ElkBranchCloseoutReport_20170701

Elk Branch Restoration Project
DMS ID (CRM#) 92665
FDP CONTRACT NUMBER D06125-C
USACE ACTION ID #2010-00230
DWQ 401#10-0078
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PROJECT TYPE: Stream Mitigation
Project Setting & Classifications
Meeting XY Coordinates:
t �fir��rluza n�m�oi nnnih �Ao• _R9 12S'170
County
Mitchell
General Location
Near Bakersville
River Basin:
French Broad
Ph sio ra hic Region:
Blue Ridge
Ecoregion:
Blue Ridge Mountains-
Southern Crystalline Ridges
and Mountains
USGS Hydro Unit:
6010108040010
NCDWQ Sub -basin:
04-03-06
Thermal Regime:
Cold
Trout Water:
Y
Project Performers
Source Agency:
DMS
Provider:
Michael Baker Intern.
Designer:
Michael Baker Intern.
Monitoring Firm
Michael Baker Intern.
Channel Remediation
NIA
Plant remediation
River Works
Approved for transfer to
Stewardship
Yes
Stewards
NCDEQ
Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Contracted
February 2007
Restoration Plan
December 2009
Permitted
September 2010
Construction Completed
June 2011
As -built survey
April 2012
Baseline MYO
September 2012
Monitoring Year 1
December 2012
Monitoring Year
December2013
Monitoring Year 3
December 2014
Supplemental PlantinjR
February 2015
Mon itoripig Year 4
November 2015
Monit ingYear5
November2016
Closeo tSubmission
July2017

DMS Planning Context:
The Elk Branch restoration project is located within HUC 06010108040010, the Cane Creek — Mine Creek
watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the 2009 French Broad River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan. The Elk Branch restoration project is currently one of three DMS projects
in this TLW (Dog Bite Creek and Sink Hole Creek).
Elk Branch is directly confluent to Cane Creek, which flows into the North Toe River. Cane Creek has been
designated as impaired due to a degraded fish community by the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
since the completion of the French Broad RBRP.
The 2009 RBRP notes fish monitoring efforts within the Cane Creek — Mine Creek watershed and the potential
for impairment. It attributes impacts to the fish community to high nutrient concentrations, likely from
agricultural sources. At the time of the RBRP, the watershed contained 82% forested lands, with 12% in
agriculture and 6% developed. A lower proportion (58%) of streams were found to be adequately buffered. The
watershed was noted as a priority area for stream restoration and agricultural BMP implementation for the
Mitchell County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Blue Ridge Resource Conservation and
Development Council. Major goals established in the 2009 French Broad RBRP include the implementation of
wetland and stream restoration projects to reduce sources of sediment and nutrients by restoring riparian buffer
vegetation, stabilizing banks, excluding livestock, and restoring natural geomorphology, especially in headwater
streams. An additional goal established for HUC 06010108 aims to restore aquatic habitat for protected species
in the Cane and Toe River watersheds.
The goals of the Elk Branch project are consistent with DMS watershed planning goals. The project reduces
sediment and nutrient loading to Elk Branch and Cane Creek through restoration and enhancement of streams
and their headwater tributaries. Specifically, the project improves water quality by establishing riparian buffers
to aid in the filtration of nutrients from agricultural runoff. Riparian buffers provide the added benefits of
improved riparian terrestrial habitat and shading, which reduces stream water temperatures. The project also
establishes stable stream geomorphology, which reduces sediment input from bank erosion and improves in -
stream habitat.
Project Setting and Background Summary
The Elk Branch Stream Restoration site is located approximately one mile northeast of Bakersville, in Mitchell
County, North Carolina. The project site is located at the end of Nora Lane, off Cane Creek Road on private
property that is primarily forest land and pastures for livestock. Elk Branch and its tributaries had been impaired
by historical and recent land management practices that include timber harvesting, pasture conversion,
channelization, and livestock grazing. Prior to restoration, stream channelization and dredging were evident
through much of the project site, as were the impacts of open stream access by cattle and horses. A significant
loss of woody streambank vegetation also occurred during the development of the land for agricultural use.
Over time, these practices have contributed excessive sediment and nutrient loading to Elk Branch, Cane Creek
and ultimately to the North Toe River, home to the endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel (rllamidonta
raveneliana).
The project involved restoration or enhancement of 3,169 linear feet (LF) primarily along three on -site streams:
Elk Branch and two unnamed tributaries (UTI and UT2). In addition, a third tributary (UT3) segment was also
restore da -li htin a tribut from the easement bound to its confluence with The
improvements made on the Elk Branch Mitigation Project Site have been successful in meeting the project's
Page 2 of 44

goals and objectives. Elk Branch and three unnamed tributaries were restored to a stable dimension, pattem and
profile. Elk Branch Reaches 1 and B, UTl and UT3 were restored using a Priority I restoration approach, while
a Priority II restoration approach was taken on the buried UT2. Modifications to the cross -sectional dimension
were made to provide a stable bankfull channel and to restore access to a floodplain. Adjustments to channel
pattern were made to avoid steep valley side slopes and to maximize the available floodplain. The channel on
UT2 was daylighted b restoring a channel that had been buried and flow directed along log conveyances, to
land. Functional improvement on
were made using an
Enhancement I approach. Along these channels, the pattern was not significantly altered but channel dimension
and profile were modified to remove vertical stream banks, lower the floodplain to allow for flooding access
and to improve energy dissipation u vertic ops.
In general, planted trees have survived well at this site bu rowi s�verySlow growth is
attributed to two factors, wet conditions and browsing by deer. floodplain along Elk Branch Reach 1, UT2
and areas along UT 1 were very wet and stayed wet even during periods of low rainfall. This wet condition was
due to springs that wetted the floodplain under all but the driest weather conditions. A large deer population at
the site also limits tree growth of some species because they are constantly browsed. As new growth begins to
grow, the tender vegetation attracts additional browsing. Because of these factors in the winter of 2015, 650
bare -root trees and approximately twenty-five, 3-gallon containerized trees were planted across the project to
to supplement existing trees. In addition, 500 livestakes were installed in locations where conditions were
considered too wet for good tree growth.
Goals and Objectives:
Coal$
Objectives
Restore or enhance headwater tributaries to
Improve in -stream habitat by reducing fine sediment
Cane Creek and the French Broad Basin and
loading from the watershed, provide a more diverse
create llystable conditions on the
bedform with riffles and pools, create deeper pools,
Brangcoch project
Elk Branch project site
develop areas that increase oxygenation, provide woody
debris for habitat, and reduce bank erosion
Reduce sediment and nutrient loading through
Establish buffers for nutrient removal from runoff and
restoration of riparian areas and streambanks
stabilization of streambanks to reduce bank erosion
Improve and restore hydrologic connections
Restore the existing trampled, straightened and relocated
between the project streams and the floodplain
streams by creating stable channels with adequate grade
control and access to the floodplain
Improve terrestrial habitat by planting riparian areas with
native vegetation, protecting these areas with a permanent
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along
conservation easement and fencing. This protected riparian
the project corridor
buffer will increase storm water runoff filtering capacity,
improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease water
temperature and improve wildlife habitat
Page 3 of 44

Success Criteria
Success Criteria
Stream:
• Cross -sections:
There should be little change in the
as -built cross -sections. If changes
do take place, they will be
evaluated to determine if they
represent a movement toward a
more unstable condition (e.g.,
down -cutting or erosion) or a
movement toward increased
stability (e.g., settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the
banks, or decrease in width/depth
ratio).
Stream:
• Longitudinal Profile and Pattern:
The longitudinal profiles should
show that the bed features are
remaining stable; i.e., they are not
aggrading or degrading. The pools
should remain deep with flat -water
surface slopes, and the riffles
should remain steeper and
shallower than the pools. Bed form
observations should be consistent
with those observed for channels of
the design stream type. Profile data
should reflect stable channel
bedform and a diverse range of
riffle and pool complexes.
Stream:
• Channel Substrate:
Pebble count information,
combined with evidence provided
by changes in cross -sectional and
profile data will reveal changes in
sediment gradation that occur over
time as the stream adjusts to
upstream sediment loads.
Significant changes in sediment
gradation will be evaluated with
respect to stream stability and
watershed changes.
Measured Parameter
11 Total Cross Sections:
Elk Branch:
3 riffles and 2 pools
UTl, Reach 2
3 riffle and 1 pool
UT2, Reach 1
1 riffle and 1 pool
3 Longitudinal Profiles:
Sink Hole Cr: profile of 2,339'
UT: profile of 683'.
UT2: profile of334'.
One Pebble Count:
Bed material analysis consisted of one
pebble count taken on Elk Branch
Reach B at the fast riffle downstream
of PPT16. Samples were taken in the
same riffle during annual geomorphic
surveys of the project site.
Page 4 of 44
Met
Yes — Cross section data indicates
minor adjustments year to year but
overall, channels at cross -sections are
stable. Vegetation influence on
floodplain elevation is also obvious
year to year.
Yes - No areas of instability were
noted during Year 5 monitoring and
there have been no significant
changes to the profile or pattern.
Yes — The channel is moving fine
sediments through the reach resulting
in clean gravel and cobble throughout
the channel bed.

Stream:
• Hydrology:
Two bankfull flow events must be
documented on the crest gauge
within the 5-year monitoring
period. The bankfull events must
occur in separate years.
Bankfull Events:
The occurrence of bankfull events
within the monitoring period have
been documented by the use of crest
gauges. Crest gauges were installed on
the floodplain with their base at
bankfull elevation. One crest gauge
was set up at the lower end of Elk
Branch in Reach 2, near Station
22+75; a second gauge was set up on
UTI, near Station 5+40.
Yes — Between October 25, 2012 and
the conclusion of Year 5 monitoring
in October 2016, the site was found
to have had bankfull events in four of
the five years. We did not identify a
bankfull event between October 2015
and October 2016.
Stream:
• Photographic Documentation:
Reference photographs:
Yes - Photo documentation of the
Photographs were used to evaluate
Photographs were taken upstream and
site during Year 5 monitoring reflects
channel aggradation or degradation,
downstream at 20 photo point (PP)
stable site conditions on restored
bank erosion, success of riparian
locations along the mainstem of Elk
channels as well as healthy stands of
vegetation, structure function and
Branch, at 5 PP locations along UT I,
herbaceous and woody vegetation in
stability, and effectiveness of
at 4 PP locations along UT2, at 11
the riparian corridors.
erosion control measures. Lateral
cross-section locations including right
photos should not indicate
and left bank and photos at 6
excessive erosion or degradation of
vegetation plot locations.
the banks. A series of photos over
time should indicate successive
maturation of riparian vegetation
and consistent structure function.
Vegetation:
• Interim measure of vegetative
Vegetation Plots:
Yes — All vegetation plots meet MY5
success for the site is the survival of
6 Total Vegetation Plots:
success criteria of at least 260
at least 320 planted stems/A at the
4 plots on Elk Branch
planted stems/A. The average planted
end of Monitoring Year 3.
2 on UTl
stems for MY5 = 493 stems/A. The
• The final vegetative success criteria
average for all stems = 567 stems/A.
is the survival of 260 planted
To add information on tree survival
stems/A at the end of Monitoring
and verify plot estimates, six (6)
Six (6) temporary veg plots contained
Year 5.
temporary vegetation plots were
from 567 to 931 stems/A, and had an
sampled May 2, 2017. (See data and
average density of 701 stems/A. This
map Appendix E).
compares well to the 567 total
stems/A found in vegetation plots.
Page 5 of 44

Asset Table:
Table 1. Asset Table, Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92665
Project
u
�
o
a
Segment
Existing
aA
As -Built
d
p
or
Linear
r.
m
Footage
g
L
Reach
Footage
0
o
CD
n,
a
_�
D
Stationing
Comment
Elk Branch
Reach 1
R
PI
974 LF
1:1
951
0+76 to
23 LF removed for farm road
2,020 LF
10+50
crossing at 8+07 to 8+30.
Reach A'
E
EI
592 LF
1.5:1
395
10+50 to
No crossings or other exclusions.
Cb4
16+42
50% of 10 LF ROW (or 5 LF)
16+42 to
removed for underground utility
Reach B'
R
P1/2
418 LF
1:1
398
20+60
crossing at 17+18 to 17+28 and 15
LF removed for farm crossing at 19+13
to 19+28.2
Reach 2
279 LF
E
EI
279 LF
1.5:1
186
20+60 to
No crossings or other exclusions.
23+39
UT 1
Reach 1
685 LF
R
P1
CM
677 LI'
1:1
656
0+06 to
21 LF removed for farm road
6+83
crossing at 3+05 to 3+26.
UT
Reach 1
2794 LF
R
P1
Eb4
242 LF
1:1
242
0+92 to
Excavate and daylight previously
3+34
piped section of UT2.
UT 33
Daylight stream doing minor pattern
Reach 1
0 LF
R
P1
Cb4
36 LF
1:1
36
0+00 to
adjustment, extensive improvements
0+36
to dimension by removal of pipe and
allowing floodplain connectivity.
Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream
Riparian Wetland (WMU)
Nonriparian Wetland (WMU)
Total Wetland
Buffer
Comment
SMU
W
BMU
2,864
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
1. £Ik Branch Rl was broken into smaller reaches subsequent to approval of the restoration plan, following regulatory comments.
2. Underground utility crossing not included in past monitoring reports but added to this closeout report.
3. Not in mitigation plan.
4. Includes stream footage originally in culverts.
Page 6 of 44

Page 7 of 44

r
Restoration Approach !
Restoration
PPT,7 1t' PP,T 2 - PPT.1
Enhancement l I ! r, PPT 2 ti .
No Credit r
Conservation Easement
♦ Photo Points t PPr'�a,.��a 9
PPT(
Top of Bank l
UT2
Structures PP o
XS - Pool �-
'
XS -Riffle PPT 5
i
- Vegetation Plots �. PPT6
l ^ VP 2 r
PPT.1 L
f
t � �
Y
.. PPT 9
t
10
f'
' pr,T1, t4
1.
;PPT I]
w KS
_ NC ®rTel bet Ir Baogi itll loin. �
Boartl
N Figure 2A DMS Project No. 92665
10 � 0 6� Feet A Monitoring Station Map Baker Project No. 111085
,N1 Elk Branch Restoration Project Date: 2017
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 125 feet Mitchell County, North Carolina
Drawn By: RWM
Page 8 of 44

Restoration Approach uT3
-.
Restoration
Enhancement I
Reath A
No Credit i5 3
Conservation Easement
• Crest Gauge PPT„
• Photo Points
Top of Bank
Structures
' PP716
XS - Pool t
XS -Riffle
- Vegetation Plots -
r
Reach a
PPT 17
.try` - PPT 18
!
°%S.7•. �' PPT 19 .
ti.
.' Cr—t G.wgn '
%S 2 - PP,T20-
PPT 1 �. • VP1 Il f 1
i
PPT 2 --.
!1 yP{
` •r`` _r UT1xs
x 1
r , f� f a••r C est Gauge �s ,.
r� 1:
! f
Ts
!
� lerfor Geoaaplrc lnforonatior anC Snai�ss PdC Sf�
N Figure 2B DMS Project No. 92665
0 62.5 125 Monitoring Station Map Baker Project No. 111065
I N T E R N A T I O N A L 1 inch Feet Elk Branch Restoration Project
Date:2017
Mitchell County, North Carolina
Drawn By: RWM
Page 9 of 44

Restoration Approach
Restoration
Enhancement fi
No Credit r
Reach 2 DA - .16 sq ml. UT1 DA - .06 sq mi
Kinney Cove �.--,-
l
1
1 1
uT2 +�
Reach 1 (r
w— * �� •
Reach B �
C e m- uri
yl Reach 2 t
.` a
tf
� e
Copynght.� 2013 rJat,onal Geographic Soaety. r--cubed
N Figure 3 DMS Project No. 92665
o 350 700 Topographic Map Baker Project No.111085
Feet Elk Branch Restoration Project
Date:
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 700 feet Mitchell County, North Carolina
Drawn By: By: RWM
Page 10 of 44

Conservation Easement+;.
'•
cnOz
Restoration Approach
-- Restoration
\
.,
Enhancement
UT2
No Credit
FeD2
Soil Type
e
BdA (Bandana sandly loam. 0-3%)
CnC2 (Clifton clay loam, 8-15%)
Reach 1
CnD2 (Clifton clay loam. 15-30%)
FeD2 (Fannin sandy clay loam, 15-30%1
FeE2 (Fannin sandy clay loam. 30-50°/)
}
FeEz
ScC (Saunook silt loam, 8-15%)
f
SdD (Saunook-Thunder complex. 15-30%)
WgE (Watauga sandy loam, 30-50%)
Reach A SdD
FeE2
UT3 CnDi
Fe02
FeE2
Reach 8
Reach 2
n 2
UT1
8dA CnC2
FeD2
OneM p. Eent r f r gr hie In[
ind ,1
Bo rd
N
Figure 4
DMS Project No. 92665
0 125 250
'@EEEEEK===
Soils Map
Baker Project No- 111085
Feet
Elk Branch Restoration Project
Date: 2017
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 2S0 feet
Mitchell County. North Carolina
Drawn By: RWM
By:
Page 11 of 44

Temporary Veg Plots
Lr r
R ,.
Invasive Treatment
Added Easement Markers
Project Centerline
U12
Conservation Easement
.
r
Rwu 1, 1 ; �•
w Crest GaugeEAL
♦ Photo Points
,t--t` Fenceposts were installed to mark easement
Top of Bank
f boundary in 2017. These were added to prevent
_ future mowing encroachments.
Structures
XS - Pool
— XS - Riffle
- Vegetation Plots
p
-Af �y
. ..
.. Reach4 i •.
Reach U
Multihora rose spraying occurred on 5IM2017. .
Dispersed rose was found throughout the project area,
but was most condensed in the indicated areas.
.itd.
Figure 5
' ' DMS Project No. 92665
0 25 250 Remediahon Map Baker Project No. 111085
� Feet Elk Branch Restoration Project
Date:
t N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 Inch = 250 feat Mitchell County, North Carolina
Drawn By: By. RWM
Page 12 of 44

Elevation (ft)
N N N
CD O O
If O
I
g O
`a
w y
1 E; N
7
I
i
I
`a
m
I A
O
0
N
O
Elevation (it)
T W W ONE
N W
�
1 A con
T O
O
o�
N
1
i
N
O
0
1
o
a
o
O
1
O
m
K
3 O
3 7
C
a.
�O
1
IT
O
�
O
N
U
}
4
m
r
A
W
I o
W
Cn
Elevation (ft)
I} 0 0
} (O
O
Elevation (ft)
N N N N N
O N N W
N
A
fi
O
N O
n
a
O
1
r
ij
to
w
C
� �
Q
�
L
W
O
j
r
�
O
v
1
I
m
o
a
�
0
Elevation (ft)
N N N N N N
OOD p
Ch 7,pI O7 C
U1 Cfl U1 C.f� U1 U1
€ O
g

I`T co
pI O
8
S
Elevation (ft)
01 N 0) m
(D O
m
N
1jI�
ti
` O
�
AAA
0
1}N
'uu
f�
a
N
O
(�
0
1 w
m
n O
2
I
+
I}
S
a
i
N
O
Elevation (ft)
N N N
(D Ul f0 CT O fi1
O
O
9.
w
0
it
0
Elevation (ft)
N N N
rn rn rn
O O O
�I W c0
O
1�
i O
I p
u
y
O O
7
1i r:
` O
I
a o
i
m
0
Elevation (ft)
rN�
Oo
G
1j �I
N N N N N
OOD 100 CA
00 fD O � N
N
W
I
O
I
t
7
1 N
T O
,pti
q
8
N
r
} r
a o
a
m
`a
0
a
C
a` cn
0
i
0
O
0

Elevation (ft)
Cn V W W Ul v ID W CAn
O
O
10
w
A
O]
1 ?
r
o
m
o
O.
m
S
p1
61
O O
t �
d
}
C �
ID
7
0
+
cm
IA
n
1
a
N
N
O
61
o
�
C
CD
I
IIG?�4���G�Tt
< D m
N
0 x
100000...
�Im ChA W Np �,
W
8
UJ
a
Elevation (ft)
NtomoN NN LnN WN NN A to
(o (N W A 0O N
O
Elevation (ft)
rn W rn W rn w m
N W P
N m W U A 0 0
O
n
W

Elevation (it)
N N N N N N N N N N N
O
O
00
0
7��C7 �C7T�
hp�7, nZ�c x
uNNNNC,
�0000,-
b VtA WNW
W
O
O
Elevation (it)
N N N N N N N N N N to
T W O T W 0)C(�,�) T W O)
O Pi A T m O N .G. 0) OD
O
l
0
m
o
o
C.
7
Of
S
01
0
m
�ln
+
G
~ A
G
opr
W
7
n
S
O
a
o
d
< k k
N N N N N C
00000;�
O C" A W N j
Oi
O
O

Elevation (ft)
rn rn rn rn m _rn rn rn _rn rn rn
0 0 0 0 o N
O N A W CD O N A O O O
O
4
cfoo
O
r
0
m
Q
c
a
2S
d
o�
f
m
�m
+T
cn
a
'o
m
p
o
0
�
s
N �
c0n
+m
a
7
0
D
m
m
a
0
QC)00C)-
C�A4113 �Q x
O_ S.
O_ O O
_O
O (71ACJ NQ
N
S

CT
OD
N O
O
Elevation (ft)
N N N N N N N N N N
O N W W N O O
co CDf0 (D O O O O CD CD
N
O
Cn
O
0
0
m
C
a
L
a
m
7
�
a
m
a
y
E
b
s �
N
D7
IT.
+
Cc,4- Q
_O
W
3 �
7
J �
+m
m
7
a
o
m
�
O
ci{iac�i. a1� x
O O O O C
OI fTAWNO
W
O
O
3
0
Elevation (ft)
N N N N N N N N N N N
cn cn Cn Cn M W 0) W co 0 O?
ONTCOOOAT CD A N O
N
O
O
N
O
0
0
0s
OC.-
7 O
0
A
N
O
W
O
O
U
c%1 uZr'�Q x
N NNNN�,
00000,E
s s s s
Of fhAWNO
r
0
m
C
a
7
01

m
Elevation (ft) a Elevation (ft)
d
a
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O U1 N 0 U[ Ut N M Ut L" M m Ul 01 Ul CT OI ut Ul Ut Ul Ut V, A
V -I V V V OD OD 00 00 co 07 V V -4 OD CO OD CO CO (O 10 CO �
N O N A m OD O N A O OD O f a U1 4 1D W (A -I 1D W U1
llA Wf3 s6' rri
J N N N N C
j 0000..'
7) Ln No
O
O
m
7
r
0
e
0.
m
c

A I=
M
0
0
0
O
fI+iIf411
Hl�9I�9999
ciV�Y/G�y1 1 -rIW
««-<� 0
W (rAWNd
r
O
7
m
c
C
a
m
Elevation (ft)
CT CNlt m m ONE ON1
D (0 CD O
CD Vt O cn O 0
0
CA
O
x
O
0
3
C
c
a
O
3
01
O �
0 0
in'
O W
O
+ C
VN
Q
o
�
a
m
N
NNNNNc.
O O O O O T
O1 VlAWNO
c
0
0
0
0

cNii�''
0
0
Elevation (ft)
a, rn rn rn rn
cWn o �
rn
O
O
0
X
c
a
m
0
0�
7
C m
+ C
w�
V N
8
O
D
ro
v
cn
O
N
O
I I I I
f�1 /�f�[3SCT 7'c
N A N N N C.
O IQ 0 0 0
OfNA W ND
W
O
O

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIisa��iiiiu�

d
rD
M
A
o
A
w
T
m
W
n P
R F
�m;o�o�
all,
9
Y
m W
J
poi"mid
A
1
RR➢
��p
�0
O
A
J"�
_
J
o
�
8
s=
3
s 2
a
3 s
3;
O G
.,
S
V
➢
1 O
00�p�
�
NAOA
AOO
O
O
V OyO�N
0O�
3
GG
Nm
tI�
1 +
B
�pN�m
V
W v
J
CI
C1
li
�� V
N+NOON
Lil W
0
,�
oo�
mp�gi��
S�
iJ
7 i
gyp
ay��
��
oma,�wooNgm
ymrn
'cfs
�¢�0omn
�A�
N
O V
N+�O�
W.wj
W
➢
�1
N
C)
O
�
O��ON
W
NmGO
ao
mpQg��
IE
N
aoo
mom
��
o,p
���ammyo�
in���oaNm
3�
f
�rD
w OlaQ
pOp
LY
W
Ob1T�p
—0�(��W
p
O J
m WOO�p
All
�.I
aD N
�.Wi V
3
U
mwop
00
Ny
3
Oma+n`�d
OLf
OIO'
`�NEO�
:—
W
➢
m
00�
mmgPia�
i i
Idw�
io$'�,'ro
`�
L1
��
�6aO�00N
WIANOON��mO�
�j V
tf�{�
A O
ry3 a
a
pma+�
SAl
OfT
�
S
Q W
N vtOuf
vm
W
31
j41
W
N
At+
W
Z
1-01-11
Om
➢
f1
dX+
o �armN
NOjg
r�NyNo
NT
$W
71
m
O
0 0
m N
A
y N
N !D
PPQ141
W
N
N J
oOR Oo
N�y
O�A...mN�O
O N
Ui
W �D—:3
U
W
W "'
8
U �
W Y
ft
W
m
IJ J
M
ap ti
iL
�
ry
O�INmNm�a
ma
��
A

��'J�]:1 `J' SL•]rJ' L_]����J' �J' � J�l•J fIL:l �C]�J�"J' �S
fllf�9f11111� 111 � f60916�fg018
1109�1111111�=III=11101111901�
���eeallllll� 111 ��AA�A��lfl�l� .
ME
�
II
N���@IIIIIID
��i��i1illii���iiii�°�

Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Flow Events
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-#92665
Gauge Watermark Height
Date of Data
Method of Data
Date of Event
(inches)
Collection
Collection
Elk Branch Reach 2
UT1
Between July
10/25/2012
2011 and
Gauge
641, 2.4"
3"
10/25/12
measurement.
Between
11/27/2013
10/25/12and
Gauge
1.6"
4.12"
11/27/13
measurement.
Between
11/25/2014
11/27/13 and
Gauge
1.5"
25.5"*
11/25/14
measurement.
Between
10/20/2015
11/25/14 and
Gauge
11.4"
7.8"
10/20/2015
measurement.
*Corkin the crest gauge was this high on staff but we question accuracy, do believe a ban kfulI flow was recorded.
Page 26 of 44

RL
_
A
a
^ a
r
a
o
°a—'
N
m
o
3
j
P
2
a
r
m
3
�
Q
N
r
!C
!C
N
r
a
r
Ip
Q
r
N
r
tE
U
N
D
f+
3
V'
O
g
N
3
0 0
O
a1
�^
O
p<j
G N
O
W
J
o
rn
m
C
3
3
N
�
0 o
O
rn
o
< H
a
W
3
0
U1
A
N
W
Q
W
N
A
O
d
T
9
3
N
O
�
Of N
pp
fn
7.
T.
A CAN
a r
A W
N M
T
�
9
y e
y1 9
N
w w
J p
A R C
\ G
K y r
p
pp��
pppp��
bb y
w y Q
iii
S�ma�N�
.N. y
s
\
N S
ro s p�
g.G
p�pp
y� 9
6
y
O
y� 9
9
O
J
T,�
9c� s
A 3 Y N
[.W1
P
ppJJ
P N
NN
S U
p pp
W W
S R 4
\
N
waGm�g�3
9 � S
N 9
A
,q � YYYq

DMS Recommendation and Conclusion
On all channels, a step -pool morphology was developed using various structures, which provided energy
dissipation and habitat improvement. Vertical drops over step -pool structures enhanced pool depth by
scouring fine sediments and creating self -maintaining, deep -water habitat feature. Stream banks and
channel floodplains are well populated with many species of trees and herbaceous vegetation. This
vegetation is providing channel stability, organic contributions of leaves and woody debris, nutrient
uptake, shade that maintains a cool stream and buffer, diverse habitat for terrestrial fauna and many
other functions. Fencing livestock out of these streams has greatly reduced both nutrient and sediment
loading to these streams from adjacent fields and directly by livestock. Both deer and wild turkey are
utilizing the wooded buffer. Streams at the Elk Branch Site are stable and their ecological functions
have been greatly unproved. There are a number of small wetland areas within the protected buffer of
this stream project and while we are not seeking mitigation credit for this habitat, it does contribute to
the functional uplift of the site. These improvements benefit the receiving waters of Cane Creek, a
Hatchery Supported and Delayed Harvest trout stream, and the North Toe River, which supports the
endangered Appalachian Elktoe mussel.
All success criteria for this project have been met. Year to year cross-section and profile data show no
areas of instability and only minor adjustments. This appears to be influenced by thick vegetation on the
floodplain and stream flow moving fine sediments through the channel. More than two bankfull events
were observed in different years during the monitoring period. Photographs of the site show the
development of thick herbaceous vegetation and the growth of trees within the buffer. Vegetation plots
indicate an average planted tree density of 493 stems/acre and a total stem density of 567 stems/acre.
Random, temporary vegetation plots done in MY5 support these estimates.
The accompanying data and the information provided over the last 5 years in annual monitoring reports,
support our conclusion that project goals and objectives have been met. The improvements made at this
site merit recognizing the site as mitigation for negative impacts to other watershed streams. Michael
Baker Engineering and DMS respectfully requests that this site be closed out with full recognition of the
2,864 Stream Mitigation Credits.
Contineencies
There arc no contingency issues identified at this time.
Page 28 of 44

b
A
R�
ro
0
y
R
A
R
y
C
A
b
C
M
H
T1
N
� {
N N
O
A
A

r
M
z
ti

N
{
W
V
3
N

I

Appendix A: Property Ownership Information & Verification of Protection
Mechanism
The site protection instrument for this mitigation project includes the following document(s), available at
the specified
County Register of Deeds office, and is linked to the property portfolio at:
http://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/M itigation%20Seryices/Doc u ment%20Management%20Libra ry/Prope rty/Property%20Portfolio/926
65 ElkBranch
PD 2009.pdf
Project Namel County I Grantor Name Recordation Info I Property Rights
Elk Branch Mitchell David E. Wylie and wife, Pamela F. Wylie IDB 493, P 771 IConservation Easement
Elk Branch MitchelllJohn Howard Hall and wife, Elizabeth M. HaIIIDB 493, P 765 IConservation Easement
Elk Branch MitchellICharles W. Craig, Jr. and wife, Lynda C. Craig IDB 493, P 630 IConservation Easement
Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DEQ Stewardship Program.
Page 33 of 44

Appendix B: Permits & Jurisdictional Determinations
e"n
NC®EE R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
oivision of water Qualhy
Beverly Eaves Petdua
Colaw H. Suess Dee Freeman
Governor
Dlmmr Secretary
September 16, 2010 `
DWQ Project r: 10-0078
C81�.Sgp Mitchell County
2 �
Mr. Micky Clemmons
L 2010O
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, 201
NHAAeC CIStR
d sM�-�
Suite
pouu
Asheville, NC 28806
Subject Property: Elk Branch (NCEEP Full -Delivery Project)
Elk Branch [040306, 7-2-59-8, C; Tr]
Approval of 40l Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr.Clemmons:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
within or otherwise impact 3,169 linear feet of perennial stream for the purpose of stream restoration and
enhancement at the subject property, as described within your application dated January 21, 2010 and
received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on January 28, 2010, and additional information
received in this Office on April 5, 2010 and August 10, 2010. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3689 (GC 3689).
The Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit(s) 27 when issued by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal,
state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and
Sediment Control, and Non -discharge regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed
impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. Ifyou change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. Iflotal fills for this project (tww ur in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or I50 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below,
4010vera9hGExpress Renew Permilang UM
1650Maa Semis Center, Ralelph, NOnh Carolina 27699-1650
LorOW 2321 Cra6oee &4 . Raleigh. Nonn Carotna MA
Phline: 919-73M 7661 FAX, 919-73"93
Inlermt hop:Ph2e.enr.aale.nc.ulncwavand5r
AA Equal Oppo l—ly1 Arr­Wry Ata]n EMOOVe,
Page 34 of 44
o e
NhCarolina
Natumlly

Mr. Micky Clemmons
Page 2 of 4
September 16, 2010
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
j approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved Units
Plan Location or Reference
Stream
3,169 (feet)
PCN page 6 of 12
404/CAMA Wetlands
0 acres
NA
Waters
0 acres _
NA
Buffers
0 (square ft.
NA
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project,
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act,
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre -Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
Page 35 of 44

Mr. Micky Clemmons
Page 3 of 4
September 16, 2010
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters without prior
approval from the Division. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands
and waters is unavoidable, design and placement of temporary erosion control measures shall not
be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks,
adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above structures. All sediment and erosion
control devices shall be removed and the natural grade restored within two (2) months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources or locally delegated program has released the project.
5 Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
6. Stream Restoration
You have our approval for your proposed final stream erihancement/restoralion plan. The stream
restoration/enhancement must be constructed, maintained, and monitored according to the plans
approved by this Office. Any repairs or adjustments to the site must be made according to the
approved plans or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs or
adjustments.
7 Mitigation Credit
Approval of the restoration plan and issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification means that
DWQ has determined that the proposed activity will not remove or degrade significant existing
uses of the surface water (15A NCAC 2H ,0506(a)), The issuance does not represent an approval
of credit yield for the project.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation ofthis Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150E of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
Page 36 of 44

Mr. Micky Clemmons
Page 4 of 4
September 16, 2010
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Ian McMillan in the Central Office in Raleigh at (919)
733-1786.
Sinc ly,
ji�
teen H. Sullins
CHS/IJM/EWK ;fi��
Enclosures: GC 3689
Certificate of Completion
cc: Kevin Barnett - DWQ Asheville Regional Office
David Baker - USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Guy Pearce - NCEEP
Filename: 100070EIkBranch(M1tche11)401
Page 37 of 44

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 2010-00230 County: Mitchell USGS Quad: Bakersville
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner I Authorized Agent: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEPI
Attention: Guy Pearce
Address: NCDENR-EEP, 1652 Mail Service Center
Ruleigh, NC 276"-1652
Telephone No.: 919-715-1656
Size and location of property (water body, road nameinumbcr, town, etc.): The oroiect is located ol1' of
Nora Lane, east of Bakersville, Mitchell County, NC. 36.02024 N.-82,13591 W
Description of projects area and activity: This permit authorizes excavation, Placement of fill, and
installation of in -stream structures in order to restore/enhance approximately 3,169 linear feet of
Elk Branch and unnamed tributaries to Elk Branch to perform restoration and enhancement
activities, as detailed in the plan titled "Elk Branch Restoration Project Bakersville, North
Carolina" dated August 2, 2010. All impacts are temporary in order to conduct this
restotatiottlenhancentent, 7'Ite attached recommendations from N.C. Wildlife Resource
Corn mission are herehy incorporated as special conditions of this nermit authorizatiun.
Applicable law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number.
Nationwide Permit Number: 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permits provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with
the attached conditions, your submitted plans, and the special conditions listed below. Any violation of the attached
conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the perminee to a stop work order, a restoration order
and/or appropriate legal action.
1. This Nationwide Permit verification does not imply approval of the suitability ofthis property for
compensatory wetland mitigation for any particular project. The use of any portion ofthis 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.
2. Conditions of the attached North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission letter dated February 2, 2010
are hereby incorporated as special conditions of this permit.
3. The perminee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and conditions ofthis
permit in the construction and maintenance ofthis project, and shall provide each of its contractors and/or
agents associated with the construction or maintenance ofthis project with a copy ofthis permit, and any
authorized modifications. A copy ofthis permit, and any authorized modifications, including all
conditions, shall be available at the project site during construction and maintenance of this project.
This verification is valid until the N WP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing NWPs are scheduled
to be modified, reissued, or revoked prior to March 18. 2012. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of
changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, ifyou commence or
arc under contract to commence this activity before the date that the relevant nationwide permit is modified or
revoked, you will have twelve (12) months from the date of the modification or revocation of the N WP to complete
the activity under the present terns and conditions ofthis nationwide permit.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine
Section 401 requirements.

For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittcc of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal. State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Tasha McCormick at 928-271-7980.
Corps Regulatory Official lush a McCormick Date: September 16, 201U
Expiration Date of Verification: March 18, 2012

Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ❑ Based on preliminary information. there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above
described project area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory
Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Pan 331).
B ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the
permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a
period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
C. ® There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWAX33 USC # 1344). Unless there is a change in the
law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years
from the date of this notification.
D. ❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described protect area have been identified under a previous action.
Please reference jurisdictional determination issued _. Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: The site contains stream channels that exhibit indicators of ordinary high
water marks. The stream channel on the property is Elk Branch and unnamed tributaries to Elk Branch which flow
into Cane Creek which flows into North Toe River which flows into the Nolichucky River which flows to the
French Broad River and ultimately flows to the Atlantic Ocean. The French Broad River is a Traditionally
Navigable Water, TN W.
Appeals Information: (This information does not apply to preliminary determinations as indicated by paragraph A.
above).
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that
approved jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will
find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attn: Tasha McCormick, Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the
criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of
the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it most be received at the above address within 60
days from the Issue Dare below.
'9t is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.'"
Corps Regulatory Official: _
Issue Date: Sertember 16, 2010 Expiration Date: Five years from Issue Dare
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
httpWreaulatorv.usaccsmev.com to complete the survey online.
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC.,
MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Furnished: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., 797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806
Attention: MickyClemmons

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Jones, David Baker, USACOE
Asheville Regulatory Field Office J
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator /
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 2, 2010
SUBJECT: Elk Branch (C-Trout) Stream Restoration Project, Mitchell County
The applicant proposes provide NCEEP stream mitigation. Biologists with The North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) are familiar with habitat values in the area. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through
113A-10; NCAC 25).
The project is intended to restore segments of Elk Branch and segments of tributaries thereof. Total
stream restoration will total 3,169 linear feet. These waters are indicated to be degraded due to ongoing
agricultural practices. Trout are not known for these upstream segments. There may be some wild
Rainbow trout downstream; however, the extent of any reproducing Rainbow trout in nearby basins is not
known. Although Cane Creek downstream is NCWRC Hatchery Supported, some wild Rainbow trout
reproduction should be anticipated.
Based on our review of the submittal, we will not object to the project as proposed providing the
following conditions are implemented:
1 . Although not recommended as a CWA permit or certification condition, we pJ;fer that the
applicant avoid instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot buffer during the
rainbow trout spawning season (January I through April 15) to protect any trout egg and fry
that may occur downstream. Due to the potential for frozen and/or extremely mucky soil
conditions in late winter, it is unlikely that ground disturbing work can be accomplished
efficiently and that re -vegetation can occur successfully so extraordinary soil stabilization
practices would be appropriate and necessary. Accordingly, beginning instream and buffer
work later in March as indicated in the application cover letter is a better option than January
or February. We will not object to starting in March providing adequate sediment and
erosion control measures are fully installed and implemented early in the process.
Mailing_ Add —
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Elk Branch Restoration Page February ?, 2010
2. If any temporary or permanent culverts are needed, culverts 48" or larger should be buried a
foot into the streambed. Culverts loss than 48 inches in diameter should be buried to a depth
equal to or greater than 20% their size to allow for aquatic life passage. These measurements
must be based on natural thalweg depths. Aquatic life passage should be assured during low
flow or drought conditions. Any rock or riprap used must not interfere with aquatic life
movement during low flows.
3. Remaining jurisdictional water and wetlands should be buffered, either through protection or
provision of undisturbed forested buffer zones. Buffers should be aerntanentlypreserved as
common coatiguous forest areas. For streams that do not support federally listed threatened
or endangered aquatic species, we recommend 50' intermittent and 100' perennial stream
buffers. Irregardless of buffer widths offered, maximum available buffers should be provided
and the twenty-five (25) foot trout buffer should be restored and remain undisturbed to the
maximum extent practicable. To obtain maximum buffer benefits, buffer width averaging is
acceptable where site conditions warrant.
4. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards for sensitive
watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0124).
5. If any concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water.
6. When practicable, heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the
stream channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing
other pollutants into the stream.
7. Temporary or permanent native herbaceous vegetation should be established on all bare soil
within five (5) days of ground disturbing activities in the 25-foot trout buffer to provide long-
term erosion control. Annual grain crops may be used for temporary cover (nursery)
plantings. Natural fiber matting is recommended over plastic matting that can impinge and
entrap small animals. Onsite native vegetation and natural materials may be used for stream
work when practicable.
8. The project should use state-of-the-art natural channel restoration methodologies, including
buffer restorations. Restored stream buffers should be planted with autochthonous (native)
plants such as silky dogwood, rhododendron, dog hobble, mountain pepperbush, paw paw,
red maple, silky willow, tag alder, black willow, sycamore, river birch, or other native woody
species. Where wetlands can be enhanced or restored, native plants are preferred for those
areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project during the early planning stages. if
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336-769-9453,
E-copy: Kevin Barnett, Linda Wiggs, DWQ-ARO

0
3
m
vzcaoo
ncz`v3a
u v
to
Ole.
?. 1 Cam �rD
0>
> `gm vo a
v�y>
wG
�a
A '
v ro
A
io tS
moa,N
3.m
o a
a
w
oz
o
a
n
a �
n
C
Or item
H p N
C
oD
n Lam
�=m
n
bM
o��
rna=
D
O
z
v
o
O
➢
Q
N
<n
Z
t7
a
Ripanan n
Preservation -
Nonnpar
Restoration
Nonriparian w
Creation
No nriparian ru
Enhancement
Nonripar, U
Preservation
Coastal Marsh
Restoration -
Coastal Marsh
Creation
Coastal Marsh
Enhancement
Coastal Marsh cn
Preservation

Appendix D: Additional Data
To provide additional information on tree survival and verify vegetation plot estimates that were surveyed
each monitoring year, 6 temporary vegetation plots were sampled in May 2017. Sites within the
conservation casement area were selected in the office and when laid out in the field were generally 100mz
in area. Most of the plots were 5x20m due to space restrictions, but plot E was 1 Ox 1 Om. The results from
counting the living woody stems sampled at these temporary vegetation plots are presented in the following
table. These temporary vegetation plots are included in Figure 5. Remediation Map.
Supplemental Temporary Ve etadon
Plot Data
Species by Temporary Plot
Tem orary Ve Plot Data
Common Name
Scientific Name
Plots
Plot
Plot Size
Stems/Plot
Stems/A
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
1,2,3,4,5
1
5x20 m
23
931
Yellow Poplar
Liriodendron tuli ifera
1,2,3,6
2
5x20 in
14
567
Green Ash
Fraxinus permsylvanica
1,2,3,6
3
5x20 in
15
607
Black Willow
Salix nigra
1
4
5x20 in
19
769
River Birch
Betula ni ra
11213,416
5
1Ox10 m
14
567
Northern Red Oak
Qurecusrubra
1
6
1 5x20 in
19
769
Hazel Alder
Alnus Serrulata
1,2,3,4,5
Red Maple
Accr Rubrum
1,3,4,5,E
Flowering Dogwood
Corpus Florida
4,6
Page 44 of 44