CHANNEL WORK, PROTECTING EXISTING
TREES WHEREVER POSSIBLE OR AS INDICATED BY THE DESIGNER.
M. ESTABLISH AN ISOLATED WORK AREA BY INSTALLING IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND TEMPORARY
STREAM DIVERSION AND DIVERT STREAM FLOWS AROUND THE DESIGNATED WORK AREA
(LENGTH OF ISOLATED WORK AREA IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR).
iv. COMPLETE CHANNEL GRADING AS DIRECTED IN THE PLANS. INSTALL ANY BANK
STABILIZATION TREATMENTS AND IN- STREAM STRUCTURES
v. SEED AND MULCH COMPLETED WORK AREAS.
B. PERFORM STREAM ENHANCEMENT -11 FROM STA. 13 +03 TO STA. 14 +61 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED IN PHASE 2A.
C. PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION FROM STA. 14 +61 TO STA. 24 +12 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED IN PHASE 2A.
PHASE 3: REACH T2 STA. 50 +00 TO STA. 77 +45
A. COMPLETE STREAM RESTORATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES
ESTABLISHED IN PHASE 2A.
PHASE 4: T1A STA. 40 +00 TO STA. 41 +78
A. COMPLETE STREAM RESTORATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES
ESTABLISHED IN PHASE 2A.
PHASE 5: T2A STA. 100 +00 TO STA. 104 +65
A. COMPLETE STREAM ENHANCEMENT -1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES
ESTABLISHED IN PHASE 2A.
PHASE 6: RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANTING
A. PHASE 6 CAN BE INITIATED AFTER THE STREAM WORK IS COMPLETED IN EACH SECTION
OF THE PROJECT.
B. PLANTS SHOULD BE PLANTED DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (OCTOBER 20 -APRIL 13).
C. PREPARE AND PLANT BANK AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLAN
SHEET 12 AND AS DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER.
PHASE 7: COMPLETION OF PROJECT SITE
A. REMOVE ALL REMAINING WASTE MATERIALS AND RESTORE THE REMAINING STAGING AND
STOCKPILING AREAS AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES TO THEIR PRIOR CONDITION.
REMOVE TEMPORARY CROSSINGS AND INSTALL BANK STABILIZATION TREATMENTS,
AND PLANT, SEED AND MULCH DISTURBED AREAS. SEED AND MULCH ALL DISTURBED
AREAS UTILIZING THE SEED /MULCH MIXES SPECIFIED IN THE PLANS.
GROUND STABILIZATION
SITE AREA
STABILIZATION
DESCRIPTION
TIME FRAME
PERIMETER DIKES,
11. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE LOW SIDE OF ANY TEMPORARY
SWALES, DITCHES
7 DAYS
AND SLOPES
HIGH QUALITY
12. ALL DISTURBED SOILS WILL BE SEEDED FOR VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION
WATER (HQW)
7 DAYS
ZONES
GUIDELINES DESCRIBED ON SHEET 19 OF THESE PLANS.
SLOPES STEEPER
7 DAYS
THAN 3:1
13. BRIDGE MATS WILL BE USED FOR ALL STREAM CROSSINGS. SUGGESTED
SLOPES 3:1 OR
7 DAYS
FLATTER
THE LOCATIONS CAN BE MODIFIED UPON CONSULTATION WITH THE
ALL OTHER AREAS
DESIGNER. THE NUMBER OF CROSSING LOCATIONS SHOULD BE MINIMIZED
WITH SLOPES FLATTER
7 DAYS
THAN 4:1
NOTE
1. ALL DISTURBED AREAS INSIDE FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
SHALL BE SEEDED DAILY.
2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE OF FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS
SHALL BE SEEDED WITHIN 7 DAYS.
Soil Amendments:
Due to erosion caused by surrounding agricultural activities, many areas within the limits of disturbance
currently contain unproductive soils with low organic content. Many of these areas are characterized by
rill and sheet erosion, exposing inorganic soils. Other areas where Priority 2 restoration will occur will
expose these unproductive soils to the surface. In order to ensure appropriate growing media for furnished
seed mixes as well as trees and shrubs that will be planted as part of the restoration plan, furnished topsoil
or organic amendments will be required on this project at the direction of the designer.
Furnished Topsoil: Furnished topsoil shall be natural, friable surface soil uniform in color and texture.
Topsoil shall have an organic content between 3 and 10 percent by weight. Furnished topsoil shall have a
corrected pH value of not less than 6 nor more than 7.5. Textural analysis (by weight) shall be as follows:
Sand (2.0 to 0.050mm) 20 -75 %, Silt (0.05 to 0.002mm) 10 -60 %, Clay (less than 0.002mm) 5 -30 %.
Furnished�Com ost: Furnished compost can be used to amend the soil. It should be mixed with existing
inorganic subsoils to enhance soil texture and minimize the potential for soil mobilization. Furnished
compost should meet the requirements in the table below:
Parameter Unit Measure Product Range
pH pH units 7.0 -8.7
Soluble Salts mmhos per centimeter 2.0 -5.0
Bulk Density Ibs per cubic yard 900 -1,000
Moisture Content % wet wt basis 45 % -55%
Organic Matter Content % dry wt basis 70 % -80%
Particle Size inches 3/8 minus
Growth Screening %germination 100%
Stability Rating Mature -Very Mature Very Mature
Biosolids Compost (Class A): Type A biosolids can be used with the permission of NC DENR Division of
Water Quality. They cannot be applied within 25 feet of the top of bank of any perennial or intermittent
stream. This material must be mechanically mixed with existing inorganic soils to minimized the potential
for runoff.
NOTES:
1. THE LENGTH OF STREAM THAT IS ISOLATED AS A DAILY WORK AREA IS LEFT
TO CONTRACTOR'S DISCRETION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
PROVISIONS. IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS CONTRACT THAT:
A. ALL PROJECT OPERATIONS WILL COMPLY WITH THE PROVIDED SEDIMENT
AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
B. AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY, EACH PORTION OF STREAM MUST BE A
COMPLETED WORK PRODUCT, I.E. ALL BANK AND CHANNEL
MODIFICATIONS INCLUDING EXCAVATION, GRADING, FILL, AND ALL
STABILIZATION TREATMENTS (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LIVE STAKING,
WHICH MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL ALL BANKAND CHANNEL WORK IS
COMPLETED ) MUST BE FINISHED AS CALLED FOR IN THE PLANS AND AS
DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER.
C. DUE TO THE ANTICIPATED DURATION AND SEQUENCE OF THE CONS-
TRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE,
AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THE AMOUNT OF THE AREA THAT IS DISTURBED
AT ONE TIME.
7. IN THE EVENT OF A STORM, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
REMOVAL OR PROTECTION OF ANY EQUIPMENT, TOOLS, MATERIALS OR
OTHER ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE WORK THAT COULD BE AFFECTED
BY STORM FLOWS.
8. AFTER THE STREAM CHANNEL IS DEWATERED AND INITIAL STREAM
GRADING CALLED FOR IN THE PLANS IS COMPLETED, THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL IMMEDIATELY INSTALL APPROPRIATE STABILIZATION MATERIALS
AS CALLED FOR IN THE PLANS TO STABILIZE SLOPES AND PROVIDE
IMMEDIATE SEDIMENT /EROSION CONTROL.
9. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF STRAW WATTLES EACH SEDIMENT CONTROL
DEVICE WILL BE REMOVED AFTER ALL WORK IN THE CORRESPONDING
CONSTRUCTION PHASE HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE AREAS HAVE
BEEN STABILIZED.
10. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND STAGING AREAS IDENTIFIED ON THE
PLANS PROVIDE THE ONLY ACCESS POINTS INTO THE LIMITS OF
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE EVERY REASONABLE PRECAUTION
DISTURBANCE. NO ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE USED WITHOUT
THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT TO PREVENT EROSION
APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE.
AND SEDIMENTATION. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND
MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT PLANS, NORTH CAROLINA
11. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE LOW SIDE OF ANY TEMPORARY
SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL GUIDELINES AND AS DIRECTED BY
OR PERMANENT SPOIL AND TOPSOIL PILES.
THE DESIGNER.
12. ALL DISTURBED SOILS WILL BE SEEDED FOR VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY CONDUCT STREAM WORK, INCLUDING ALL
IMMEDIATELY AFTER DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES, FOLLOWING THE
IN- STREAM STRUCTURES, GRADING, STABILIZATION MEASURES, AND SEEDING
GUIDELINES DESCRIBED ON SHEET 19 OF THESE PLANS.
AND MULCHING WORK, ON A SECTION OF STREAM THAT CAN BE ENTIRELY
COMPLETED WITHIN A SINGLE DAY.
13. BRIDGE MATS WILL BE USED FOR ALL STREAM CROSSINGS. SUGGESTED
LOCATIONS FOR THE CROSSINGS ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. HOWEVER,
4. ALL EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN DRY OR ISOLATED SECTIONS OF
THE LOCATIONS CAN BE MODIFIED UPON CONSULTATION WITH THE
THE CHANNEL.
DESIGNER. THE NUMBER OF CROSSING LOCATIONS SHOULD BE MINIMIZED
TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL.
5. ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE FOR LATER USE AS EMBANKMENT MATERIAL OR DISPOSAL.
14. THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND EROSION CONTROL CONTACT FOR THIS
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING APPROPRIATE
SITE IS TIM MORRIS. OFFICE PHONE - 919 - 783 -9214 CELL PHONE - 919 - 793 -6886
STABILIZATION MEASURES AROUND THE STOCKPILE AREA(S) TO PREVENT
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION.
6. A TEMPORARY PUMP - AROUND SHALL BE UTILIZED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN
ALL PORTIONS OF THE STREAM TO DIVERT FLOW FROM AND DEWATER THE
DESIGNATED AREA IN ORDER TO WORK. THE PUMP - AROUND USED BY THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THESE PLANS.
THE PUMP - AROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED AND REMOVED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S GUIDELINES. TWENTY -FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR
TO THE INITIATION OF PUMP - AROUND ACTIVITIES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
MEASURE THE APPROXIMATE FLOW RATE IN THE EXISTING STREAM AT THE
PUMP - AROUND LOCATION. THE FLOW RATE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
DESIGNER FOR APPROVAL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, THEREAFTER, UTILIZE
A PUMP(S) SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMODATE 120% (1.2 TIMES) THE APPROVED
FLOW RATE.
w F
Q Z W
� � y
5
a
0
N
z
F r O
V)
o w >
w n
UJ
r
a
m N
J
N O Z
Z p w
N f
w O
O r
< g
G a
w m
a y °w
i�
nr
C
o
0
Fil L2 °
0
x�
o�
C7
Z_
Z
g
U)
m
O
U
Q
H
U
W
O
it
IL
Z
O
Q
0
1-
2
2 UL
Q >
W
D_
i-
0
fn Q
_Z
2
U
SEDIMENTATION
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
ISHEET 22 OF 22