20021528 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20120523

Warrior Creek
EEP ID # 412
USACE ACTION ID # 200221489,2012-00032
DWQ 404# 20021528
CLOSEOUT REPORT
Stream Restoration and Enhancement Project
-154
Prolect Settina & Classffications
County
Wilkes
General Location
Boomer, NC
Basin:
Yadkin
Ph sio ra hic Region:
Piedmont/Foothills
Ecore ion:
Northern Inner Piedmont
USGS Hydro Unit:
03040101
NCDWQ Sub - basin:
YAD01
Wetland Classification
NA
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
No
Prolect Performers
A r 2006
Source Agency:
NCWRP
Provider:
NA
Designer:
Camp Dresser & McKee,
Biohabitats Inc.
Monitoring Firm
Ecologic Associates,
URS Corporation
Channel Remediation
NCWRC
Plant remediation
NCWRC
Property Interest Holder
EEP
Overall Prolect Activities and Timeline
Completion or
Activity or Report Delivery
Restoration Plan
Se 2002
Construction
Nov 2004
Permanent seed mix applied
Unknown
Live stakes and wood plants installed
Feb 2004
Mitigation/As-built
Mar 2005
Year 1 Monitoring
A r 2006
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec 2006
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov 2007
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec 2008
Jul 2012
Year 5 Monitoring
Apr 2011
Supplemental planting
Feb 2011
Structural maintenance
Jul 201 I
Maintenance summary report
Au 2011
2011 Supplemental vegetation
monitoring
Se 2011
Quarterly I maintenance monitoring
Se 2011
Quarterly 2 maintenance monitoring
Jan 2012
Quarterly 3 maintenance monitoring
Apr 2012
2012 Supplemental vegetation
monitoring
May 2012
Quarterly 4 maintenance monitoring
Jul 2012

Project Setting and Background Summa
The Warrior Creek stream restoration and enhancement project is located in Wilkes County approximately 8 miles southwest of Wilkesboro, NC The project was instituted by the NC Wetlands
Restoration Program in 2002, and construction was completed in November 2004 along approximately 10,000 feet of perennial stream Detailed success monitoring was performed from spring
2006 through the end of 2009, with additional visual assessment from 2010 through summer 2012 Native trees were supplemented by planting along the project in February 2011, and minor
stream bank repair was performed in July 2011 on the Mountain Creek Tributary Re -survey of the project conservation easement was done in summer 2012, and re- construction of segments of
the pasture fencing will be completed in fall 2012
The Warrior Creek project has benefitted water quality and aquatic and terrestrial habitat due to diverse channel morphology and a developing riparian buffer Repeat channel X- section
and longitudinal profile surveys and visual assessment document the stability of stream banks and channel capacity, and continued heterogeneity of the stream longitudinal profile In 2011 the
main stem of the project demonstrated less than 3% active bank erosion Lack of bank erosion means that sediment is not being recruited from project banks to potentially impact downstream
waters In addition, herbaceous and woody riparian vegetation is becoming established along the previously grazed and impacted streamside area. While adjacent pastures are still used for
grazing, riparian vegetation now buffers Warrior Creek project streams from sediment and nutrients produced by cattle operations As the Warrior Creek project has achieved the overarching
goal of establishing stable stream plan form, capacity, and slope, as well as the more specific project objectives listed below, EEP proposes the project for release from further success monitoring
Goals and Objectives
The overarching goal of the project was to establish a stable plan form, cross - sectional, and profile pattern to Big Warrior Creek and its tributaries (Big Warrior Stream Restoration Mitigation
Plan, 2005) Specific objectives of the project were as follows
1 Reduce bank erosion
2 Exclude cattle from the stream and riparian zone
3 Improve water quality
4 Establish a floodplajn at a lower elevation
5 Enhance in-stream habitat
6 Improve functional and aesthetic value of the riparian corridor
7 Preserve existing beneficial channel, floodplajn features, and riparian vegetation
Page 2 of 19

Success Cntena
Camp Dresser and McKee along with Baohabatats Inc wrote specific and detailed success criteria in the project mitigation plan for channel dimension planform pattern longitudinal profile bed materials, photo
points and for vegetation survival This as unique for North Carolina stream restoration projects and the criteria are as follows
1 Channel Dimension
a Pools in most meanders, riffles an most straight reaches
b Bankfull dimensions +/- 25% to that of the design
c No rapid, chronic bank erosion > 1 ft/year
d No significant mad- channel bar formation an riffles thalweg does not bifurcate
e No significant chronic sedimentation an pools
2 Channel Planform Pattern
a Measured sinuosity is the same as as -built design +/ 0 1 ft/ft
b No channel avulsions
c No significant changes in radius of curvature
d Valley and stream types persist
3 Longitudinal Profile
a Pool-riffle sequences persists an sequence with planform pattern
b No development of headcuts
c Raffle slopes do not exceed reference reach and/or design values
d Measured thalweg length undergoes little change
4 Channel Bed Materials
a D50 and D84 measurements remain gravel -sized
b Some coarsening of nffles and/or fining of pools may occur
5 Photo Points
a No rapid chronic bank erosion
b No mayor changes in planform pattern
c Vegetation growth evident
6 Vegetation Survival
a Survival of at least 320 stems/acre for trees after 5 years
b At least 6 planted species survive
c Vegetation growth evident throughout planted zones
d Vegetation forms contiguous riparian zone
e At least 80% herbaceous cover maintained with no contiguous bare areas
Page 3 of 19

*Computation of total mitigation units for all reaches excluded short lengths of stream within culvert crossings
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation Units
Riparian Wetland
Pre —
Total
Wetland
Riparian Buffer
Nutrient Offset
(SMU)
Units
Restoration
Construction
Mitigation
Watershed
As -Built Linear
Mitigation Ratio
Mitigation Units
Segment/Reach
(acreage/linear
Approach
Acreage
Footage /Acreage
(SMU/WMU)
feet
STREAM
Warrior Creek
488
E1
488
15
325*
Warrior Creek
6,735
R
4,736
6 50
10
6,230*
Mountain Creek
2,415
R
1,133
2,342
10
2,322*
Tribute
Lower Tnbutary
1,892
R
320
1,432
1.0
1,412*
*Computation of total mitigation units for all reaches excluded short lengths of stream within culvert crossings
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation Units
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian
Total
Wetland
Riparian Buffer
Nutrient Offset
(SMU)
Units
Wetland Units
MU
10,289
--
--
--
—
--
Page 4 of 19

Figure I Overview map of the Warrior Creek stream restoration and enhancement project in Wilkes County, North
Carolina. With the exception of the upstream approximately 500 feet, the entire project length is stream restoration.
S'J
' 11 J
RI
sit`
47-a
�Ao
T I -� - : V, : .
Location of dam and large pond j,'
_Y9,
Figure 2 Warrior Creek rendered with 1:24K topographic base. Project streams head in the Brushy Mountains just south
of this map area.
Fi2u re 3 Warrior Creek overview map with air photo and hydric soil groups base.
Page 5 of 19

Figure 4 Warrior Creek plan view maps with 100 foot stream centerline stations, 2011 bank erosion areas, X-
sections, vegetation plots (with MY5 total stems/acre), and 2011 vegetation planting areas. Note that the two
large erosion areas (160 feet total) in the mountain creek tributary were repaired in July 2011.
Page 6 of 19

1108
1107
1106
1105
w1104
1103
1102
30 40 50 60 Station 70 80 90 100
tYear2- 9/27/06 -Both bank pins re- established -- *- Year3- 9 /12/07 - Inconsistent left pin
-- x- Year4- 10/23/08 -Data lacedover2007 - &-Year5- 12/16/09 -Data placed over 2008
1101
1100
c 1099
1098
w 1097
1096
1095
Big Warrior Ck main stem X -section #2 (Riffle), - Station 34 +00
-20 -10 0 10 Stat'on 20 30 40 50
Big Warrior Ck main stem X -section #3 (Riffle), -- Station 53 +75
1093 - - -- —
1092
1091 lov
0 1090
1089
W 1088
1087
-20 -10 0 10 station 20 30 40 50
t year 1 - 71/1BN5 "0' Year 2 - BMW - Right bank pin r&e Wiehed y Year 3 - 9'12007
—+►— t
Big Warrior Ck main stem X -section #4 (Pool), - Station 63 +00
1089 --
1088
1087
1086
s
1085
s 1084
W 1083
-20 -10 0 10 Station 20 30 40 50
t Year 1- 11 /16/05 --IF-Year 2 - 8/29/06 -Right bank pin re- established
-+.- Year3- 9/12/07 �- Year 4 - 10122108
Page 7 of 19

Big Warrior Ck Montain Tributary XSsection #1 (Pool), -Station 9 +00
1104
1103
1102
1101
>
733 0
1100
w 1099
1098
0 10 20 Station 30 40 50
t Veer 1 - 11/1505 t Year 2 - eI'JM - left bak Pn re- sated OW
— �— Yea3 --1% - +— Yea4- 162108
Big Warrior Ck Mountian Tributary XSection # 2 (Riffle) - Station 15 +00
1099
1098
1097
1096
1095
W
1094
1093
P +Year1- 11/15/05 tYear2- 8/30106 - *- Year3- 9/11107 --m-- Year4- 10/23/08 --&—Ymar .�I
Big Warrior Ck Lower Tributary XSection #1 (Riffle), - Station 1 +00
1111 —
1110
C 1109
a
1108
.2 1107
w 1106
1105
-10 0 10 Station 20 30 40
—fl--Year 2 - 8/29/06 —`— Year 3 - 9/10/07 --"--Year 4 - 10/22/08 —A Year 5 - 12116/09
Big Warrior Ck Lower Tributary XSection # 2 (Pool), - Station 5 +00
1103
1102
1101
s` 1100
1099
W 1098
1097
-10 0 10 20 30 40
tYearI- 11/15/05 tYear2 - 8/29/06 Year 3 - 9/10/07 -+r- Year4- 10/22/08 —d— 2!1:.12/16/09
Figure 5 Overlays of Warrior Creek project repeat X- section surveys plotted at similar
horizontal and vertical scales with 34X vertical exaggeration. Monitoring consulting firms on
the project had remarkable difficulty relocating X- section end pins from year to year resulting in
numerous re- established pins. However, the re- established X- sections were located as near as
possible to the originals and the computation and use of parameters such as bankfull width, mean
depth, and X- sectional area and width/depth and bank- height ratios provides consistency in spite
of corrupted survey monuments. The computed X- section parameters along with stream visual
assessments indicate that the project channels have functioned well over the monitoring period.
Page 8 of 19

1100
1098
1096
1094
1092
1090
1088
1086
1084
1082
1080
Big Warrior Ck Main Stem Longitudinal Profile
0 500 1000 1500 station 2000 2500 3000 3500
—�-- Year 2 - 9/28/06 — Year 3 - 9/12/07 Year 4 - 10/22/08 — Year 5 - 12/16/09 — 2009 Water Surface A 2009 Structure
1110
1105
-1100
W1095
1090
1085
Big Warrior Ck Mountain Tributary Longitudinal Profile,)
Entire Reach Surveyed
500 1000 Station 1500 2000 2500
Figure 6 Repeat longitudinal profile surveys of the lower half of Warrior Creek main stem and the entire mountain creek tributary reach. Overlays demonstrate persistence of a heterogeneous
channel bed with frequent riffle and pool channel units, and no significant bed down cuts or sedimentation. As -built and year -1 data were not available but repeated visual observations of in-
place grade- control structures indicate channel change did not occur prior to September 2006.
Page 9 of 19

2011 Stream Assessment
Entire Mainstem (6,738 ft)
# Segments Total Length (ft) Average Length (ft) % of Total Bank Len th
Total Bank Erosion 30 308 10 2.3
Left Bank 17 177 10
Right Bank 13 131 10
2011 Stream Assessment
Mountain Creek Tributary (2,342 ft)
Iota) S
fr Functioning
huncrionln
Average -,pacing jn)
All Engineered Structures
207
177
86
33
Toe Logs
94
82
87
72
Rootwads
72
60
83
94
Cross Vanes
17
14
82
396
Rock SAV
8
8
100
293
Log SAV
7
4
57
J -Hook
5
5
100
Rock Toe
4
4
100
# Segments Total Length (ft) Average Length (ft) % of Total Bank Len th
Total Bank Erosion 30 308 10 2.3
Left Bank 17 177 10
Right Bank 13 131 10
2011 Stream Assessment
Mountain Creek Tributary (2,342 ft)
# Segments Total Length (ft) Average Length (ft) % of Total Bank Len th
Total Bank Erosion 12 151 13 3.2
Left Bank 7 62 9
Right Bank 5 89 18
r Igure / LUi i stream visual assessment data Ior warrior L reeK ana mountain Creek Lr1UUtary Collectea 8/ 1/ 11. Note that the low rating for tunctloning stream structures along the mountain creek
tributary was prior to repair of two stream segments totaling approximately 160 feet that included multiple impacted structures (see photo pair below).
Figure 8 March 2010 and August 2011 photos of left bank repair at station 8 +50 on mountain creek.
Page 10 of 19
Total #
# Functioning
% Functioning
Average Spacing (ft)
All Engineered Structures
65
41
63
36
Toe Logs
25
15
60
94
Rootwads
21
11
52
112
Log SAV
8
8
100
293
Cross Vanes
8
5
63
293
Rock SAV
1
1
100
J -Hook
1
0
0
Rock Toe
1
1
100
# Segments Total Length (ft) Average Length (ft) % of Total Bank Len th
Total Bank Erosion 12 151 13 3.2
Left Bank 7 62 9
Right Bank 5 89 18
r Igure / LUi i stream visual assessment data Ior warrior L reeK ana mountain Creek Lr1UUtary Collectea 8/ 1/ 11. Note that the low rating for tunctloning stream structures along the mountain creek
tributary was prior to repair of two stream segments totaling approximately 160 feet that included multiple impacted structures (see photo pair below).
Figure 8 March 2010 and August 2011 photos of left bank repair at station 8 +50 on mountain creek.
Page 10 of 19

Cross Section l _ Cross Section 2_ _Cross Section 3 Cross Section 4
Main stem PmI Riffle RWfln P—d
Cross Section 1
Mountain creek tnhutary Purl
Cross Section _2 _ Cross Section_ 1 Cross Section 2
Riffle Unnamed tnbutary Riffle Pnni
}
N
}
M
}
�
}
h
}
}
N
}
M
}
V V1
} }
}
N M
} }
V
}
Vl
}
}
N M O Vl
} } } }
Danension
_i
_�
i
22
i
�_
�
%
i
i
i
i
i
2 i i
BF Width (ft) _
353
139
145
133
123
23 l
23 8
267
239 246
242
_i
275226
26_
242
226
259 19 1_ 20 2 207
Floodprone Width (ft)
99
>65
>65
>65
65
414
>55
>55
>55 55
31 6
>60 >60
>60
60
405
>60_ >60 >60 60
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
48_3
124
152
153
214
33 3_
34 4
47 _
31 8 305
30
_
393 31 8
358
356
362
368 364 393 445
B_F Mean Depth
14
09
I
12
1 7
1 5_14
1 8
1 3. 1 2
12
14 _ 1 4
14
1 5
16
14 19 19 2 2
BF Max Depth
-- -
32
--
16
—
21
--
21
---
27
5
25
25
-25
2
28J21
18
-- -
18
- -
21 18
- - -- --
21 -
22
31
31 29 32 34
Wdth/DepthRato__
2_58_
155
139_
115
71
159_
165
152_
179 198
196
192 161
188
164
141_
- -
182 101 104 96
Entrenchment Rata _
28
>4 7
>4 5_
>4 9
53
1 8_
>_2 3
>2 1_
>2 3_ 2 2_
13
>2_ 2_ >2 7_
>2 3
25
1 8
>2 3 >3 1 >3 0 29
Bank Height Rata
N/A
1
I_
I
I_
N/A
_ I
I_
1 1 _
N_ /A
1 I
I
1
N/A
1 1 1 I
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
365
152
158
149
142
247
26
282
25 1 25 1
248
28 6 236
266
248
239
273 204 21 8 222
Hydraulic radii (ft)
13
08
1
1
1 5
14
1 3
17_
-
13 12
—
1 2
14 14
1 3
14
1 5
1 3 1 8 1 8 2
Substrate'
-
d50 (mm)
04528_09
J
_
0 8
078
118
2_6
6
19 34
083
_36 _ 12
8
_
87
084
093 046 053 072
d84 mm
15
25
16
8
97
394
82
36
64 73
191
110 10
18
68
883
12 1 5 42 14
Cross Section 1
Mountain creek tnhutary Purl
Cross Section _2 _ Cross Section_ 1 Cross Section 2
Riffle Unnamed tnbutary Riffle Pnni
Figure 9 Warrior Creek protect X- section and particle size summary tables
Dimension___
BF Width (ft)
267
188_182
109
197
272
131
158
154
16_157_
53
Floodprone Width (ft)
56
>45
>45
>45_
62_
45 8
>45
>45_�>_45_
45
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft')-
45 2
289
281
302
208
176
2.42
24 1
238
262
BF Mean Depth
1 7
1 5
15
15
108
13
15
16
1 5_
1 7
BF Max Depth
34
28-25
_281.13
13
13
19
23
25
'25
27 _
Width/Depth Ratio
159
12 2
118
129
356
_ 9 76
10 3
9 9_
10 8
9 4
Entrenchment Ratio
21
>2 4
>2 5
>2 3.2
3
35
>2 8_
>2_9_
>2 8
29
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
1
1
1 1
22
N/A
I
I
1
1 1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
284
20
195
213
278
14 1
17
_l
165
172
17
Hydraulic radius (ft)
16
1 4 _
1 4
1 _ 4
07
1 3__
1 4
-,15
14
15
Substrate'
Substrate'
d50 (mm)
236
041
2
2215
1 1 _
685
23
18—'2
17
d84 mm
1105
17
20
47
27
_
164 69
_
28
_
57
29
Figure 9 Warrior Creek protect X- section and particle size summary tables
Page l I of 19
4
Dimension _
BF Width (ft) _
106
109
109
84_
61
8 12--
1_78_
13 1
74
53
Floodprone Width (ft) _
155
>25
>25
>25
15
267
>40_
>40
>40
40
B F _ C r o s s _ Sectional Area (ft 2)
61
79
76
5 1
4 2
3 9
_
87
48
44
43
BF_ Mean Depth
06
07
07
06
0705
05_
04
06
08
BF Max Depth
1
12
13
13
09
1
1 1
1
13
15
Wdth/_Depth Ratio
183
149
155
13_8
8 8
168
361
361
126
66
Entrenchment Ratio _ _
15
>_2 3
>2 3_
>30
25
33
>2 3_
>3 1_
>5 4
75
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
1
1
08
1
N/A
1
1
I
I
Wetted Perimeter (ft) _
108
112
11 4
9 5
69
86
18
136
82
62
Hydraulic radius (ft)
056
07
07
05
06
05
05
03
05
07
Substrate'
d50-(mm)
156
4
076
1 1 _
068
046
0 13
042
048
11
d84 m m
136
48
15
66
5 2
10 83
042
15
085
32
Page l I of 19
4

> X=bar 00102
DamcfData Caifachm
I)=Ofo
MoffiD3
1001Al2"
lamAMD2006
Pm==dUSGSG&pRasttmca
9A9 M7
J=ery a 2007
Pl mm4 USGS Gega Rmmuro
1A27W
lab Angst 2008
Plaoatm] LWA Gep Rommca
1A72009
EL1vfnumm2009
P=Zmal U= GepRom=
Figure 10 Bankfull events inferred from inspection of a continuous USGS gauge record in
Wilkes County, NC In addition, large storms between March and December 2009 occurred
along Warrior Creek and hastened the bank erosion along mountain creek tributary that was
subsequently repaired Since July 2011 evidence of three bankfull events has been seen on -site
along mountain creek tributary (NCWRC, 2012)
USES 82111188 ELK CRfE1C 8T U Kvn 1 E, MC
8.8
3.8 — —
w
4.8 —
a
9.8 — — —
J�
LLLL
2.: —
EF
8.8
Jan Jul Mn J Jul Jan Jul Jen Jul Mn J Jul
2888 2888 2889 4889 2818 4818 2811 2811 2812 2812
— Gage height Period of provisional data
Period of approved data
G. —M .—tety o1 the U S Bea lof ical Sarwy
Figure 10 Stream stage illustrating storm and runoff events from 2008 to the present at Elk
Creek near Elkville, NC approximately 8 miles from the Warrior Creek restoration site
Page 12 of 19

Riparian Buffer Vegetation
Annual monitoring from 2006 through 2009 employed the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocol on fixed vegetation sample plots within the planted riparian buffer In 2009 total stems per acre
for all plots were 395 (16 species) and planted stems per acre were 207 (13 species) with no live stakes counted in any of the CVS surveys As the surveyed planted stems per acre did not meet the
regulatory threshold of 260, an additional 345 containerized native trees and shrubs were planted in 22 areas along the project totaling approximately 2 9 acres in February 2011 (Figure 6 below)
Subsequent assessment of these plantings indicates very good survival over the last two growing seasons In addition, invasive species were treated at Wamor Creek in September 2010 (2 days), June
2011 (6 days), and September 2011 (2 days) Success of these treatments was good
Figure 13 Warrior Creek CVS summary table While numerous plots did not meet the 260 stems/acre year-5 success critena total stems across all plots was 395 in year-5
Wamor Creek Supplerremal Pbuamg
Species Narne
CorrtmnNwm
Marmvn5
Und Type
Se Snturn
Number ofStene
Aroma arhutrjoha
Red chokeberry
I I R
Potted
5 god Shrub
50
Carpnurr caminz u a
Ironwood
11 ft
Potted
5 gal Subcampy 83
Gephalanthrrs orerdenrahs
Button bush
I 1 fl
Potted
5 gal Shnb
50
hrarinus carolmrana
Carokna ache
I I it
Potted
5 gal Campy
12
Physocarpusopuhjolurr
Nnebark
II fl
Bare root
Shrub
40
Lhrere a nrhra
Northern red oak
1 1 11
Potted
5 gal Campy
100
Salrx nrivu
Black willow
loft
Potted
5 ad Shrub
10
Total 345
Figure 14 Species and quantity of native trees and shrubs planted in 22 areas along the Warrior Creek project in February 2011 to supplement the ripanan buffer
Page 13 of 19

EEP Recommendation and Conclusion
Based on the data and observations presented and Interpreted herein, EEP has determined that the Warrior Creek stream restoration and enhancement project Is functioning well and has met the
broad project goals and specific project objectives The project has attained the majority of the detailed success criteria (see below) and has had numerous bankfull flow events in multiple
calendar years In addition, EEP has undergone the process to re- survey the project conservation easement and will re -align significant lengths of pasture fence to locations outside of the
conservation easement EEP recommends providing documentation offence re- alignment to the NCIRT for release of the Warrior Ck project from further monitoring and crediting of 10,289
stream mitigation units
Warrior Creek Project
Success Criteria
ifs in most meanders rifles in most straight reaches
Y
Y
ikfu8 dimensions +/ 25% to that of the design
Y
Y
Yes for majority of XS widths areas
rapid, chronic bank erosion> 1ft/year
Y
N
The two exceptional areas were repaired
sgndcan t mid-channel bar formation in rifles thahveg does not bifurcate
Y
Y
s cars chronc sedmetvatm in pools
Y
Y
Some man stem pools are filled, but are expected to evacuate again
A
Y
Y
asuured sinuosity is the same as as built design +/ 0 1 ft/ft
Y
Y
Majority of surveyed reaches < or = 0 1 change in sinuosity
charnel avulsions
Y
1
significant changes in radars of curvature
N
9
Not computed but likely yes
'ooi-riffle sequences persists in sequence with planfmn pattern
Y
Y
Jo development of headcuis
Y
Y
tdfle slopes do riot exceed reference reach and/or design vahtes
Y
7
Not computed but likely yet as over steepened riffles not observed in field
Measured tlmafwe k mailer aes lade c
Y
Y
r
DSO and 1384 measurements remain graveFnad
Y
Y
Yes for all surveyed riffles
iome coons of rdnes and/ of ls ma occur
Y
Y
4o rapid, chronic bank erosion
Y
N
The two exceptional areas were repaired.
qo mayor charges in planform pattern
Y
Y
✓e Cation evident
Y
Y
iurvrval of at least 320 stems/acre for trees after 5 years
Y
N
Criteria its in error some plots dd not meet 260 plaruedlacre additional planing done
kt least 6 planted species survive
Y
Y
✓egetaton growth evident t}roughaa planted mmes
Y
Y
✓egetaton forms contiguous rtperran zone
Y
Y
kt least 80% herbaceous cover maintained with no contiguous bare areas
N
9
Page 14 of 19
c0

t
Contineencies
The original pasture fence construction at Warrior Creek was completed using a survey plat derived through calculated corners. In addition, the conservation easement was curvilinear and
determined solely with a GIS or CAD buffering function against the design channel alignment. Few if any physical monuments were installed on the ground to show the real location of the
easement boundary. Consequently, the fence was frequently located within the actual conservation easement. Beginning in 2011 and throughout 2012 multiple EEP staff worked with the two
landowners who have pastures along the site in order to secure agreement to move their fencing outside of the conservation easement. The site was re- surveyed to locate the boundary and a
contract is underway to have the fence moved in fall 2012. Finally, at the landowner's request, we plan for this area to re- vegetate naturally.
Figure 15 1995 air photo illustrating existing riparian and channel conditions along Warrior Creek (No pre - construction field photos were available) and 2012 field photo illustrating typical
streamside vegetation along Warrior Ck.
Page 15 of 19

APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary
412 — Warrior Creek
The Warrior Creek project is located in the Kerr-Scott Reservoir Local Watershed Plan (LWP),
within the upper Yadkin River basin of Wilkes County. The 34- square mile Warrior Creek
watershed (HU 0304010 1010110) is characterized by nearly 20 percent agricultural land use,
several large animal operations and over 20 percent non - forested riparian buffers (Upper Yadkin
RBRP; NC EEP, 2009). Major causes of stream degradation within the Warrior Creek
watershed, as reported in the LWP documents, include disturbed riparian buffers, livestock
(cattle) access to streams, historically channelized streams and unstable, heavily eroded stream
banks. Reducing inputs of sediment, nutrients and fecal coliform to the Kerr-Scott Reservoir
(used for both recreation and water supply) are primary objectives for any stream projects or
BMPs implemented within this LWP area. The Warrior Creek watershed includes several
subwatersheds and stream reaches identified as high - priority `targets' for stream
restoration /enhancement, buffer restoration and agricultural BMPs (e.g., livestock exclusion) by
the LWP technical team (EEP, NC DWQ and Tetra Tech, Inc.) and local stakeholders.
There is one additional EEP project (taken over from DOT) within the Warrior Creek watershed:
Big Warrior & Little Warrior Creek (92715), approximately three miles upstream of the Warrior
Creek project (see map figure below). The Warrior Creek project includes over 10,500 feet of
stream restoration and the upstream project (Big and Little Warrior Creek) over 16,000 feet of
restoration; together these two projects provide approximately five miles of channel and stream
bank restoration. There are also three CWMTF projects in the headwaters of the Warrior Creek
watershed, including buffers acquisition by the Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust and agricultural
BMPs implemented by the Wilkes Soil & Water Conservation District.
The table below summarizes the major LWP - identified stressors in the Warror Creek watershed,
recommended management strategies, and stressor- related objectives achieved by the Warrior
Creek project.
Stressom and Issues
Management Strategies
Warrior Creek Project
Stream bank erosion
Stream restoration & enhancement,
Restored/ enhanced/ stabilized stream
riparian buffers, livestock exclusion
and established riparian buffer and
livestock exclusion along over 10,000
I.f. on Big Warrior Creek and tributaries
Lack of adequate forested buffer
Stream restoration & enhancement,
Planted native woody spp. of riparian
riparian buffer restoration /enhancement
buffer on over 10,000 I.f of stream
across most of project)
Stream channelization
Stream restoration
Restored dimension, pattern, and profile
to over 10,000 I.f. along Big Warrior
Creek and tributaries
Livestock access to streams
Livestock exclusion; alternate watering
Installed exclusion fencing along most
of project where needed; installed
livestock watering systems

r
APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary
Legend
Project Types
• EEPTierl
1 319
0 CWMTF
O Counties
Q B -digit CUs
14digH HUs
- Major Hydrography
Municipalities
EEP LWP
- EEP TLW
Upper Yadkin
Kerr Scott Reservoir
Neked
area
e-
P IJ
E
W �E
0 1.25 2.5
l l l l l
1
uvm�r
a 0"
.r
Yadkin 03040101 WJk�
EEP Project Close -outs:
Warrior Creek
W. Ken
Scotl Resa
Warrior Creek
"s Projed Stte (41 2)
\cif
:. _, E,:
0
Wilkesboro
p / ALE(ANDER
55 Miles
J
HCB, Aug.

•
APPENDIX B — Property
The land required for the construction, management and stewardship of this
mitigation project includes a portion of the following parcels.
http: / /www.nceei).net /property- acquisition Of-
1)ortfolios /412 WarriorCreek.pdf
Long -Term Management Plan
Upon approval for close -out by the interagency Review Team (IRT), the
DENR Stewardship Program will manage this project.
_ID YM
912/216,922/35M19/592
11.6939
97 -Y & Z
935/064
10/33
0.3409
97 -W
922/35
9/590
2.2624
97 -Z - --
920/209
9/591
2.0026
97 -AA
926/273
9/590
0.8369
97 -AU
924/155
9/590
12.4624
97 -AS
912/124
9/592
10.4772
97 -X
http: / /www.nceei).net /property- acquisition Of-
1)ortfolios /412 WarriorCreek.pdf
Long -Term Management Plan
Upon approval for close -out by the interagency Review Team (IRT), the
DENR Stewardship Program will manage this project.

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID. 200221489 County: Wilkes
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property
Owner NC Wetlands Restoration Program
Attn Jeff Jurek
Address 1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1619
Telephone Number 336- 733 -5208
Authorized
Agent NA
Address
Telephone Number.
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name /number, town, etc.): The project is
located along Warrior Creek, southwest of Wilkesboro, Wilkes County, North Carolina The site is
located in the Yadkin River Basin
Description of Activity- This permit authorizes stream channel excavation and relocation, the placement
of fill material (stream diversion plugs), and the installation of in- stream structures (including coir fiber
rolls, log and rock vanes, root wads, riprap, etc ) associated with the construction of the Warrior Stream
Restoration Project Impacts to existing waters of the U S authorized by this permit total 9,200 linear
feet of stream channel See attached special conditions.
Applicable Law X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only
Authorization Regional General Permit Number
27 Nationwide Permit Number
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above
may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and /or appropriate legal
action
This Department of the Army Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit verification does not
relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local
approvals /permits The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before
beginning work. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact Todd Tuawell at telephone number (919) 876 - 8441 extension 26
Regulatory Project Manager Signatu
Authorization Date October 4, 2002 Expiration Date October 4, 2004
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC, MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE
CF Jennifer Frye, NCDWQ, WSRO, 585 Waughtown Street, Winston - Salem, NC 27107

Action ID: 200221489 County: Wilkes
Special Conditions
I This Nationwide Permit verification does not imply approval of the suitability of this property for
compensatory wetland mitigation for any particular project The use of any portion of this site as compensatory
mitigation for a particular project will be determined during our public interest review and 404 (b) (1) Guidelines
analysis during the permit review process for that project
2 Appropriate measures shall be taken to reduce the risk of petroleum contamination, including the use of low -
hour or new equipment for activities located within the streambed, and accessibility to emergency containment
materials to prevent the migration of contaminants in the event of a spill

Mitigation Project Name Warrior Creek
EEP IMS ID 412
River Basin YADKIN
Cataloging Unit 03040101
Annlieri Credit Ratins- 1*1 1 &1 9 5.1 Flt 1l1 3.1 91 ri 1 1.1 a 1 9 1 F.1 1.1 14.1 9.1 91 — n c., , I —
Information on Assets and Debits Valid as of 8/2612012
q 0
q C
C d
O•.
gr
C
a m:
a O.
d a
d
O
n�
0
n
as
a2
q .�
q
v
q u
1Q
�
>.
z c
Z
Ol
o
r
n
n
.0 «
'C
� C
c q
'C d
d
n
q
m
n A
» a
Q
z
r
c
O d
2�
c
O
z
O Z
zw
c a
O
z
n»
m
U�
q f.:
U
q t
U W
q
U�'
iu y
'
Q
z
I
O
9,964.00
488.00
m
e _ _
z
z
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
NCDOT TIP R -2240 -
1999 -0995
1996 -01926
Widening of US 421
1,000.00
NCDOT TIP R -2239C -
1999 -0492
1999 -20833
Widening of US 421
2,450.60
450.00
2005 -1857
2004 -21675
Loop Road Subdivision
209.00
1996 -02420 / 2000-
NCDOT TIP R -2604 -
2000 -0805
21006
NC 268 Bypass
2,167.00
38.00
Jefferson Elementary
2000 -0444
School
205.00
W D. of Thomasville
2000 -1399
2001 -20158
Walmart SC
5.40
NCDOT ILF Credit Purchase
3,927.00
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
0.00
0.00
Information on Assets and Debits Valid as of 8/2612012