20200775 Ver 1_MiddendorfSprings_100151_Draft Mitigation Plan For IRT Review_2023_20230224

ID#* 20200775 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 03/06/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/24/2023
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: * Email Address:
Kelly Phillips [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#: * 20200775 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
County: Anson
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: MiddendorfSprings_100151 Draft Mitigation Plan For
31.41 MB
IRT Review_2023.pdf
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
.................................................. ......... ......... ...... ................................ .............................................
Print Name:* Kelly Phillips
Signature: *
&% Phill,Ps

FINAL DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN FOR IRT REVIEW
MIDDENDORF SPRINGS MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

DMS Project No.100151
DWR Project No. 2020-0775v1
NCDEQ Contract No. 8012-01
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2021-01973

Yadkin River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040201
RFP#:16-008012 (Issued 07/16/2019)

Prepared for:

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

February 2023
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 ii February 2023
MITIGATION PLAN
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC

DMS Project No.100151
DWR Project No. 2020-0775v1
NCDEQ Contract No. 8012-01
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2021-01973

Yadkin River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040201

Prepared for:

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

Prepared by:

Freese and Nichols, Inc.
531 N Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101

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

Contributing Staff:
Bryan Dick, PhD, PE, PH Lead Technical Professional/Lead Quality Assurance
Ian Jewell, JD Project Manager/Mitigation Plan Development
Emily Brown, PE, ENV SP, CFM Stream Design/Construction Documents
Lydia Ward, PE, ENV SP Stream Design/Construction Documents
Jason Steele, PhD, PWS Wetland Design/Mitigation Plan Development
S. Connor Kee, PG Mitigation Plan Development/Monitoring

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 1 of 19

531 N. Liberty St. + Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 + 336-790-6744 + FAX [phone]

February 21, 2023

Kelly Phillips
Project Manager
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115

Re: DMS Project ID # 100151 / Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan
NC DMS Comments

Dear Mr. Phillips:

Freese and Nichols, Inc. appreciates the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) reviewers’ time and
thorough review of the project. We have addressed all comments received by DMS provided by the
Memorandum of Record on October 26, 2022 for the Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Site Draft Mitigation Plan. Our responses are in blue below:

Comments received (Black Text) and Responses (Blue Text)

General:
· Please paginate PDF to be 1-263. Draft report is 1-55 for report, followed by 1-164 for
figures and appendix, then 1-28 for plan set, and finally 150-165 for additional
appendix.

This has been revised.

· As requested by the Todd Tugwell in an email dated June 8, 2021, please include a
discussion of the site, including a description of the unauthorized activities carried out
on the site and actions taken as part of the mitigation work to resolve those concerns.
Please include this email correspondence in Appendix A.

This information has been added to Section 1.0.

Title Page:
· Please add DWR Project number 2020-0775v1

This has been added.

www.freese.com

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 2 of 19

· Remove DMS contract number. The NCDEQ number listed is sufficient.

This has been removed.

Page ii:
· Remove DMS contract number.

This has been removed.

· Revise Yadkin River Watershed to Basin and HUC to Cataloging Unit to be consistent
with cover page.

This has been revised.

Page iv:
· Please revise sections 7.1.1.1, 7.1.1.2 and 7.1.1.3 to 7.1.1, 7.1.2 and 7.1.3.

This has been revised.

Page vi:
· Please review and revise Figure names to match what Figures are titled in report for
consistency. For example, Land Use Map and Land Use Land Cover Map, Soils Map and
NCRCS Soil Survey Map, Proposed Restoration Plan and Proposed Mitigation Plan,
Monitoring Map and Monitoring Plan, and HUC Overview and Hydrologic Location.

This has been revised.

1.0 Introduction:
· Report states that the Site is not located within a targeted local watershed and proceeds to
discuss targeted resource areas in same sentence. Recommend revising to state that the site
is not located within a TLW or TRA or revise sentence for clarity.

This has been revised.

· Recommend revising sentence that states wetlands will be restored and re-established for
5.567 to wetlands will be rehabilitated and re-established.

This has been revised.

Tables 1 and 2: Please keep the credits and quantities tables formatted per the template.

The credits and quantities tables have been reformatted per the template.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 3 of 19

2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection (Second Paragraph): While the land use information
provided by FNI may be relevant, DMS suggests FNI speak directly with DMS watershed planners
to ensure FNI assumptions about the model are accurate.

We removed the language describing the similarity to nearby TRAs and the assumptions about
how those TRAs were selected. This was taken from the full delivery proposal and was used to
justify selection of the site even though outside a TRA.

3.1.1 Drainage Area and Land Cover: “Primary land use within the drainage areas consists of
row crop. Cattle pasture (Tributary 1) with wooded areas located along banks of South Fork Jones
Creek, adjacent to Tributary 1 (upper) and along Tributaries 1B and 1C”, please restructure
sentence(s) for improved clarity.

This has been revised for clarity.
Table 4: Summary of Project Attributes: Recommend including Stream Thermal Regime – Warm
in the Project Watershed Summary Information section.
This has been revised per recommendation.

Table 5: Mapped Soil Series: BaC is listed on table but does not appear in project area on Figure
5. This may be accidently mislabeled and should be BaB. Please review and revise as necessary.

It was mislabeled and has been revised.

3.2.4 Land Use:
· Section states that site has not been used for livestock and no livestock are present. Section
3.1.1 indicates that a primary land use is cattle pasture (Tributary 1) in the drainage
areas. Please revise and/or clarify so sections are consistent.

Section 3.1.1 has been revised to clarify this. Cattle pastures are present on an adjacent property
upstream of Tributary 1, but are not present on the project site or parent tract.

· Text at the top of document page 9 does not read correctly and repeats with previous page.
Please revise.

The repeated text has been removed.

3.3.1 Reach Summary Information:
· NCDWR Stream Identification Forms were not included in Appendix D with the draft
submittal. Please include with revised submittal.

NCDWR Stream Identification Forms have been included with the revised submittal.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 4 of 19

· Please qualify all references to ‘relatively high’ and ‘high’ BHRs.

This has been revised. The actual bank height ratios have been provided rather than a qualitative
statement.

· Sentence “This has resulted in severe bank erosion along the channel due to lack of natural
bedform as the channel attempts to regain stable geometry.” “This “ what? And the
statement indicates the severe incision has resulted in erosion due to lack of bedform;
please revise the sentence to accurately describe the process. Generally, isn’t the lack of
bedform due to incision rather than the incision due to lack of bedform?

This sentence has been revised for clarity. It now says that incision has led to bank erosion and lack
of bedform as the channel attempts to regain stable geometry.

3.3.1.2 Tributary 1B: Please describe why enhancement has been selected over restoration.

A sentence has been added describing why enhancement was selected over restoration on
Tributary 1B.

3.3.1.2 Tributary 2:
· Gulledge Road is referenced in this section. Please label this road on figures.

Gulledge Road is now labeled on figures where applicable.

· Multiple vehicular crossings are referenced in this section. Please include these locations
on Figure 9 Existing Conditions Map.

These are now included on Figure 9 Existing Conditions.

3.3.1.3 Tributary 3: Description of Tributary is unclear and does not seem to match Figure 9.
Section states intermittent flow begins on Trib 3 at a headcut 470’ upstream of the Site
easement area. Figures appear to show intermittent area within easement. Please revise
as necessary.

This sentence has been revised to provide clarity and correct this error. Tributary 3 begins at a
headcut inside the proposed easement.

3.3.1.4 Tributary 4: Section states that Tributary 4 is an intermittent tributary of Tributary 3.
Figure 9 shows Tributary 4 as perennial. Revise as necessary.

This has been corrected.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 5 of 19

3.3.1.5 and C-14: Please justify the alignment of Tributary 5 with lidar and or survey data to
support the proposed stream location.

A new figure has been created to justify the alignment of Tributary 5 with both Lidar contours and
Survey data.

3.3.14 Tributary 4: Please include Tanner Hill Road on Figures.

We’ve added Gulledge Rd to the figures. “Tanner Hill Road” is an incorrect road name that has
appeared on some online maps such as Google Maps.

3.3.16 Tributary 6: Section states that the perennial channel originates at the most upstream
wetland area. Figure 9 shows two additional wetlands upstream of where Tributary 4 is perennial.
Please revise as necessary.
This sentence has been revised to remove the words “most upstream”.

3.3.2.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Information: Please add a short discussion regarding the
approved USACE PJD that was completed on July 27, 2022, and is included in Appendix D.

A short description of the approved USACE PJD was added to this section.

Table 6: Recommend formatting to fit on 1 page as opposed to 3.

This has been revised to include the table on one page as opposed to three.

4.2 Potential Constraints: The intent of the statement ‘the valley widths at the site will allow for
pattern and dimensions to restore stable functioning streams and wetlands’ is not clear as valley
width does not limit stream stability. Suggest adding a caveat to this statement excepting Trib 1A
upper which is constrained by parcel boundary and easement.

This sentence was removed and revised with a statement about Trib 1A being constrained by the
parent tract boundary.

4.1.4 Physiochemical:
· In general goals absent measurement should be avoided, please reduce physiochemical
discussion to parameters being measured during monitoring.
This has been revised per the suggestions in the other comments below.

· Recommend revising the second sentence to use the word export instead of production
This has been revised.
.
· Recommend striking the 4th sentence
This has been removed.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 6 of 19

· In relation to the sentence: “These benefits develop slowly…” Reductions in bank erosion
and increasing floodplain storage should be readily assessed as part of the mitigation
monitoring. Nutrient cycling can be a longer-term process, especially when the source is
row crop agriculture, where a groundwater reservoir of nitrate may be a long-term source.
Please remove discussion of these metrics or add methods for measurement and reporting
to the monitoring plan.

Discussion of reduction in nutrient as a metric has been removed from this section.
· Consider language in here that indicates forms of nitrogen and phosphorous will
LIKELY be reduced by reductions in bank erosion and establishment of a riparian buffer.

Language to this effect has been added to this section.

4.2 Potential Constraints: Recommend referring to Stream 1 as Tributary 1 to be consistent
with report text, figures, and tables.

This has been revised.

5.5 401/404:
· Text formatting error in this section.
This has been fixed.
· Verify that all impacts to jurisdictional wetlands have been minimized to the maximum
extent possible when considering access routes.
All impacts to jurisdictional wetlands have been minimized to the maximum extent possible with
access routes.
· Please clarify if the wetland expansion of 0.22 acres noted in this section is
included in the plan as submitted.
The wetland expansion of 0.22 acres is included in the plan. Wetland A was expanded by this
amount.

Table 10 – Project Goals and Objectives:
· First goal – Recommend indicating that groundwater levels will be raised to support
riparian and hyporheic functions instead of “Improve”.
Revised per recommendation.

· Project objectives should have corresponding performance standard and monitoring
parameters. The goals/objectives listed currently in the draft could be reduced and more
concise. Please organize these to be more concise with the performance standards
presented in Table 18.

Both Table 10 and Table 18 have been revised to be more concise by reducing the number of
goals/objectives or combining some redundant goals/objectives into one.

· Examine the second goal indicating transport equilibrium: The sediment transport
analysis in Section 7.4 indicates the drainages are not compatible with using sediment
transport equilibrium because they are supply limited and will be constructed as
threshold channels. Please revise this goal to comport with the transport analysis.

The language describing sediment transport equilibrium has been removed.

· Recommend not mentioning aquatic communities in third goal if it will not be measured.
Recommend leaving it improvement of substrates, bedform diversity and habitat
diversity.

The language regarding aquatic communities has been removed.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 8 of 19

7.1 Reference Streams:
· Remove references to Wildlands Engineering, Baker and Restoration System sites in
reference stream sections.

These references have been removed.

· Drainage areas on the reference streams was much larger than streams onsite. Please
indicate if there are any concerns.

Our primary concern was with finding headwater streams in a similar physiographic setting (i.e.
slate piedmont, slate belt specifically) with similar slopes. The Middendorf site is somewhat unique
in that streams with such small drainage areas have perennial flow, thanks to the abundance of
headwater springs across the site. We felt that the references we found represent these boundary
conditions of headwater, piedmont perennial systems on relatively steep slopes (then
transitioning to flatter slopes) fairly well and are not concerned with scaling the geomorphology of
these systems down to the project site.

7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach:
· Remove reference to EII. There is no EII proposed for this site.

Reference to EII has been removed.

· The information provided in the mitigation plan states several tributaries with gradients
greater than 2%. Please specifically address the proposed ‘C’ type streams in tributaries
with these steeper gradients. Is the overall approach to construct ‘Cb” streams and
fortify the steeper reaches with more substantial grade control (log rollers)?
Additionally, given the tributaries are currently dominated by gravel (as stated in the
plan), will the material added to construct riffles be the larger size fraction of the current
sediment size distribution?

Yes you are correct. The plan is to construct Cb streams on the steeper slope areas and fortify the
steepest reaches with log rollers. We’ve added some sentences describing this to Section 7.2.1.

7.2.3 Meander Pattern: Was low point of the valley considered in the proposed alignment
decision? Please add additional discussion to this section. Please reference any lidar, field
surveys used to develop and support the proposed alignment.

Yes it was considered and was a critical part of the design, particularly for Tributary 5 and 6, which
are aligned to flow the low point of the valley. We have developed a figure to show the
topographic low points of Tributary 5 in response to the question above. Please refer to Figure 14
for evaluation of low points in this area.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 9 of 19

7.2.4 and 7.2.5: Sections repeat same language regarding riffles and log rollers. Please revise.

This has been revised.

7.2.5 In-Stream Structures data: Only two structures are proposed for this design.
Were additional structures considered to add variability and/or habitat diversity?

Given the relatively small size of these channels, other types of in-channel structures with multiple
arms such as cross-vanes and j-hook vanes would not be practical as they would overwhelm the
channel and likely create more stability problems rather than help stability. As such, we’ve focused
on log sills and log rollers as the most practical means of achieving grade control, assist with
maintenance of pools and creating energy dissipation where needed on the steepest slopes but
still fit within the small size of the channels.

7.2.6 Wetland Restoration Approach:
· Section discusses Enhancement areas, but there is no Enhancement proposed as
mitigation for the site. As a result, and to reduce confusion with reviewers, DMS
recommends removing the sentence “Enhancement areas aim to improve vegetation in
already jurisdictional wetland areas.” This information is stated at the end of the
paragraph and states that no credit is being requested for this activity. All jurisdictional
areas where planting will be conducted must be identified and mapped but should not
be referred to as Enhancement in this context. Please add figures showing the wetland
planting locations and any JD areas impacted during construction.

References to enhancement have been removed from this section. Figure 15 has been added to
show the JD impact areas (both temporary and permanent) as well as where wetland planting will
occur.

· Please be advised that the pocket wetland being proposed within the conservation
easement will need to be constructed in a manner that does not require maintenance.
The pocket wetland detail shown on DT-9 will require routine maintenance that will not
be allowed to occur within the conservation easement.
We have revised the pocket wetland (now called “treatment marsh”) to remove the pipe outlet
and replace it with a log sill weir outlet that will not require maintenance. The log sill will be
placed in in-situ soil adjacent to the embankment. Other elements of the pocket wetland that
were more similar to a BMP have been removed so as to keep the wetland as simple as possible
while still providing the intended pre-treatment of flow from upstream.

7.2.6 Wetland Restoration Approach - Clarification: The approach as proposed is somewhat
unclear:
· Wetland B Re-establishment is proposed via stream restoration of Tributary 2; however,

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 10 of 19

a jurisdictional wetland persists on stream right of this tributary in an area that appears
to have upslope drainage and drainage tiles. There is no indication of spoil, berms,
drainage tiles in the non-jurisdictional area in this location that is proposed for re-
establishment; there is an unidentified structure on plan sheet C-8 that appears to
connect the stream to the proposed restoration zone. Please specify what is intended in
this location.

Photos of drainage tiles have been added to the photo log and an approximation of drainage tile
locations has been added to the Existing Conditions figure. There are several ditch outlets along the
perimeter of Wetland B that have several drainage tiles (corrugated plastic pipe) with flowing water.
These drainage tiles extend up into the Wetland B cell. The location of drainage tiles shown in the
Existing Conditions figure is an approximation based on field evidence of the location of the ends of the
tiles and the direction in which they come out of the wetland, and discussions with the landowner
regarding where they were installed. Silt and sediment has accumulated over top of the diches in
which the tiles were buried and they can no longer be seen from the surface. As such, we have
included a reconstruction of their approximate locations on the figures.

· Wetland A is located in the floodplain of South Jones Creek, which is not to be subject
to restoration or enhancement. The re-establishment in this area is proposed through
removal of ditches and drainage tile; however, the locations of both features on the map
appear to be on the perimeter of the re-establishment. The persistence of jurisdictional
wetlands in this location raises the question of functionality of ditch and tiles.

As with Wetland B, Wetland A has several ditch outlet points where two to four drain tiles are visibly
coming out of the ground, into the ditch and flowing out to South Fork Jones Creek. Photos of these
have been added to the photo log and an approximation of their location has been added to the
Existing Conditions Figure. As with Wetland B, the landowner has indicated that the tiles extend into
and throughout the proposed Wetland A. The parts of Wetland A that are currently jurisdictional are
relict oxbow meanders of South Fork Jones Creek. They are deeper than the surrounding non-
jurisdictional areas proposed for re-establishment, thus are further below the groundwater surface and
currently classify as jurisdictional while the surrounding areas do not.

· Please describe the mechanism for re-hydration of Wetland Area A since this area may
be less influenced by the drainage tile and ditch modifications.

To restore wetland hydrology in Wetland Area A, the drainage tiles will be disrupted throughout the
wetland, ditches will be plugged and restoration of Tributary 1 will increase the groundwater surface
elevation.

7.2.6 Wetland Restoration Approach: Recommend moving discussion regarding standing
water to 7.2.7 Soil Restoration Approach to reduce repetitiveness. Topic is discussed in both
sections.

This has been revised.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 11 of 19

7.2.7 Soil Restoration Approach: Section mentions compaction from livestock. Recommend
revising since livestock do not appear to have ever been on this site.

This has been revised.

Table 12 – Morphological Parameters:
· Reaches 1A, 1B, 2, 3 indicate conversion from G to C, but exhibit decreases in the W/D
ratio. Please respond or clarify.
Due to incision of existing channels, existing bankfull features were either difficult to discern or
entirely absent at surveyed cross-sections. Bankfull parameters of existing channels were thus
calculated based on assumed/approximated bankfull elevations and should be taken as an
approximation of actual bankfull characteristics. Thus, in this case the comparison of changes from
existing to proposed would not provide an accurate assessment of the adequacy of the proposed
channel to maintain bankfull discharge and stability relative to existing condition, as it would in
channels where existing bankfull indicators are more evident. A footnote has been added to Table 12
to clarify this.

· Reaches 3 and 5 simultaneously exhibit decreases in area and slope. How is the design
discharge maintained? Please include explanation in the narrative.
See response above. An explanation of this has been added as a footnote to Table 12.

Table 12 and Table 13 – Morphological Parameters: Recommend reducing size to fit on one
page.

This has been revised to fit on one page.

7.3 Design Discharge Analysis: There are two page 32 in the report. Please review and
revise report and table of contents if necessary.

This repeated page issue has been fixed.

7.4.1 Sediment Competence Analysis: 7th sentence “The results also show..” Believe
the authors are describing excess competence, not capacity? Please revise or clarify as
appropriate.

Yes this should have said “competence”. This has been revised.

7.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan: Section states that planting will occur between Nov. 15 and
March 15 per IRT monitoring guidance. Then continues to state that if construction is completed
after March 15, but before May 31 the site will be planted. The IRT will need to be notified and
agree to any planting beyond March 15. Failure to receive IRT approval to plant beyond March
15 may result in delaying MY1 until the following year. DMS recommends removing the May 31

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 12 of 19

statement.

This has been revised per the recommendation.

7.5.1 Invasive Species Treatment: Recommend adding discussion regarding what areas of the
site will be a one-time treatment versus throughout the monitoring period in this section.

Information regarding the areas that will be one-time treatment has been added to this section.

Table 16 – Planting Plan (Woody Species): Planting Plan zones do not match sheet DT-8. Please
revise so the naming convention is consistent (ex: Streamside (Zone1) vs Zone 1 Live Stakes or
Piedmont Bottomland Forest vs Riparian Wetlands).

This has been revised.

7.6 Project Risks and Uncertainties:
· Revise “Stream 1” to “Tributary 1A”.

This has been revised.
· Please discuss crossing in more detail. Will the culvert be replaced and installed and
sized appropriately to allow wildlife passage?

Discussion has been added to this section regarding this crossing. This crossing is currently a
60” RCP and it will remain in place.

· Will the site remain in row crops? If so, how will encroachments due to equipment turning
be prevented? Is there any fencing proposed for the site? There are many tight corners
and angles to the conservation easement that will not be conducive to equipment turning.
Please add a discussion regarding how encroachments will be prevented.

The site will remain in row crops. The easement corners have been checked and selected to
ensure equipment can turn/navigate and have been discussed with landowner. He is also
aware that encroachments will not be permitted. No fencing is proposed for the site, however
corner posts and line posts consistent with NCDMS guidelines will be placed throughout the
easement area. Additional discussion about this has been added Section 7.6.

· What is the potential for hydrologic trespass onto the adjacent fields near Wetland A
and Wetland B? The increased hydrology resulting from plugging ditches and removing
drain tiles will not stop at the conservation easement line. There is no guarantee the
landowner will not construct new ditches and install new drain tiles adjacent to the
wetlands. Please address this possibility as a project risk and indicate if there are any
areas posing a risk for hydrologic trespass.

Risk of hydrologic trespass is low. There is no chance of the landowner digging a new ditch
because the proposed easement will completely surround all outlet points for a ditch

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 13 of 19

(tributaries and South Fork Jones Creek), and thus even if a ditch was dug there would be
nowhere for it to drain without cutting through the easement which would be a violation of
easement conditions. We have had extensive discussions with the landowner regarding the
proposed removal of drain tiles and ditches in the wetlands, and they have stated they are fine
with this as in their view it is already a very saturated and unproductive planting area across
the valley flat.

8.0 Performance Standards: Typo: add Table before 18.

This has been revised.

Table 18 – Project Performance Standards:
· For Conservation Easement performance standards the monitoring approach should be
“Visual Assessment”. The conservation easement should be walked in its entirety at
a
minimum of annually to identify encroachments, deficiencies, and necessary repairs
and/or updates.

This has been revised.

· Please update objectives in Table 18 to match revisions to Table 10.

Table has been revised to match revisions in Table 10.

· Project boundary integrity must be maintained. Suggest inclusion of required annual
visual inspection of easement boundary as monitoring approach to address ‘Establish a
minimum 50 ft buffer along stream channels’ objective.

This has been revised per suggestion.

8.1.2 Surface Flow: Did the authors mean to say stream gage instead of flow gage? Aren’t the
transducers going to measure both overbank and continuous baseflow simultaneously where
required?

This has been revised to say “stream gage”. The language regarding use of pressure transducers
has also been added to the bankfull event section to clarify that those devices will be used for both
bankfull and surface flow monitoring.

8.1.4 Digital Image Evaluations: Please note that detrimental bank erosion, aggradation,
structural integrity, and vegetative concerns must also be noted on the required Visual
Assessment tables and spatial extent depicted on the CCPVeach monitoring year.

This language has been added to the text.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 14 of 19

8.2.1 Wetland Hydrology:
· Recommend removing section heading 8.2.1 Wetland Hydrology and provide this
information under 8.2 Wetland Restoration Success Criteria like other success criteria
sections.

This has been revised per recommendation.

· Please provide source for NRCS WETS data using 20 degrees F as temperature index.
The standard indexes are 32, 28 and 24.

The 20 degrees F was a typo and has been changed to 28 degrees F.

9.1 As-built survey: Section indicates a survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water
surface, bankfull and top of bank. Please be advised that there are many more asbuilt survey
requirements. Please review the DMS required templates and guidelines as referenced in
section 2.9 of RFP#16-008012.

This section has been updated to reference the current templates and guidance documents,
specifically the As-Built Requirements (October, 2020) document.

9.2 Visual Monitoring: Please include photos of culverts and crossings in annual fixed photo
points.

Culverts and crossings have been added to the list of fixed photo points in this section.

9.5 Wetland Hydrology:
· Section indicates that 12 gauges will be installed, but only 11 are described. Seven in
re- established and four in rehabilitated areas. Also, section states some gauges will be
installed in jurisdictional wetlands for reference, but this is not included in the total
gauge count. Table 19 shows 11 gauges total. Please revise.

That has been revised to 11 gages. No gages will be installed in jurisdictional wetlands and that
language has been removed.

9.7 Schedule and Reporting:
· DMS always recommends using the most current monitoring templates, tables, and
applications for reporting. All templates can be found on the DMS website.

Language in this section has been revised to say that the most current DMS template on the DMS
website will be followed, rather than indicating a specific template.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 15 of 19

· Note that Closeout Reports are no longer required.

Reference to closeout reports has been removed.

Table 19: Recommend dividing vegetation plots into Fixed and Random similar to Riffle and
Pool cross sections above.

This has been corrected in the text and figures.

Table 19: Please include number of reference photo points.

This has been revised with a number of reference photo points.

FIGURES
Figure 3 Landowner Map: The easement appears to be outside the extent of the parent tracts.
Are the boundaries for the parent tracts the stream centerline?

The easement is contained entirely in the parent tracts. It appears to be outside the parent tract on
the Landowner Map because the parcel layer from Anson County that is used on the figure is only an
approximation whereas the easement boundary has been surveyed in by a Professional Land Surveyor.
All proposed easement boundaries tie into the parent tract boundaries. We can attached the draft plat
if that will help clarify this but currently it is not part of the document. On Trib 1 upper and South Fork
Jones Creek the boundaries of the parent tract are the same as the stream centerline.

Figure 4 Land Use/Land Cover Map: Please include the easement boundary in this figure.

This has been revised.

Figure 5 NRCS Soil Survey Map: Please remove the hydric soils line work features from this
figure.

This has been revised.

Figure 9 Existing Conditions Map:
· Please include jurisdictional wetlands and label, label roads, include proposed CE,
cross section locations, and DWR stream form locations.

These items have been added to the Existing Conditions Map.

· Please include greater detail on the number and location of ditches and drain tiles
relative to the wetland features (i.e., inset).

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 16 of 19

These items have been added to the Existing Conditions Map. The location of drainage tiles shown is an
approximation based on field evidence of the location of the ends of the tiles and discussions with the
landowner regarding where they were installed. Silt and sediment has accumulated over top of the
diches in which the tiles (corrugated plastic pipe) were buried and they can no longer be seen through
the proposed wetland areas. As such, we have included a reconstruction of their approximate
locations on the figures.

Figure 11 Proposed Mitigation Plan: Please include road names and jurisdictional wetlands.

These items have been added to Figure 11.

Figure 12 Monitoring Plan:
· Note on figure suggests locations can change for monitoring devices. Please note that
the IRT expects installed monitoring devices to be as close as possible to proposed
locations.

This note has been removed. Monitoring devices will be Installed as close as possible to the
proposed location.

· Recommend showing locations of random plots. IRT would appreciate the opportunity
to comment and request for a certain area of interest to be monitored.

Random plots are now shown on the figure.

· Recommend turning off Zone 2 Planting hatch to make map more legible.

This has been revised.

APPENDICES

Appendix A IRT Meeting Minutes: Correspondence indicates 1C would be credited using a
ratio of 1.5. The quantities and credits table indicates a ratio of 1. Please respond or revise as
appropriate.

The proposed approach has been changed to restoration, based on further site assessment and
design analysis. A paragraph has been added to Section 7.2.1 (Stream Restoration Approach)
detailing the reasons for this change.

Appendix G Plan Sheets:

Symbols Page: Please include symbols page.

A symbol page has been added.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 17 of 19

Plan Sheets General:
· Please add the wetland ID labels for credited areas to each plan sheet.

The Wetland ID labels for credited areas have been added.

· Recommend adding specifications for each type of stone backfill to be used during
construction.

Stone backfill and specification has been called out on each detail.

· Add detail for the plug between Wetland B and Trib 2.

Channel plug detail is intended to be used for ditch plugs as well. The title and callouts on this
detail has been revised to reference its use both in wetland ditches and as channel plugs.

Sheet C-1: Recommend indexing overview map with sheet number for individual pages.

Overview map has been revised with sheet numbers.

Sheet C-2:
· Why was the top of the jurisdictional wetland not captured in the conservation
easement at the upstream end of T2?

The PJD was requested only for the proposed conservation easement limits and thus
jurisdictionally determined wetlands shown in this location are limited to the bounds of the
conservation easement limits. This has been revised.

C-2 Tributary 1C: Angled Log Sill Roller structures are shown as the only in-stream
structures for most of the reach which exceeds 2% slope. The profile does not match the
sequence suggested by Sheet DT-3 using the Sill Rollers which would produce a sill (step)
with a pool immediately downstream. The displayed profile is more consistent with a
riffle/pool sequence. Please review the plan sheet and proposed structures for consistency
and applicability and add specification indicating maximum drop across an individual sill.
Please evaluate this at all locations where this structure is proposed.

The angled log sill roller is intended to be constructed on what is shown as the riffle on the
proposed profile, where indicated on the plans. We have attempted to modify the riffle parts of
the profile to show the steps but because the riffles are so short in many cases, the plans become
very difficult to read and we feel it is best to leave them as shown and have the Contractor
reference the detail for how these areas are to be constructed.

Sheet C-3: Same comment as above. Why was the wetland not fully captured within the CE?

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 18 of 19

See response above.

Sheet C-3: Tributary 1B is shown to be 590’, but Table 2 shows Tributary 1B as 500.119. Digital
files show Tributary 1Bbeginning further downstream and for a length of 500.119”. Please
review and revise as necessary.

An older profile was shown by mistake on this sheet and has been revised to match the length
of 500.119. The length shown in the digital files and Table 2 as well as the alignment shown on
the plansheet are correct in terms of length.

Sheet C-5: Please include culvert/crossing information on this page. Please also include a
detail for the proposed crossing/culvert.

Culvert/crossing information has been added. This is a 60” RCP. This culvert is not proposed to
be replaced and thus no crossing detail is included.

DT-3 Angled Log Sill Roller: Add specification for the maximum drop between headers. Also,
NYSDOT 620.08 is currently specified as the structure bedding material. Please refine the
description.

The maximum drop specification has been added into the notes for this detail.

Planting Planview P-1: Hatching makes sheet difficult to review. Recommend using multiple
sheets or revise hatching to improve legibility.

Hatching has been revised to improve legibility.

Appendix H Invasive Species Control Plan: Please include discussion regarding intended
treatment plan regarding intentions to treat certain areas one growing season vs. full invasive
treatment as shown on maps used during IRT correspondence. Please include these treatment
zones on figures.

Discussion has been added to the Invasive Species Control Plan. These areas have also been
added to Figure 11 “Proposed Mitigation Plan”.

Appendix I Maintenance Plan: Please include Beaver control.

Discussion of beaver control has been added to the maintenance plan.
Digital Data Review:

Rectify Discrepancies Between Table 2 and Provided Shape Files:
o Wetland A: 4.790 vs 5.276
o Wetland B: .460 vs .613
o Wetland C: .170 vs 191
o Wetland D: .310 vs.314
o Trib 1A Lower: 1950.858 vs 1975.858

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Response to DMS Comments
February 21, 2023
Page 19 of 19

o Trib 5: 1489.440 vs 1460.073

The shapefile lengths/areas are correct and the values in Table 2 have been revised to
match these.

· Please submit a complete file with existing wetlands to include all wetlands identified in
the approved USACE JD.

A shapefile with existing wetlands has been compiled and sent with this submittal.

· Submit a revised Wetland Asset file with wetland segments as they appear in the Project
quantities and credit table. Wetland A – D should appear as separate segments and the
acreage for each segment must match the assets as presented in the report. Verify that
all wetlands reported as assets are located within the boundary of the conservation
easement. It appears that wetland A extends beyond the northern boundary.
A revised wetland asset file has been produced with each wetland asset broken out into
its own distinct segment. The boundaries of wetland A have been snapped to the
conservation easement boundary.

· Please submit a revised centerline file attributed to include non-credited reaches. The
attribute table in the digital file must match the project segments and linear feet as
reported in the Project Quantities and Credits table. Tributary 5 deviates by 30 linear
feet and Tributary 1A’s segmentation deviates between the two data sources.

This has been revised to include non-credited reaches.

Please let us know if additional information is need for the Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review. We look
forward to a successful project together.

Sincerely,

Ian Jewell
Associate/Project Manager

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 iii February 2023
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION ...................................................................... 4
2.1 SITE SELECTION ............................................................................................................ 4
3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................... 5
3.1 WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION ..................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Drainage Area and Land Cover ................................................................................. 5
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification ..................................................................................... 8
3.2 LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 Physiography and Topography ................................................................................. 8
3.2.2 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Existing Vegetation ................................................................................................... 9
3.2.4 Land use – Historic, Current, and Future.................................................................. 9
3.3 PROJECT RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 10
3.3.1 Reach Summary Information.................................................................................. 10
3.3.1.1 Tributary 1 (1A, 1B and 1C) ............................................................... 10
3.3.1.2 Tributary 2 ......................................................................................... 10
3.3.1.3 Tributary 3 ......................................................................................... 11
3.3.1.4 Tributary 4 ......................................................................................... 11
3.3.1.5 Tributary 5 ......................................................................................... 11
3.3.1.6 Tributary 6 ......................................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Site Wetland Summary ........................................................................................... 12
3.3.2.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Information ................................................... 12
3.3.2.2 Hydric Soils Investigation ................................................................... 13
3.3.2.3 Existing Hydrology ............................................................................. 13
4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL .......................................................................................... 15
4.1 ANTICIPATED FUNCTIONAL BENEFITS AND IMPROVEMENTS ................................... 15
4.1.1 Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 15
4.1.2 Hydraulic ................................................................................................................. 16
4.1.3 Geomorphology ...................................................................................................... 16
4.1.4 Physiochemical ....................................................................................................... 16
4.1.5 Biology .................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................................... 17
5.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 17
5.1 FEMA FLOODPLAIN .................................................................................................... 18
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND DOCUMENTATION ........................................... 18
5.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................................ 18
5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 19

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 iv February 2023
5.5 401/404 ...................................................................................................................... 19
6.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................... 21
7.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN ............................................................. 22
7.1 REFERENCE STREAMS ................................................................................................ 23
7.1.1 Spencer Creek Reach 3 ........................................................................................... 23
7.1.2 UT to Rocky Creek .................................................................................................. 23
7.1.3 UT to Crane Creek .................................................................................................. 23
7.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................................................ 24
7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach ................................................................................ 24
7.2.2 Typical Design Sections .......................................................................................... 27
7.2.3 Meander Pattern .................................................................................................... 27
7.2.4 Longitudinal Profiles ............................................................................................... 27
7.2.5 In-Stream Structures .............................................................................................. 27
7.2.6 Wetland Restoration Approach .............................................................................. 27
7.2.7 Soil Restoration Approach ...................................................................................... 28
7.3 DESIGN DISCHARGE ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 29
7.4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 30
7.4.1 Sediment Competence Analysis ............................................................................. 30
7.4.2 Sediment Capacity Analysis .................................................................................... 31
7.5 VEGETATION AND PLANTING PLAN ........................................................................... 32
7.5.1 Invasive Species Management ............................................................................... 33
7.6 PROJECT RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES ........................................................................ 33
8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 35
8.1 STREAM RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................................................... 36
8.1.1 Bankfull Events ....................................................................................................... 36
8.1.2 Surface Flow ........................................................................................................... 37
8.1.3 Cross Sections ......................................................................................................... 37
8.1.4 Digital Image Evaluations ....................................................................................... 37
8.2 WETLAND RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................................................ 37
8.3 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................................................................... 38
9.0 MONITORING PLAN .............................................................................................................. 38
9.1 AS-BUILT SURVEY ....................................................................................................... 38
9.2 VISUAL MONITORING ................................................................................................ 38
9.3 STREAM HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................ 39
9.4 CROSS SECTIONS ........................................................................................................ 39
9.5 WETLAND HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................. 39
9.6 VEGETATION MONITORING ....................................................................................... 39
9.7 SCHEDULE AND REPORTING ...................................................................................... 40
10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................... 42

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 v February 2023
11.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................... 43
12.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................................................... 43
13.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 44

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 vi February 2023
List of Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 USGS Map
Figure 3 Landowner Map
Figure 4 Land Use Map
Figure 5 NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 6 Historical Aerials Map
Figure 7 FEMA Map
Figure 8 LIDAR Map
Figure 9 Existing Conditions Map
Figure 10 National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 11 Proposed Mitigation Plan
Figure 12 Proposed Monitoring Plan
Figure 13 Hydrologic Location
Figure 14 Tributary 5 Contour Analysis
Figure 15 Existing Wetlands Impact Map
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Project Credits ............................................................................................................ 1
Table 2. Project Components and Mitigation Credits .................................................................................. 3
Table 3. Project Parcel and Landowner Information .................................................................................... 5
Table 4. Summary of Project Attributes ....................................................................................................... 6
Table 5. Mapped Soil Series within the Project Area ................................................................................... 9
Table 6. Summary of Existing Wetlands ..................................................................................................... 14
Table 7. Regulatory Considerations ............................................................................................................ 17
Table 8. Federally Protected Species in Anson County, NC ........................................................................ 18
Table 9. Estimated Impacts to Site Wetlands ............................................................................................. 20
Table 10. Project Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 21
Table 11. Summary of Morphological Parameters for Reference Reach Sites ........................................... 24
Table 12. Summary of Site Morphological Parameters for Project Reaches .............................................. 26
Table 13. Summary of Bankfull Discharge Predictive Analysis from Regional Curve ................................. 30
Table 14. Sediment Size Distribution and Shear Stress Comparison at Bankfull Stage .............................. 31
Table 15. Site Woody Species Planting Plan with Species Type and Distribution ...................................... 32
Table 16. Project Risks, Uncertainties, and Potential Actions .................................................................... 34
Table 17. Project Performance Standards .................................................................................................. 35
Table 18. Site Monitoring Components ...................................................................................................... 41
Table 19. Monitoring Schedule ................................................................................................................... 42

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 vii February 2023
Appendices
Appendix A IRT Meeting Minutes
Appendix B Site Protection Instrument
Appendix C Geomorphological Site Data
Appendix D Jurisdictional Determination Information
Appendix E Hydric Soils Investigation
Appendix F Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Appendix G Design Data and Plan Sheets
Appendix H Invasive Species Control Plan
Appendix I Maintenance Plan
Appendix J Credit Release Schedule
Appendix K Financial Assurance
Appendix L Project Photolog

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 1 February 2023
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) is located approximately 10
miles south of Wadesboro and 5 miles east of Lowrys, North Carolina. The Site is accessed from Gulledge
Road (SR 1120) and Site centroid coordinates are 34.855, -80.1075 (Figure 1). The Site lies within the
Yadkin River Basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03040201, and 14-
digit HUC 03040201020030. Unnamed tributaries to South Fork Jones Creek originate within the project
limits and will be restored and enhanced as part of this project. South Fork Jones Creek is approximately
15 river miles in length and drains to Jones Creek approximately 13 river miles from its confluence with
the Pee Dee River. The Site is not located within a targeted local watershed or targeted resource area.
Further details regarding site characteristics and targeted resource areas are included in Sections 2 and
3, and the stream and wetland mitigation components are summarized in Table 4.
Table 1. Summary of Project Credits
Restoration Level Stream Riparian
Wetland
Non-
Riparian
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Warm Cool Cold
Restoration 12,962.583
Re-establishment 5.250
Rehabilitation 0.320
Enhancement
Enhancement I 333.413
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
Totals 13,295.996 5.570
The streams and wetlands throughout the Site are in various stages of impairment related to existing and
historical land uses, including historical timber management and current agricultural uses. Between 2013
and 2016, tree harvesting was completed across the site to convert the property from timber production
to row crops.
Shown in Table 1, the project proposes to restore 12,962.583 linear feet (LF) and enhance 500.119 LF of
intermittent and perennial streams to provide 13,295.996 stream mitigation units (SMU) and 5.73 acres
of wetlands will be rehabilitated and re-established for 5.570 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMU).
The Site will be protected in perpetuity by a 73.08 acre easement. Further details regarding determination
of credits are included in Table 4.
A site review was held on June 8, 2020 with the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), the
Interagency Review Team (IRT), and Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) in attendance. Member agencies from

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 2 February 2023
the IRT in attendance included the USACE, NCWRC and NCDEQ . At this visit it was noted by the USACE
that the site appeared to have undergone activities for which no authorization was granted under Sections
404/401 of the Clean Water Act. Specifically, the USACE noted unauthorized modification/filling of
streams and wetlands. After a series of meetings conducted in the Spring of 2021, the USACE, DMS FNI
and landowner agreed to handle restoration/mitigation of any unauthorized impacts though the project
activities. Specifically, the landowner agreed to place a minimum 50’ riparian buffer along the entire
length of South Fork Jones Creek within their property into conservation easement and to expand the
width of the originally proposed conservation easement in several locations to include side-hill seeps and
other wetland areas. On June 8, 2021, the USACE agreed to move forward with an approved approach
that would include these areas in the mitigation plan. It should be noted that these additional features
will not be used to produce mitigation credits but will serve as mitigation for unauthorized impacts cited
by the USACE on the project site.
The minutes from the IRT site visit, USACE correspondence and the approved project modification
proposal can be found in Appendix A.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 3 February 2023

Table 2. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Project
Segment
Original
Mitigation
Plan
Ft/Ac
As-Built
Ft/Ac
Original
Mitigation
Category
Original
Restoration
Level
Original
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Credits Comments

Stream
Tributary 1A-U 1,057.707 Warm N/A 0 0.000
Tributary 1A-L 1,950.858 Warm R 1 1950.858
Tributary 1B 500.119 Warm EI 1.5 333.413
Tributary 1C 698.479 Warm R 1 698.479
Tributary 2 2,525.745 Warm R 1 2525.745
Tributary 3 2,451.109 Warm R 1 2451.109
Tributary 4 971.458 Warm R 1 971.458
Tributary 5 1,489.440 Warm R 1 1489.440
Tributary 6 2,875.494 Warm R 1 2875.494
Total: 13295.996
Wetland
Wetland Area A 4.790 R REE 1 4.790
Wetland Area B 0.460 R REE 1 0.460
Wetland Area C 0.170 R RH 1.5 0.113
Wetland Area D 0.310 R RH 1.5 0.207
Total: 5.570

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 4 February 2023

2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
South Fork Jones Creek and its tributaries are not discussed in the Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Plan
(RBRP) or in any NCDMS Local Watershed Plans (LWPs) and is not located in any targeted resource areas
(TRAs); however, the project area is surrounded by catchments associated with habitat and hydrology
TRAs which display similar land use and impairment. The Site is similar to these other catchments in that
it is almost entirely covered by row crop operations, has extensive channelization of streams, and has
drain tiles present in hydric soil areas. The site drains to South Fork Jones Creek, which is listed in the
Yadkin Basin wide Water Quality plans as being impacted by habitat degradation.
2.1 SITE SELECTION
Currently the streams on the Site lack riparian buffers, have severe bank erosion, sediment deposition,
and show severe channel incision. The project will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in
the RBRP by stabilizing eroding stream banks, re-establishing floodplain connections, reducing sediment
and nutrient loads, restoring wetland hydrology and vegetation, and restoring forested buffers on the
stream channels. Project-specific goals for the Site are addressed further in Section 6.
The Site addresses goals outlined for the 03040201 watershed in the 2009 Lower Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP.
The project builds upon existing restoration efforts in the watershed, including the Jones Creek Mitigation
Site, located approximately 2.5 miles downstream of the Site. Establishing a conservation easement will
protect natural resources, and implementation of stream restoration and enhancement and wetland
restoration will address erosion, sedimentation, and habitat degradation issues caused by current
agricultural land use. The Site will further improve the water quality and functional uplift of the South
Jones Creek watershed and will have a positive impact on the water quality of downstream watersheds
that were identified as TRAs in the 2009 RBRP.
The land required for the construction, management and stewardship of the Site includes portions of
three tax parcels in Anson County with the ownership shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. A copy of the land
protection instrument is included in Appendix B.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 5 February 2023
Table 3. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record Tax Parcel ID Stream Reach
RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC 646000760123 1A-U, 1B, 1C
RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC 646000745113 1A-U, 1A-L, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Wetland Area-A, Wetland Area-B
RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC 647000042754 6

3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following sections describe the existing conditions of the Site, the watershed, and watershed
processes, including disturbance and response. A summary of the watershed information is presented in
Table 4 and an overview of the Site’s hydrologic location is shown in Figure 13.
3.1 WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
3.1.1 Drainage Area and Land Cover
The Site consists of eight unnamed tributaries that flow north to south which drain to South Fork Jones
Creek and approximately 20 acres of drained and row-cropped hydric soils in the floodplain of South Fork
Jones Creek. The drainage areas for each tributary are shown on Figure 7. Primary land use within the
tributary drainage areas consists of row crop and cattle pasture. The cattle pastures are located on
adjacent parcels upstream of Tributary 1. The project site and parent tract are entirely in row crop with
some areas of woods. Wooded areas within the site are located along the riparian areas of South Fork
Jones Creek, Tributary 1 (Upper) and along Tributaries 1B and 1C. Impervious surface accounts for less
than one percent of the drainage area. Table 4 provides a summary of project attributes. Historic and
current land use included timber production and row-cropping. There are no signs of impending land use
changes or development pressure that would impact the project throughout the watershed.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 6 February 2023
Table 4. Summary of Project Attributes
Project Attribute Table
Project Name Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
County Anson
Project Area (acres) 73.08
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 34.855, -80.1075
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin Pee-Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3040201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040201020030
DWR Sub-basin Lower Pee-Dee
Project Drainage Area 272 acres (0.42 sq. mi .)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 0.24%
Stream Thermal Regime Warm
Land Use Classification Cropland and Pasture
Reach Summary Information
Parameters

1A 1B 1C 2 3 4 5 6
Pre-project length (feet) 2,855 500.119 686 2,180 2,185 926.15 973.31 2343
Post-project (feet) 3,005.858 500.119 698.479 2525.745 2451.109 971.458 1489.440 2875.494
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, or
unconfined) Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined
Drainage area (acres) 93 acres 20 acres 12 acres 25 acres 29 acres 33 acres 16 acres 44 acres
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Intermittent Perennial Perennial Intermittent Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Dominant Stream Classification (existing) G4 G4 G4 G4 G4 G4 G4 G4
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) C4b/C4 C4b C4b C4b/C4 C4b C4b/C4 C4b/C4 C4b/C4

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 7 February 2023
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland A Wetland
B Wetland C Wetland D

Pre-Project Size of Wetland
(acres) 0 0 0.170 0.310
Post-Project Size of Wetland
(acres) 4.7900 0.460 0.170 0.310
Wetland Type (non-riparian,
riparian) Riparian Riparian Riparian Riparian
Mapped Soil Series Chewacla Chewacla Chewacla Chewacla
Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric Hydric Hydric
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs

Waters of the United States -
Section 404 Yes No PCN
Waters of the United States -
Section 401 Yes No PCN
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix F
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix F
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA or CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 8 February 2023
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification
The portion of South Fork Jones Creek that includes the Site tributaries have been classified as Class C
waters by the NC Department of Water Resources (NCDWR). Waters classified as Class C are protected
for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including
propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. 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 (NCDEQ, 2020).
3.2 LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.1 Physiography and Topography
The Site is in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont is
characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded hills with low ridges, with elevations ranging from 300 to
1,500 feet above sea level. The Site topography, as indicated on the Morven West USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle is a moderately sloped valley with the downstream topography transitioning to lower gradient
sloping floodplain topography of South Fork Jones Creek. The overall slope is moderate, averaging two to
five percent across the Site.
3.2.2 Geology and Soils
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site lies at the intersection of two distinct geologic formations: the
Middendorf Formation (Km), which is characterized by Cretaceous-aged fluvial sands, kaolinite clays,
sandstone and mudstone formations most often associated with the Carolina Sandhills region, as well as
a Proterozoic-Cambrian Metamudstone and meta-argillite (Zmd) formation associated with the volcanic
“Slate Belt” region. On the project site, the Middendorf formation is mapped on the ridgeline and upper
portions of the long slope towards South Fork Jones Creek, while the Slate Belt formation is mapped on
the lower slope, valley bottom, and floodplain area. The presence of rounded, gravel-sized sandstone
alluvium far up the slope and high above South Fork Jones Creek suggests that the site may consist of a
series of relict terraces above the Creek, through which new headwater valleys have cut. The interface
between the younger Middendorf formation, which is overlain by sandy, well-drained sandy loams, and
the older Slate Belt formations appears to consistently produce a number of springs across the landscape
at a similar elevation. These springs are evident from the numerous headwater wetlands and headcuts
from which groundwater flows strongly even 4 to 5 days after a modest rain event. These springs appear
to produce streams with indications of perennial flow at relatively small drainage areas (12 acres to 93
acres) in contrast to other areas of the Slate Belt. The other major geomorphic feature of the site is the
valley of South Fork Jones Creek, which consists of the alluvial Chewacla soil.
The site is mapped by the USDA Web Soil Survey for Anson County. Site soils are described in Table 5 and
shown in Figure 5. The mapped soils consist largely of Badin channery silt loam on the upper valley slopes
and Chewacla loam as the site transitions into the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain. Bedrock was not

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 9 February 2023
observed in the channels during the existing conditions assessment work. The depth to bedrock where
most of the restoration will occur (MrB, ChA and NgC) characteristically ranges from 40 to 60 inches. Since
the restoration reaches will be raised to the valley bottom, bedrock is not anticipated to be a factor in
restoration implementation.
Table 5. Mapped Soil Series within the Project Area
Map Unit
Symbol Map Unit Name Percent of
Site Hydric Drainage Class Hydrologic
Soil Group
AeB Ailey loamy sand, 2 to
8 percent slopes 0.50% Yes Well drained B
BaB Badin channery silt
loam 21.60% No Well drained C
ChA Chewacla loam 39.90% No Somewhat Poorly
Drained B/D
EmB Emporia loamy sand 6.90% No Well drained C
MrB McQueen loam 5.60% No Well drained C
NgC Nanford gravelly fine
sandy loam 12.20% No Well drained B
NsB Nanford-Emporia
complex 13.20% No Well drained B
3.2.3 Existing Vegetation
Vegetation around the unbuffered stream reaches is dominated by herbaceous vegetation with no
developed shrub or tree layers. The riparian areas are disturbed due to the regular land management
associated with row crop farming practices. Broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), sawtooth blackberry
(Rubus argutus), wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia) and Carex species were observed in sparse quantities
as the row crops were planted to the edge of the streams throughout the Site. Invasive species observed
included Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Non-crop
vegetation has historically been controlled by mechanical and chemical methods, limiting the
establishment of woody species throughout much of the site. Areas on the site that exhibit hydric soils
and hydrophytic vegetation were dominated by herbaceous species, including woolgrass (Scirpus
cyperinus), multiple Carex species., and broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). Black willow (Salix nigra) and
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) saplings were observed at the downslope extents of these areas. No
canopy tree species were observed at the Site.
3.2.4 Land use – Historic, Current, and Future
Historical aerial imagery indicates that the Site was used extensively for timber production, with
conversion to row crop farming occurring recently (ca. 2016). Current agricultural practices have degraded
the riparian areas and contributed to the degradation of the stream channels. The site has not been used

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 10 February 2023
for livestock pasture historically, and no livestock are currently present. Outside of the Site, the area will
likely remain in agricultural use and timber production.
3.3 PROJECT RESOURCES
3.3.1 Reach Summary Information
The Site is composed of a single easement area with eight tributaries that drain to South Fork Jones Creek.
A summary of existing channel characteristics is presented in Table 4. Detailed morphological data are
included in Appendix C. Streams were classified as intermittent (1B, 1C and 4) and perennial (1A, 2, 3, 5,
6) using the NCDWR Stream Identification Form, version 4.11 (Appendix D). Existing stream classifications
were determined using the Rosgen stream classification system (Rosgen, 1994).
3.3.1.1 Tributary 1 (1A, 1B and 1C)
Tributary 1 (consisting of Tributaries 1A, 1B and 1C) is the westernmost of the Site tributaries. Tributary
1A is a perennial gravel bed stream that originates in a wooded area on the adjacent property and forms
the property boundary for approximately 1,500 feet before both banks are contained by the Site
easement boundary. The stream flows approximately 1,800 feet before its confluence with South Fork
Jones Creek at the southern part of the easement boundary. Tributary 1A is the largest tributary on the
Site, with a width of 8 feet and a depth of 2 to 3 feet. The channel slope is approximately 1.6%. The stream
has an average bank height ratio of 1.9, indicating that the channel is incised. The incision has resulted in
severe bank erosion along the channel and lack of natural bedform as the channel attempts to regain
stable geometry. Tributaries 1B and 1C originate on the westward facing slope leading down toward the
valley of Tributary 1A. Tributaries 1B and 1C have slightly more vegetated buffers than the other streams
on the Site. The buffers are dominated by sapling pioneer species such as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and
sweetgum (Liquidambar sytraciflua). Headwater wetlands are present on both reaches, indicating the
presence of a high-water table that contributes to the perennial flow of the streams.
Tributary 1B is proposed for Enhancement Level I as it has a naturally confined valley which does not allow
for restoration of pattern, the existing profile is not as severely incised as Tributary 1C and the upper-most
portions of the channel (approx. 120’) are already relatively stable. Thus, the primary impairments that
will be addressed will be the existing headcuts and reshaping to a stable channel-form. Tributary 1C, on
the other hand, is more severely incised and has a wider natural valley than Tributary 1B, allowing for re-
establishment of a stable pattern and raising of the stream grade to connect to its relict floodplain. Thus,
restoration is most appropriate for Tributary 1C.
3.3.1.2 Tributary 2
Tributary 2 originates within a natural crenulation on the downslope headed away from Gulledge Road. A
wetland has developed within this crenulation, indicating the presence of a spring and/or high-water table
intercepting the ground surface that feeds the natural channel. Above this point, there are no indications

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 11 February 2023
of natural channel features, but below this spring a natural channel has formed at a headcut with strong
geomorphic and hydrologic features. The channel slope is approximately 2.5% with a width of 4 feet and
a depth of 2 to 3 feet. The stream has a bank height ratio of 6.5, indicating severe incision. This has resulted
in severe bank erosion along the channel due to lack of natural bedform as the channel attempts to regain
stable geometry. The channel appears to be actively incising based upon several observed headcuts and
prominent bed scour. Multiple vehicular crossings, pesticide and fertilizer application, and no vegetated
buffer beyond row crops have further contributed to the channel instability.
3.3.1.3 Tributary 3
Tributary 3 is a small, gravel substrate stream that originates at a headcut on the south side of an existing
farm road which is also the start of the conservation easement. It flows approximately 470 feet prior to
entering a small, spring-fed wetland. Perennial flow begins at the downstream edge of this existing
wetland. Overarching channel conditions include downcutting of the streams, incision and severe bed and
bank erosion. Further impacts from vehicular crossings and row crop management have contributed to
the instability of the channel. Pockets of sparse vegetation are present along the channel including black
willow (Salix nigra) and tall goldenrod (Solidago altissima) present in several headwater wetland areas.
3.3.1.4 Tributary 4
Tributary 4 is a perennial tributary of Tributary 3 and begins near Gulledge Road as an ephemeral channel.
The stream intercepts the water table approximately 460 feet upstream of its confluence with Tributary
3. The stream enters the Site easement after it crosses under an existing farm road. The stream is
channelized and has moderate to severe bank erosion with lack of natural bedform. The average width is
3 feet, with a depth of 2 feet. The riparian area is dominated by row crops with little observed natural
cover. The stream flows through a well-defined valley that concentrates overland flow and interaction
with the water table.
3.3.1.5 Tributary 5
Tributary 5 is a perennial stream that originates at a headcut between Tributaries 4 and 6. The stream is
located in a broad, shallow valley that does not have evident channel features until the appearance of a
headcut at the start of Tributary 5. No headwater wetlands are present at the origin of the reach. An
abundance of large gravel alluvium in the soil and channel banks, even at the headcut stream origin,
suggests that this stream runs over a relict terrace of South Fork Jones Creek. The channel is approximately
5 feet wide with a depth of 3 to 4 feet. Average bed slope is approximately 2%. The valley is very broad
and shallow, evidence that the stream was unconfined prior to channelization. Active erosion was
observed throughout the reach, driven primarily by the high depth ratio and channelization. No native
vegetation or woody stems were identified along the stream.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 12 February 2023
3.3.1.6 Tributary 6
Tributary 6 is the easternmost channel of the Site, originating from a series of headwater wetlands. The
perennial channel originates at an upstream wetland area and has been channelized to a depth of 3 to 4
feet with an average width of 4 feet. The average bed slope is approximate 2.0% and moderate to severe
erosion was observed along the entire length of the stream. The valley is broad and unconfined and is
located on a relict terrace of South Fork Jones Creek. Existing riparian vegetation exists along the left bank
of the stream and is comprised primarily of black willow (Salix nigra). Invasive species, including Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), were identified in the existing riparian vegetation.
3.3.2 Site Wetland Summary
3.3.2.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Information
Waters of the US (WOTUS), including wetlands, were delineated pursuant to the USACE 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual, the USACE 2012 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont, Version 2.0 and subsequent regulatory guidance. Field work
was conducted by Acer Environmental, LLC on October 27 and 30, 2019, with additional areas investigated
on May 11 and 17, 2020. Wetland features were classified as Headwater Forest and Riverine Swamp
Forest using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Manual (NCWAM) classification key and best
professional judgement. The wetlands occur on side slopes and floodplains that drain to on-site stream
channels. Surface saturation and surface water were the dominant wetland hydrology indicator, and soils
exhibited low chroma matrix and redoximorphic hydric soil indicators. Hydrophytic vegetation was
observed in some areas; however, due to the manipulation of the Site for agricultural purposes, the
vegetation is considered significantly disturbed. Hydrophytic vegetation observed in undisturbed areas
included sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black willow (Salix nigra), elderberry (Sambucus nigra),
privet (Ligustrum sinense), soft rush (Juncus effusus), shallow sedge (Carex lurida), swamp goldenrod
(Solidago patula), and multiple Polygonum species. These vegetation communities were assumed to be
applicable to the disturbed wetland areas as described in Chapter 5 of the 2012 Regional Supplement. A
summary of existing wetland characteristics is presented in Table 6.
A preliminary jurisdictional determination was conducted by the USACE and completed on July 27, 2022.
The findings of the PJD generally agreed with the delineation efforts for both wetlands and streams on
the site with a couple of exceptions:
· Approximately 0.5 acres of Wetland A were determined to be jurisdictional. The jurisdictional
portions are now broken out as Wetlands C and D and these are proposed for rehabilitation rather
than re-establishment.
· The jurisdictional origin of Tributary 3 was determined to be approximately 25’ downstream of
where it was originally proposed. The starting point of the stream restoration was moved
downstream accordingly.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 13 February 2023
WOTUS forms and mapping, including the approved USACE PJD completed on July 27, 2022, are included
in Appendix D.
3.3.2.2 Hydric Soils Investigation
The proposed riparian wetland reestablishment area consists of hydric soils along South Fork Jones Creek.
A detailed hydric soil investigation was completed by a NC licensed soil scientist on October 27 and 30,
2019 (Appendix E). A series of 13 soil borings were performed to describe and determine the areal extent
of hydric soils within the site. Soils were characterized and classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils in the United States, Version 8.2 (USDA 2018). Hydric indicators were found within 12 inches of the
soil surface in the proposed riparian wetland areas of the site. The F3-Depleted Matrix indicator was
observed in all soil boring locations.
3.3.2.3 Existing Hydrology
The riparian wetland reestablishment area is located adjacent to the stream channels, and topographically
within the valley of the streams. While underlain by hydric soils, these areas lack the hydrology and
hydrophytic vegetation necessary to classify as jurisdictional wetlands. The site hydrology has been
manipulated by installation of drainage tiles, and the current use of the site for row crop agriculture has
removed native vegetation. The cultivated surfaces of the agricultural areas and adjacent ditched streams
quickly remove surface water to prevent accumulation, limit infiltration, and reduce the groundwater
elevation to below the upper foot of the surface soils. These drainage modifications limit both surface and
subsurface storage.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 14 February 2023
Table 6. Summary of Existing Wetlands

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
Size of Wetland (acres)0.44 0.29 0.05 0.17 0.72 1.11 0.21 0.94 0.21 0.08 0.16 0.13 0.09 0.19 0.31 0.04 0.003 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02
Wetland Type
(non-
riparian,
riparian
riverine or
riparian non-
riverine)
NCWAM
Classification
Mapped Soil
Series
Nanford-
Emporia
complex Na
n
f
o
r
d
Na
n
f
o
r
d
Na
n
f
o
r
d
Na
n
f
o
r
d
Ch
e
w
a
c
l
a
Ch
e
w
a
c
l
a
Ba
d
i
n
Ch
e
w
a
c
l
a
Em
p
o
r
i
a
Em
p
o
r
i
a
Ch
e
w
a
c
l
a
Mc
Q
u
e
e
n
Na
n
f
o
r
d
Na
n
f
o
r
d
Ch
e
w
a
c
l
a
Na
n
f
o
r
d
Na
n
f
o
r
d
Na
n
f
o
r
d
Na
n
f
o
r
d
Ba
d
i
n
Ba
d
i
n
Em
p
o
r
i
a
Drainage
class
Well
Drained We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
So
m
e
w
h
a
t

Po
o
r
l
y

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
So
m
e
w
h
a
t

Po
o
r
l
y

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
So
m
e
w
h
a
t

Po
o
r
l
y

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
So
m
e
w
h
a
t

Po
o
r
l
y

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
So
m
e
w
h
a
t

Po
o
r
l
y

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
We
l
l

Dr
a
i
n
e
d
Soil Hydric
Status No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No
Source of
Hydrology
Restoration
or
enhancement
method
(hydrologic,
vegetative
etc.)
Hydrologic and Vegetative
Wetland
Groundwater and Overbank Flooding
Hydrologic and Vegetative
Riparian non-riverine
Riverine Swamp Forest
Parameters
Wetland
Headwater Forest
Groundwater and Overbank Flooding

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 15 February 2023
4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The potential for stream functional uplift is qualitatively described in this section using terminology from
the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Framework) (Harman and Jones, 2016). The Framework
describes a hierarchy of five stream functions, each of which supports the functions above it on the
pyramid and sometimes reinforces those below it. The five functions in order from bottom to top are
hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, physiochemical, and biology. The Framework is not proposed to
determine the success of the Site since the Site has a focus on total ecosystem restoration, and the
mitigation design will improve stream and wetland function while providing numerous ecological and
environmental benefits to the broader Yadkin Pee-Dee River basin. These benefits, which are described
in more detail below, will include increased hydrological function, improvements to water quality, and
improved wetland habitat.
A functional based approach broadens the reach-scale goals of a restoration project by contextualizing
the functional lift at the watershed scale. Utilizing an ecosystem restoration approach will provide
localized ecological and water quality benefits that could, in combination with other restoration projects
within the watershed, have beneficial impacts to the Yadkin River Basin. The restoration approach at the
reach scale at this Site will benefit the hydraulic and geomorphology functions of the system and could
also benefit higher level functions (i.e., physiochemical and biological functions) over time and in
conjunction with other restoration projects in the watershed. Site goals and objectives, as based upon the
anticipated functional benefits and improvements, are detailed in Section 6.
4.1 ANTICIPATED FUNCTIONAL BENEFITS AND IMPROVEMENTS
4.1.1 Hydrology
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework defines hydrology as the transport of water from the
watershed to the channel. The Site will locally address several historic hydrologic disturbances, including
stream downcutting and deforestation. Even though trees will be planted within the conservation
easement, this will not significantly improve the watershed hydrology; therefore, there are no significant
opportunities for this project to improve the hydrologic function at a watershed level.
The removal of agricultural drain tiles will restore natural surface and subsurface hydrologic flow patterns.
This will lead to improvements in the hydrologic function of the project. Soil investigation shows that
much of the landscape within the Site exhibits hydric characteristics indicating that a shallow seasonal
water table was present historically. Based on the landscape position of the wetland restoration areas of
the Site and the surrounding landscape, improvement of hydrologic function will be realized in various
degrees across the landscape. The restoration areas will improve surface water storage and retention and
will also work in conjunction with landscape position to improve subsurface water storage and retention.
The rehabilitation of the headwater forest systems will aid in the maintenance of water table levels by
increasing infiltration and groundwater recharge in higher positions within the landscape.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 16 February 2023
The improved hydrologic function and water storage of Site wetlands will also improve water quality by
reducing sediment from adjacent agricultural fields, improving runoff filtration, and increasing nutrient
cycling. The improved hydrologic function and water quality will lead to direct and indirect aquatic and
terrestrial habitat.
4.1.2 Hydraulic
Hydraulic function within the Framework is defined as the transport of water in the channel and on the
floodplain. The greatest potential uplift at the Site will be achieved through increasing floodplain
connectivity along all the streams. Streams on the Site do not have functioning floodplain connectivity
(Average Site Bank Height Ratio = 4.5) and medium to large headcuts are present throughout the Site.
Areas where the floodplain connectivity is not-functioning, or functioning-at-risk will be improved to
functioning by reducing the bank height ratio and increasing the entrenchment ratios. Reaches in which
stable flow dynamics are non-functioning or functioning-at-risk will be improved by constructing a new
stable channel with adequate energy dissipation and grade control.
4.1.3 Geomorphology
The Framework defines geomorphology as the transport of wood and sediment to create bedforms and
maintain dynamic equilibrium. Site streams are currently classified as non-functioning for sediment
transport due to non-functioning buffers, limited floodplain access, high bank height ratios, and low
entrenchment ratios. Sediment transport will be reduced through construction of floodplain benches in
Streams 1B and 1C stream enhancement areas, construction of channels with stable dimension, plan and
profile in Streams 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and establishment of functioning riparian buffers along all streams.
Channel stability and bedform will be improved in restoration reaches by installing structures to establish
pools and increase bedform diversity. Transport and storage of woody debris will be improved by
increasing channel roughness with structures and plantings. Riparian buffers will be established at 50-foot
widths to restore riparian vegetation to functional levels and provide terrestrial habitat. All of these
functional parameters are interconnected and will result in a long-term functional geomorphic uplift.
4.1.4 Physiochemical
Physiochemical function is defined by the Framework as temperature and oxygen regulation and
processing of organic matter and nutrients. The Site will support the overarching goal of decreasing
sediment export in agricultural areas. The Site will decrease sediment export and will likely reduce forms
of nitrogen and phosphorus by establishing a riparian buffer and reducing bank erosion. A riparian buffer
will eventually provide shading, resulting in reduced water temperatures. Water will flow over in-stream
structures, providing aeration. The streams will be reconnected to floodplains and floodplain wetlands,
reducing stream erosion, increasing floodplain storage, and improving nutrient cycling. Visual
observations of the riparian buffer will be documented, and these observations are expected to
demonstrate that the Site is trending toward improved function.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 17 February 2023
4.1.5 Biology
The highest category of the Functional Framework is biology, which is defined as the biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic and terrestrial life, specifically animals. As with physiochemical stream function, it is
difficult to quantify biological uplift with measurable results in the timeframe of the project.
Improvements to biological activity will be noted during visual assessments of the project, and through
direct measurement of categories 2 and 3 (hydraulics and geomorphology) of the Framework.
4.2 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
There are no significant hydrologic or infrastructure constraints for the proposed ecological uplift at the
Site. No overhead or buried utility lines are present. Only one easement break is proposed (Tributary 1)
across an existing culvert to facilitate landowner usage of the property. Any culvert maintenance will be
the responsibility of FNI through completion of monitoring. At the completion of monitoring and project
closeout, the culverts will be the responsibility of the landowner(s).
No General Aviation, Commercial or Private airports are located within five miles of the Site. There are no
other known site constraints that will affect the functional uplift of the project. The property boundary
functions as a constraint on Tributary 1A Upper as only one side of the channel is within the parent tract
boundary. Therefore, tributary 1A Upper is a non-credit reach and not eligible for enhancement or
restoration. The degree to which the physiochemical and biological functions can improve on the Site is
limited by the watershed conditions beyond the conservation easement.
5.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
A summary of regulatory considerations for the Site is presented in Table 7. These considerations are
expanded upon in Sections 5.1 to 5.5.
Table 7. Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes No Appendix D
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes No Appendix D
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix F
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix F
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 18 February 2023
5.1 FEMA FLOODPLAIN
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, the Site does not lie within a
100-year floodplain (one percent annual chance of flooding) and is not within a regulatory floodway
(Figure 7). No hydrologic trespass is anticipated to adjacent properties upstream or downstream of the
project.
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING AND DOCUMENTATION
To ensure that a project meets “Categorical Exclusion” criteria, the Federal Highways Administration
(FHWA) and NCDMS have developed a Categorical Exclusion (CE) checklist that is included as part of the
environmental screening process. The CE documentation and CE approval Form for the Site are included
in Appendix F and was approved by FHWA and DMS on October 14, 2021.
5.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under
provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of December 4,
2019, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four federally protected species for Anson
County, which include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), and Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
(Table 8). A presence-absence survey conducted on September 28, 2020 indicated that the Site does not
provide potential habitat for Schweinitz’s sunflower. No target species were identified during the survey.
Corresponding documentation and USFWS concurrence with the presence-absence survey are included
in Appendix F.
Table 8. Federally Protected Species in Anson County, NC
Species Name and Federal
Status Habitat Potential
Habitat at Site
Biological
Conclusion
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act
Mature forest in proximity to large bodies of
open water for foraging. Large dominant
trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within 1.0 mile of open water.
No No effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis)

Endangered
Open, mature stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)
aged 60 years or older, which are contiguous
with pine stands at least 30 years of age to
provide foraging habitat.
No No effect
Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorate)

Endangered
The general habitat requirements for the
Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas in
large rivers to small streams, often burrowed
into clay banks between the root systems of
trees, or in runs along steep banks with
moderate current.
No No effect

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 19 February 2023
Species Name and Federal
Status Habitat Potential
Habitat at Site
Biological
Conclusion
Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii)

Endangered
Roadside rights-of-way, maintained power
lines and other utility rights-of-way, edges of
thickets and old pastures, clearings and
edges of upland
No No effect*
*See the approved Categorical Exclusion document in Appendix F for species habitat assessment information.
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records on April 20, 2020 indicates no
known species occurrence within a one-mile radius of the Site. Letters were sent to the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on April 24, 2020 and August 5, 2021 requesting review and
comment of possible issues with respect to fish and wildlife resources on the site. A response was received
on August 25, 2021 in which the NCWRC indicated that there are no concerns for any listed aquatic species
in the vicinity of the Site. Documentation is included in Appendix F.
5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service database on March 30,
2020 revealed no National Register listings within a one-mile radius of the Site. A letter was submitted to
the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on April 24, 2020. SHPO responded on June
11, 2020 and stated that they were aware “of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project”. Cultural resources met the Categorical Exclusion criteria for FHWA and NCDMS projects, and
documentation is included in Appendix F.
5.5 401/404
There will be 0.22 acres of permanent impacts to existing wetlands onsite due to channel realignment, as
well as 2.46 acres of temporary impacts resulting from access and grading during project construction.
The latter impacts are considered temporary in nature since the areas will be returned to pre-construction
contours and planted to allow for afforestation. Table 9 details anticipated impacts to wetlands at the
Site. A Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), including these data, will be submitted to the IRT with the
Final Mitigation Plan. Permanent impacts will be mitigated on-site through the expansion of the Wetland
A re-establishment area by 0.22 acres and is included in project plans.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 20 February 2023
Table 9. Estimated Impacts to Site Wetlands
Impact Area Wetland ID Impact Type Tributary Area (Sq Ft) Area (Acre) Type of Activity
1-01 Wetland B Permanent UT-1C 427.7 0.01 Stream Channel Grading
T-01 Wetland B Temporary UT-1C 2447.64 0.06 Construction Access
T-02 Wetland B Temporary UT-1C 4053.18 0.09 Construction Access
1-02 Wetland A Permanent UT-1C 886.67 0.02 Stream Channel Grading
T-03 Wetland A Temporary UT-1C 4938.42 0.11 Construction Access
T-04 Wetland A Temporary UT-1C 13107.49 0.30 Construction Access
T-05 Wetland A Temporary UT-1C 374.42 0.01 Construction Access
1-03 Wetland D Permanent UT-1B 420.47 0.01 Stream Channel Grading
T-06 Wetland D Temporary UT-1B 2372.41 0.05 Construction Access
1-04 Wetland C Permanent UT-1B 230.51 0.005 Stream Channel Grading
T-04 Wetland C Temporary UT-1B 925.92 0.02 Construction Access
1-05 Wetland E Permanent UT-1 2695.5 0.0619 Stream Channel Grading
T-05 Wetland E Temporary UT-1 12348.27 0.2835 Construction Access
T-07 Wetland E Temporary UT-1 10120.29 0.2323 Construction Access
T-08 Wetland E Temporary UT-1 1196.5 0.0275 Construction Access
T-09 Wetland E Temporary UT-1 2876.13 0.0660 Construction Access
T-10 Wetland E Temporary UT-1 160.54 0.0037 Construction Access
1-06 Wetland E Permanent UT-1 115.51 0.003 Stream Channel Grading
1-07 Wetland E Permanent UT-1 430.16 0.010 Stream Channel Grading
1-08 Wetland E Permanent UT-1 183.01 0.004 Stream Channel Grading
2-01 Wetland M Permanent UT-2 666.14 0.02 Stream Channel Grading
T-11 Wetland M Temporary UT-2 1376.79 0.03 Construction Access
T-12 Wetland M Temporary UT-3 2014.21 0.05 Construction Access
3-01 Wetland K Permanent UT-3 8.77 0.0002 Stream Channel Grading
T-13 Wetland K Temporary UT-3 50.07 0.0011 Construction Access
3-02 Wetland W Permanent UT-3 155.69 0.004 Stream Channel Grading
T-14 Wetland W Temporary UT-3 511.38 0.012 Construction Access
3-03 Wetland I Permanent UT-3 824.07 0.019 Stream Channel Grading
T-15 Wetland I Temporary UT-3 3657.9 0.084 Construction Access
T-16 Wetland I Temporary UT-4 4829.92 0.111 Construction Access
4-01 Wetland S Permanent UT-4 88.77 0.002 Stream Channel Grading
5-01 Wetland G Permanent UT-5 32.03 0.001 Stream Channel Grading
T-17 Wetland G Temporary UT-5 123.59 0.003 Construction Access
T-18 Wetland G Temporary UT-5 97.87 0.002 Construction Access
6-01 Wetland H Permanent UT-6 1608.8 0.04 Stream Channel Grading
6-02 Wetland H Permanent UT-6 800.85 0.02 Stream Channel Grading
T-19 Wetland H Temporary UT-6 13657.9 0.31 Construction Access
T-20 Wetland H Temporary UT-6 19669.12 0.45 Construction Access
T-21 Wetland H Temporary UT-6 4969.06 0.11 Construction Access

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 21 February 2023
Impact Area Wetland ID Impact Type Tributary Area (Sq Ft) Area (Acre) Type of Activity
6-03 Wetland U Permanent UT-6 46.05 0.001 Stream Channel Grading
T-22 Wetland U Temporary UT-6 443.38 0.010 Construction Access
T-23 Wetland U Temporary UT-6 14.64 0.0003 Construction Access
6-04 Wetland T Permanent UT-6 11.6 0.0003 Stream Channel Grading
T-24 Wetland T Temporary UT-6 785.2 0.0180 Construction Access
T-25 Wetland T Temporary UT-6 9.17 0.0002 Stream Channel Grading
Total Temporary Impacts 107131.41 2.46
Total Permanent Impacts 9632.30 0.22

6.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The project will improve stream and wetland functions as described in Section 4 through stream
enhancement and restoration, wetland rehabilitation and restoration, and conversion of agricultural
fields into riparian buffers within the Yadkin Pee-Dee River basin. Specific, attainable goals and objectives
will be realized by the project, and these are verifiable through measurement and/or visual assessment.
The project will be monitored after construction to evaluate performance as described in Section 8. The
project goals and objectives are described in Table 10.
Table 10. Project Goals and Objectives
On-Site Stressor/Impairment Goals to Address/Remove
Stressor Objectives
Severely incised and downcut
stream channels leading to lack of
bedform diversity and lack of
floodplain access.
Provide a network of streams with
natural, stable forms that support
proper stream functions
Construct stream channels that
will maintain proper dimension,
pattern, and profile and that meet
jurisdictional status
Raise groundwater levels to
support recovery of native
riparian vegetation and hyporheic
functions.
Construct streams with proper
bankfull to floodplain
relationships
High sediment loads from
streambank and bed erosion as
well as hillslope processes from
row crop operations both within
the project site and upstream.
Reduce sediment inputs from
eroding stream banks to reduce
fine sediment loads and
percentage of fines in the bed-
material load
Construct streams that provide
naturally stable dimensions and
stabilize constructed banks with
appropriate bioengineering
techniques.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 22 February 2023
On-Site Stressor/Impairment Goals to Address/Remove
Stressor Objectives
Lack of large woody debris and
aquatic habitat diversity in
channels.
Improve substrate quality to
facilitate hyporheic flow and
restore bedform diversity to
provide a diversity of aquatic
habitat
Construct stable riffles and pools
that provide an improved diversity
of bedform and bed material
class, and a reduction in fines
relative to existing conditions
Introduce native woody materials
to provide habitat
Construct in-stream habitat
features from native material to
provide a diversity of habitats
Lack of riparian buffer, leading to
lack of riparian habitat,
streambank instability and lack of
filter for runoff of non-point
source pollutants such as
fertilizers and pesticides into
stream
Reduce pollutant inputs to the
project streams (sediment,
nitrogen, phosphorus) to restore a
balance to proper nutrient cycles

Establish a forested riparian
buffer along all restored stream
channels and South Fork Jones
Creek.
Improve riparian vegetation
community to provide
temperature regulation of the
streams, provide a future source
of organic inputs, and aid in long-
term channel bank stability
Plant native overstory tree species
and understory species in the
riparian zone.
Restore areas of former riparian
wetlands so that the hydrology
and soils will support wetland
vegetative communities and
wildlife
Restore riparian wetland
hydrology by re-grading
topography to eliminating ditches
and other wetland drainage
features
Plant native wetland tree and
shrub species

7.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
The design approach for the Site was developed to meet the goals and objectives described in Section 6,
which were developed to maximize the functional uplift described in Section 4. The design approach for
the Site involves the restoration of eight unnamed tributaries to South Fork Jones Creek and the
rehabilitation of Site wetlands A and B. Target stream types were determined using physical parameters
of the Site as well as reference reaches from other sites. An analogue design approach is used whereby
the geometry of stable reference conditions is scaled and applied to Site streams to establish appropriate
pattern and profile. Channels were sized based upon design discharge analysis and regional curve
comparison. Channel sizing was verified and modified based upon sediment transport capacity and
competency. These design approaches have been used on many Piedmont restoration projects and are
appropriate for the goals and objectives for the Site.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 23 February 2023
7.1 REFERENCE STREAMS
Reference streams provide geomorphic patterns of a stable system, which can be used to design stable
channels of similar stream type in similar landscape and watershed settings by taking a scalable approach.
The Site reference reaches described in the sections below were selected due to their similarity to the
Site, including valley type, physiography, bed material, and morphology. Geomorphological parameters
for selected reference reaches are detailed in Appendix C and summarized in Table 11.
7.1.1 Spencer Creek Reach 3
Spencer Creek Reach 3 is located in central Montgomery County within the Uwharrie National Forest. The
site was classified as an E4 stream type with a drainage area of 0.37 square miles. This reach flows through
a mature forest and has an average valley slope of 2.7% and an average channel slope of 2.1%. The
reference reach is similar to the project reaches in that it is located in the Slate Belt physiographic region,
has a similar range of slopes as the project reaches and represents a stable stream system with a relatively
small drainage area. The morphological parameters reported for the riffle cross section include width to
depth ratios that range from 7.9 to 9.3 and entrenchment ratios that range from 1.7 to 4.3.
7.1.2 UT to Rocky Creek
The UT to Rocky Creek reference site is also located in central Montgomery County within the Uwharrie
National Forest. The drainage area is 1.10 square miles and the land use within the drainage area is a
semi-mature forest. Similar to Spencer Creek Reach 3, the stream is representative of a stable, relatively
steep stream system within the Slate Belt physiographic region. The UT to Rocky Creek Reference site was
classified as an E4b stream type with a low sinuosity (1.1). The channel has a width to depth ratio of 9.1
and an entrenchment ratio of 6. The reach has a valley slope of 2.6% while the channel slope is 2.4%. The
bed material D50 for the reach is 22.6 mm. Due to the low sinuosity, no pattern data was collected.
7.1.3 UT to Crane Creek
The UT to Cane Creek reference is located in northeastern Rutherford County. The drainage area is 0.29
square miles and the land use within the drainage area is a semi-mature forest. Although outside the Slate
Belt region, this reference reach is representative of a stable, piedmont headwater stream system, as it
possesses similar slopes and drainage area to the project reaches. The UT to Cane Creek reference site
was classified as a C4/E4 stream type with a sinuosity of 1.4. The channel has a width to depth ratio ranging
from 12.3 to 14.4 and an entrenchment ratio of greater than 2.5. The reach has a valley slope of 2.6%
while the channel slope is 1.5%.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 24 February 2023
Table 11. Summary of Morphological Parameters for Reference Reach Sites
Parameter Spencer Creek Reach 3 UT to Rocky
Creek
UT to Cane
Creek
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 237 672 186
Rosgen Stream Classification E4 E4b C4
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.8 12.2 11.9
Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.9 1.3 0.9
Bankfull Area (ft2) 7.7 16.3 10.6
Bankfull Velocity (ft/s) 5.3 5.5 3.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 35 85 40
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.019 0.024 0.015
Sinuosity 1.3 1.1 1.4
Width/Depth Ratio 8.6 9.1 13.4
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.4
Entrenchment Ratio 3.0 6.0 2.5
D16 (mm) 1.867 <0.063 0.6
D35 (mm) 8.85 2.4 12.2
D50 (mm) 11.0 22.6 27.8
D84 (mm) 64.0 120.0 74.5
D95 (mm) 128.0 256.0 128.0
7.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS
7.2.1 Stream Restoration Approach
The Site includes Priority I and Enhancement Level I restoration. Stream restoration will incorporate the
design of stable channel planform, with parameters based on data taken from reference sites, published
empirical relationships, and NC and regional curve data. The valley shape and valley width relative to the
stream width, as well as the valley slopes at the Site indicate that some level of sinuosity was once present
in these systems and that these were not just confined, straight steep channels as would be typical in
some areas of the Piedmont. Relict meanders and low points within the valleys indicate where the streams
were once flowing across their floodplains. By restoring planform, the other variables of dimension and
profile will also be restored. All stream channels will be designed with stable dimensions, based off
analysis of sediment transport capacity and competency, considering the potentially high sediment loads
delivered from row crop activities. Cross section parameters such as area, depth and width were designed
based on the design discharge, the ability to transport sediment, the need for stable bank slopes, as well
as following dimensional ratios derived from reference conditions. Conceptual plan views are provided in
Figure 11. Complete morphological tables for existing, reference, and proposed conditions are included
in Appendix C.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 25 February 2023
The Site has been broken into the follow restoration approaches:
Enhancement Level I: For Tributary 1B, which is relatively short and located in a steep and confined valley,
Enhancement Level I will be used to establish grade control and create pools. A bankfull bench will be
constructed to provide stable dimension based upon sediment transport requirements. Small in-stream
structures, such as log sills, will be installed to provide grade control, establish pools and increase bedform
diversity. Streambanks will be graded to provide stable slope and a 50-foot riparian buffer will be planted
with native woody and herbaceous species.
In the original proposal for the site, and as stated in the Post-Contract IRT Site Visit meeting minutes (see
Appendix A), it was noted that Tributary 1C would also be proposed for Enhancement Level I. This was
based on initial assessments of the confined valley and severe incision creating an inability to restore
planform and raise the bed profile, which would be required for a Priority I restoration. During further
site evaluation and analysis of more detailed topographic data during mitigation plan development, it was
determined that there is adequate space within the valley to both re-align the channel as well as raise the
channel bed to provide the greatest functional uplift. Thus, the proposed approach for Tributary 1C is
now restoration.
Priority I Restoration: The remaining reaches (1A-lower, 1C, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) at the site will undergo
Priority I restoration, which includes establishing a new, sinuous channel based on stable reference reach
condition. The channel bed elevation will be raised to reconnect streambanks to floodplain, and natural
bedform with riffle-pool sequence and deep pool habitat will be established to provide diversity of aquatic
habitat. A 50-foot riparian buffer will be planted with native woody and herbaceous species. In-channel
structures will be installed where necessary to maintain grade and establish bedform. In general, the
proposed restored streams are designed as either a “Cb” where they flow down steeper slopes to the
north of South Fork Jones Creek, or “C” once their slope flattens as they flow across the floodplain of
South Fork Jones Creek. In a few locations, several of the proposed streams flow over relatively steep
parts of the hillside above South Fork Jones Creek and will have average slopes greater than 2.5%. In
these locations, log roller structures are proposed to dissipate energy and provide channel stability.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 26 February 2023
Table 12. Summary of Site Morphological Parameters for Project Reaches
Parameter
1A 1B 1C 2 3 4 5 6
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

Contributing
Drainage Area
(acres)
93 20 12 25 29 33 16 44
Rosgen Stream
Classification G4 C4b/C4 G4 C4b G4 C4b G4 C4b/C4 G4 C4b G4 C4b/C4 G4 C4b/C4 G4 C4b/C4
Bankfull Width (ft)1 10.42 7 2.2 4 2.99 4 3.48 4 8.09 4 2.74 4 4.24 4 3.28 4
Bankfull Depth (ft) 1 0.48 0.42 0.2 0.45 0.81 0.45 0.34 0.45 0.64 0.45 0.3 0.45 0.53 0.45 0.37 0.45
Bankfull Area (ft2) 1 5.04 2.95 0.43 1.8 2.43 1.8 1.19 1.8 5.2 1.8 0.81 1.8 2.23 1.8 1.2 1.8
Bankfull Discharge
(cfs) 7.4 1.6 1.1 2.6 2.9 3.2 1.8 4.1
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.015 0.012 0.044 0.0444 0.0539 0.026 0.0271 0.028 0.0251 0.0185 0.0242 0.0235 0.0202 0.0161 0.026 0.0153
Sinuosity 1.02 1.12 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.01 1.11 1.01 1.06 1.03 1.11 1.06 1.12
Width/Depth Ratio1 21.71 11.03 11 8.89 3.69 8.89 10.24 8.89 12.64 8.89 9.13 8.89 8 8.89 8.86 8.89
Bank Height Ratio 2.02 1 1.1 1 2.63 1 6.57 1 2.63 1 2.69 1 2.59 1 4.78 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.71 >2.2 1.73 >2.2 1.67 >2.2 1.49 >2.2 2.19 >2.2 1.53 >2.2 1.35 >2.2 1.65 >2.2
D16 (mm) 0 50.8 0.14 50.8 0.21 50.8 0.24 50.8 0.18 50.8 0.24 50.8 0.05 50.8 0.15 50.8
D35 (mm) 4.35 --- 0.21 --- 0.63 --- 0.61 --- 7.08 --- 0.5 --- 1 --- 2.5 ---
D50 (mm) 8.24 101.6 0.42 101.6 3.33 101.6 0.95 101.6 16.47 101.6 0.97 101.6 12.15 101.6 5.7 101.6
D84 (mm) 30.09 --- 4 --- 27.97 --- 13.65 --- 40.27 --- 29.31 --- 38 --- 18.93 ---
D95 (mm) 47.97 152.4 10.48 152.4 54.5 152.4 20.95 152.4 58.3 152.4 48.8 152.4 53.44 152.4 30.66 152.4
1 Due to incision of existing channels, existing bankfull features were difficult to discern or entirely absent at surveyed cross-sections. Bankfull parameters of existing channels were thus calculated
based on assumed bankfull elevations and should be taken as an approximation of actual bankfull characteristics.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 27 February 2023

7.2.2 Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for riffles and pools are shown on the design plans sheets in Appendix G. The cross-
section dimensions were developed for each design reach by using the parameters detailed in Section
7.2.1.
7.2.3 Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignments are included in Appendix G. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reference reach and was altered in some locations to provide
variability and to account for variations in valley pattern, and to make the channel more constructible.
The morphological parameters included in Appendix C were applied to areas that deviated from the
analog reference reach. After additional site analysis and survey, the alignment of Tributary 5 has been
modified from what was originally proposed to closer follow the actual valley low point along the
floodplain of South Fork Jones Creek. Upon further inspection, it was found that there is a subtle ridge
between the base of the hillside down which the tributary flows and the banks of South Fork Jones Creek,
which has created a natural valley that roughly parallels South Fork Jones Creek. Figure 14 depicts
contours derived from QL2 LiDAR and site topographic survey to show the presence of this natural valley
along Tributary 5.
7.2.4 Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix G. These profiles extend throughout the project area for
each stream channel realignment. Bed slopes were determined for each restoration reach based on the
existing valley slope and the proposed sinuosity of the reach. In-stream structures will be used in the
design to control grade and provide habitat diversity and stability.
7.2.5 In-Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve aquatic
habitat. Bed material will be added to all riffles to construct constructed riffles, while in steeper riffle
locations (>2.5% slopes), log “roller” structures will be installed to provide more resistance to increased
shear stress. Typical details for proposed in-stream structures are in Appendix G.
7.2.6 Wetland Restoration Approach
The Site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity that will restore highly manipulated floodplain
forested wetland communities. Wetland restoration via reestablishment aims to reestablish wetland
hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation to currently non-wetland areas that exhibit hydric soil indicators,
while rehabilitation aims to improve vegetation and floodplain connectivity in severely degraded

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 28 February 2023
jurisdictional wetland areas. The Site will provide 5.5670 riparian WMUs through a combination of
wetland reestablishment and rehabilitation. The proposed WMUs will also offset unavoidable permanent
wetland impacts due to stream restoration activities. Planting of woody vegetation will occur in areas
where existing riparian wetlands are present. These areas will not generate mitigation credit but will be
protected within the conservation easement. Figure 15 depicts areas of existing jurisdictional wetlands
that will be impacted by proposed project restoration activities, as well as wetland areas that will be
replanted after construction.
Wetland reestablishment with a credit ratio of 1:1 is proposed for two areas of the Site. The area referred
to as Wetland A is located along the southwestern border of the site and is situated within the floodplain
of South Jones Creek. Wetland B is located along Tributary 2 and is located in the floodplain of both
Tributary 2 and South Jones Creek. The areas contain hydric soils but lack sufficient wetland hydrology
and a lowered water table due to an altered landscape and drainage modifications, including ditched
streams and drainage tiles. The hydrologic restoration of these areas will be directly related to stream
restoration activities and removal of the drainage tile system. Removal of the drainage tiles will raise local
groundwater elevations and allow for frequent flooding. Restoration of Tributary 2 will provide an
appropriately sized channel within the existing floodplain and filling the incised, abandoned channels,
which will further raise local groundwater levels and increase surface inputs from more frequent flooding.
The hydrology can be restored to these historic wetlands, connecting them to the surrounding hydrologic
landscape, and their riparian functions can be reestablished by enabling stream and groundwater
interaction. The reestablished wetland areas will be planted with bare root hardwood trees and shrubs
representative of Piedmont Bottomland Forest communities. The reestablishment areas will be rough
graded to increase runoff retention in small shallow areas.
Wetland rehabilitation with a credit ratio of 1.5:1 is proposed for Wetland C and D, which are located
within the proposed Wetland A reestablishment area. The rehabilitation approach is intended to provide
uplift to vegetative function and functions related to floodplain connectivity. These wetland areas have
been disconnected from their historic riparian wetland system and area within active row crop agricultural
areas that are consistently impacted by plowing, seeding, and herbicide applications. The wetlands are
still jurisdictional and there is a seasonally high-water table. Rehabilitation of these areas is directly tied
to the reestablishment of Wetland A and recreating the historic riparian wetland system along South Jones
Creek. Rehabilitation aims to re-establish the Riverine Swamp Forest community that historically existed.
This will involve planting appropriate bare root hardwood tree and shrub species representative of
Piedmont Bottomland Forest communities.
7.2.7 Soil Restoration Approach
Soil grading will occur during stream restoration activities. Topsoil will be stockpiled during construction
and spread on the soil surface once a subgrade has been established. Surface roughening will create
microtopography and shallow depressional areas within floodplain, re-establishing more natural
conditions and establishing habitat diversity.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 29 February 2023
Standing water is not anticipated to occur in the reestablishment and rehabilitation areas. No depressions
greater than 6 inches will be graded within the wetland cells, which will reduce areas of ponded water
and increase survivability of planted woody species. As mentioned above, grading efforts will be focused
primarily on roughening the terrain to provided water retention in small shallow areas.
In addition to the restored wetlands proposed for the site, a constructed “treatment marsh” is proposed
at the uppermost end of Tributary 4 to provide treatment of water quality prior to streamflow entering
the restored Tributary 4. This feature was suggested during the IRT site visit in June, 2020, as concern was
raised as to the potential for agricultural chemical inputs to reach the restored channel without filter
through a riparian buffer. This wetland is designed similar to a standard constructed wetland best
management practice (BMP), with details provided in Appendix G.
7.3 DESIGN DISCHARGE ANALYSIS
Multiple methods were used to determine bankfull discharge estimates for the design reaches, including
the analysis of bankfull indicators, reference reaches, and regional curves. The use of various methods
allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a single model or data source. Design bankfull
flows were determined for comparison using the following methods:
· NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman, 1999)
· USGS Non-Urban Virginia Piedmont Regional Curve (Lotspeich, 2009)
· Stream Channel Geomorphology Relationships for North Carolina Piedmont Reference Reaches
(Lowther, 2008)
· SC DNR Stream Geomorphology Data Collection and Analysis – Ecoregion 45 (Environmental,
2020)
· Discharge determination using on-site bankfull indicators (only visible on Tributary 1A).
Bankfull indicators were identified on Tributary 1A and were used to back calculate the existing bankfull
discharge using the Manning’s Equation. The existing discharge was then compared with the regional
curves listed above to provide multiple lines of evidence in selection of the design bankfull discharge. The
USGS Non-Urban Virginia Piedmont Regional Curve produced the most comparable bankfull discharge to
the calculated discharge for Tributary 1A, falling within the 95-percent prediction interval. Thus, this
regression equation was chosen for use with the design discharge calculations of the remaining
tributaries. The design discharges for each reach were then calculated based on this regression equation.
Results from each discharge estimate are included in Table 13.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 30 February 2023
Table 13. Summary of Bankfull Discharge Predictive Analysis from Regional Curve
Reach
Drainage
Area
(mi2)
Discharge (CFS)
SC Ecoregion
45 Regional
Curve
USGS Non-Urban
Virginia Piedmont
Regional Curve1
USGS Non-Urban
Virginia Piedmont
Regional Curve2
NC
Reference
Reach Curve
NC Rural
Piedmont
Regional
Curve
1A-Lower 0.15 9.4 7.3 7.4 21.3 22.7
1B 0.02 2.2 1.1 1.4 5.4 5.3
1C 0.03 3.2 1.6 2.1 7.6 7.1
2 0.04 3.8 2.1 2.6 9.0 8.8
3 0.05 4.1 2.6 2.9 9.8 10.3
4 0.05 4.6 2.6 3.2 10.7 10.3
5 0.03 2.8 1.6 1.8 6.7 7.1
6 0.07 5.6 3.5 4.1 13.1 13.1
1Regression equation developed using the USGS slope-area computation program (SAC)
2Regression equation determined by relating the bankfull stage at the gage location to the stage-discharge rating.
7.4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
To better understand the existing sediment transport conditions on the site, eight pebble counts and one
subpavement sample were collected and analyzed across the site. The data is provided in Appendix C and
summarized in Table 14 below.
A sediment transport analysis was conducted at the Site to ensure that the restoration designs possess
stable channel forms that can transport the sediment delivered from their watersheds without aggrading
or degrading over time. On-site streams were visually inspected to qualitatively assess aggradation and
degradation within the channels. Incised channels and actively eroding banks provide evidence of active
degradation, multiple headcuts, and suggest an excess sediment transport competence and capacity
relative to the sediment load delivered from upstream. The relatively steep average bed slopes (1.5% to
4%) and narrow, steep valleys of the tributaries suggests that the channels are colluvial, rather than
alluvial, in nature and therefore likely follow a threshold channel regime. In threshold channel systems,
the sediment loads are relatively low relative to the energy produced by the channel, thus channel stability
is informed more by sediment transport competence and the resistance of the boundary to the shear
stresses produced by the channel, than it is by sediment transport capacity, as would be more influential
in alluvial stream systems. Thus, the focus of the sediment transport analysis was to verify that the design
channels will be stable over time and can transport sediment from the watershed.
7.4.1 Sediment Competence Analysis
Competence analyses were conducted for each restoration reach by comparing shear stress associated
with the design bankfull discharge, proposed channel dimension and proposed channel slopes with the
size distribution of the existing bed load. The analyses used standard equations based on methodology

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 31 February 2023
using the Shields curve and Andrews equation (Rosgen, 2001). The analyses were used to verify that the
design will have sufficient competence to move the size of bed load supplied to the stream. Initial
competence was based on the size of material naturally found in the stream to mimic potential bedload.
The results were used to inform further design of the reach. As shown in Table 14, the proposed channel
has sufficient competence to move the size of materials within the sediment load. The results also show
excess competence relative to the size of sediment particles required to be moved, indicating that channel
armoring will be required to prevent channel degradation. This is a typical feature of steep, headwater
colluvial channels, where the channel stability is provided by natural bed armoring rather than a balance
of channel shape to sediment load. It is likely that the Tributaries on the site once possessed a natural
armor layer derived from large cobble and boulder materials that was lost when the streams became
incised. This is common on many steeper headwater systems in the Slate Belt region, including the
reference reaches such as Spencer Creek. To offset the excess competence produced by the channel, bed
armoring will be introduced to all riffles using stone material sized to resist movement from the shear
stresses produced by the proposed channel. In addition, the steepest portions of the channel will have
log roller structures to prevent degradation and downcutting.
Table 14. Sediment Size Distribution and Shear Stress Comparison at Bankfull Stage
Reach Type Existing Shear
Stress (lb/sf)
Measured
D50 (mm)
Measured
D84 (mm)
Proposed
Shear Stress
(lb/sf)
Largest
Moveable
Particle (mm)
1A - Upper Pebble Count 1.03 12.29 22.27 0.53 94.83
1A-Lower
Pebble Count 0.47 3.33 27.97 0.38 74.53
Subpavement 0.47 8.24 30.09 0.38 74.51
1B Pebble Count 0.29 0.42 4.00 0.75 122.52
1C Pebble Count 1.42 0.40 4.00 0.69 116.32
2 Pebble Count 0.56 0.95 13.65 0.65 110.58
3 Pebble Count 0.88 16.47 40.27 0.50 90.82
4 Pebble Count 0.44 0.97 29.31 0.60 105.03
5 Pebble Count 0.65 12.15 38.00 0.51 92.37
6 Pebble Count 0.47 5.7 18.93 0.50 91.13
7.4.2 Sediment Capacity Analysis
Observations of channel sediment on the site indicate a lack of depositional features throughout the
existing channels, with only some very small point bar formation on Tributary 1A at its most downstream
end. In addition, based on the relatively steep proposed channel slopes coupled with the very small
drainage areas which produce limited sediment load, the channels are expected to be “supply-limited”
systems, and therefore can be assumed to have excess capacity to move their sediment load at the design
discharge. The defining criteria for the channel dimension, therefore, is that it must accommodate the
design discharge and resist the shear stress on the boundary of the channel (i.e., threshold channel
design). For this reason, a sediment capacity analysis was not conducted for this project.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 32 February 2023
7.5 VEGETATION AND PLANTING PLAN
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration of the Site. The
selection of plant species is based on species present in the forest adjacent to the Site, and typical native
species for Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest (Typic Subtype) and Piedmont Bottomland Forest
(Schafale, 2012). The target community will be used for the planting areas within the Site, shown in
Appendix H. The native species selected for establishment at the Site will be early successional species
that represent a range of growth rates and varying tolerances to shade and moisture. These range of
characteristics were selected to ensure that the appropriate vegetation cover develops over the Site.
Stream banks will be planted with live stakes and the channel toe will be planted with multiple herbaceous
species. Permanent herbaceous seed will be spread on the streambanks, floodplain and disturbed areas
within the Site easement. depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each
vegetation association. Planting will be conducted between November 15 and March 15 per IRT
monitoring guidance.
Table 15. Site Woody Species Planting Plan with Species Type and Distribution
Vegetation Association Riparian
Wetlands*
Zone 2 Riparian
Area*
Zone 1 Live
Stakes** Total
Area (acres) 6.37 46.80 5.90 59.07
Scientific Name Common
Name
#
Planted
% of
Total # Planted % of
Total # Planted % of
Total # Planted
Acer negundo Boxelder 452 12% -- -- -- -- 452
Alnus serrulata Hazel alder -- -- -- -- 6279 20% 6,279
Asiminia triloba Pawpaw -- -- 2768 10% -- -- 2,768
Betula nigra River birch 565 15% 4152 15% -- -- 4,717
Carpinus caroliniana American
hornbeam -- -- 2768 10% -- -- 2,768
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry -- -- 2768 10% -- -- 2,768
Cephalanthus
occidentalis Buttonbush -- -- -- -- 6279 20% 6,279
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood 377 10% -- -- 6279 20% 6,656
Diospyros virginiana Common
Persimmon -- -- 2768 10% -- -- 2,768
Fagus grandifolia American
beech -- -- 2768 10% -- -- 2,768
Ilex decidua Possumhaw 377 10% -- -- -- -- 377
Lindera benzoin Spicebush -- -- 1384 5% -- -- 1,384
Platanus occidentalis American
sycamore 754 20% 4152 15% -- -- 4,906
Quercus nigra Water oak -- -- 2768 10% -- -- 2,768

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 33 February 2023
Vegetation Association Riparian
Wetlands*
Zone 2 Riparian
Area*
Zone 1 Live
Stakes** Total
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark
oak 83 13% -- -- -- -- 490
Quercus phellos Willow oak 83 10% -- -- -- -- 377
Salix sericea Silky willow -- -- -- -- 6279 20% 6,279
Sambucus nigra Elderberry -- -- -- -- 6279 20% 6,279
Ulmus americana American elm 83 10% -- -- -- -- 377
Viburnum prunifolium Blackhaw -- -- 1384 5% -- -- 1,384
Total 3,769 100% 27,680 100% 31,395 100% 62,844
*Planted at a density of 538 stems/acre ** Planted at a density of 4,840 stems/acre
7.5.1 Invasive Species Management
Invasive species within the easement area will be treated at the time of construction. The extent of
invasive species coverage will be monitored, mapped, and controlled as necessary throughout the
required monitoring period. An exception to this is the areas within the easement along South Fork Jones
Creek that are outside the riparian zones of the restored tributaries and riparian wetlands. As these areas
are being put into conservation easement to mitigate for unauthorized activities on the site, and not to
produce mitigation credits, these areas will have invasives clearing and treatment during one growing
season and not in following monitoring years. A copy of the map depicting one-time treatment invasives
treatment areas versus treatment throughout the monitoring period is contained in Appendix A. An
invasive species vegetation treatment plan for the Site is included in Appendix H.
7.6 PROJECT RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES
Although a formal risk assessment has not been conducted as a part of this project, the assessment and
design process are structured to identify areas of concern and potential risk to the project success or
liabilities that may develop in association with the project, as discussed in Table 16. This project is low
risk. The land use surrounding the project is currently in agricultural row crop production, so there is no
potential for accidental livestock access. There are no significant hydrologic or infrastructure constraints
for the proposed ecological uplift at the Site. No overhead or buried utility lines are present. An easement
break is proposed on Tributary 1A at the location of an existing 60” RCP culvert, which will remain in place.
Any culvert maintenance will be the responsibility of FNI through completion of monitoring. At the
completion of monitoring and project closeout, the culverts will be the responsibility of the landowner(s).
No General Aviation, Commercial or Private airports are located within five miles of the Site. There are no
other known site constraints that will affect the functional uplift of the project. The valley widths at the
Site will allow for the development of pattern and dimensions to restore stable functioning streams and
wetlands. Any potential changes in the watershed would alter hydrology, but reconnecting the channels

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 34 February 2023
to their floodplain, creating functioning riparian area, and restoring wetland function will help alleviate
any increased flow regime.
It is anticipated that the site will remain in row crops in the foreseeable future. Corner posts and boundary
markers consistent with current DMS guidelines will be placed along the perimeter of the conservation
easement to provide visual barrier for row crop operations. The easement boundary will be checked
visually through the monitoring period to ensure there are no encroachments into the easement. If any
encroachments are detected, corrective actions including re-planting and boundary marker re-installation
will be conducted and discussions will be had with the landowner reminding them of easement terms and
conditions and legal duty to not disturb vegetation.
Table 16. Project Risks, Uncertainties, and Potential Actions
Risk/Uncertainty Description Action
Easement Encroachment
Potential encroachment of the
conservation easement, which may
include trespass, incidental mowing,
equipment traffic, cattle, and timber
harvesting.
The isolated nature of the site will
minimize this risk. Easement boundaries
will be clearly marked to prevent
encroachment. The landowner has been
made aware of the importance of
encroachment prevention and
accountability. Any encroachments that
occur will be remedied to address any
damage and provide any corrections
required by the IRT.
Invasive and Nuisance Species
Herbaceous and woody vegetation
competition from invasive and
nuisance species in the surrounding
area.
Herbaceous competition during the first
two years will be managed by mechanical
mowing and chemical herbicides. All
herbicide application will be performed by
a certified applicator in accordance with
NC Department of Agriculture rules and
regulations.
Droughts and Floods
Extreme climate conditions may
occur during the monitoring period,
including long-term inundation due
to landscape position and soil
characteristics.
Site vegetation includes obligate woody
species that are adapted to periods of
long-term inundation. Supplemental
planting or replanting will be conducted if
necessary. Additional actions may include
removal of downstream obstructions
(e.g., beaver dams, soil deposition) within
the project easement.
Hydrologic Trespass Potential hydrologic trespass on
adjoining landowners.
The project is designed with a Priority 1
restoration approach, and all adjacent
wetland cells will be graded to move
water toward Tributary 1. A no-rise
evaluation was also conducted to ensure
that hydrologic trespass is an unlikely
event and is not expected to be an issue.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 35 February 2023
8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The stream and wetland performance standards will conform to the performance criteria outlined in the
NCDMS Mitigation Plan Template (ver. 06/2017), and US Army Corps of Engineers – Wilmington District
Public Notice: Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Conducted for Wilmington District (October 24, 2016). The restoration and enhancement components are
assigned specific performance standards for geomorphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Performance
criteria is proposed to be evaluated throughout the seven-year monitoring period. provides a list of the
performance standards associated with each project objective along with the associated monitoring
approach. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the
finished project. Performance standards will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post construction
monitoring and are detailed in Table 17. Monitoring information can be found in Section 9.
Table 17. Project Performance Standards
Objective Performance Standard Monitoring Approach
Construct stream channels
that will maintain proper
dimension, pattern and
profile and that meet
jurisdictional status
Riffle section W/D ratios should remain
within the range of the appropriate stream
type.

BHR should not exceed 1.2. BHR should not
change more than 10% in any given
monitoring interval. Changes that do occur
should indicate a trend toward stability.

Entrenchment Ratios should be ≥ 2.2 for C/E
channels and ≥ 1.4 for B channels

Document continuous surface flow in
tributaries for at least 30 consecutive days in
each year.
Survey of select cross sections,
longitudinal profiles and visual
assessment.

Continuous stage recorders for
base flow on tributaries
Construct streams with
proper bankfull to
floodplain relationship
Four bankfull events or greater, in separate
years, will be documented during the
monitoring period.
Continuous stage recorders and
debris lines.
Construct streams that
provide naturally stable
dimensions and stabilize
constructed banks with
appropriate bioengineering
techniques.
Channel banks should generally remain
stable. Where bank migration does occur, it
should not exceed 20% of the bankfull width
for the duration of monitoring
Visual assessment and bank pin
monitoring as necessary
Construct stable riffles and
pools that provide an
improved diversity of
bedform and bed material
class, and a reduction in
Profile should maintain a diversity of depths
expressed in riffle/pool forms.
Survey of select cross sections,
longitudinal profiles and visual
assessment.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 36 February 2023
Objective Performance Standard Monitoring Approach
fines relative to existing
conditions
Construct in-stream
habitat features from
native material to provide
a diversity of habitats
In-stream habitat structures should remain
intact and functional.
Visual assessment and annual
survey of structure elevations and
configurations.
Establish a forested
riparian buffer along all
restored stream channels
and South Fork Jones
Creek.
Record conservation easement prior to
implementation
Required annual visual inspection
of easement boundary.
Plant native overstory tree
species and understory
species in the riparian zone
Minimum of 320 stems/ac present at MY-3.

Minimum of 260 stems/ac present at MY-5.

Minimum of 210 stems/ac present at MY-7.

Planted trees reach an average height of 7 ft
by Year 5 and 10 ft by Year 7
Vegetation plots
Restore riparian wetland
hydrology by re-grading
topography to eliminating
ditches and other wetland
drainage features
Groundwater elevation within 12 inches of
the ground surface for 12% (31 days) of the
growing season
Groundwater monitoring gages
Plant native wetland tree
and shrub species habitat
for lower trophic level
organisms.
Minimum of 320 stems/ac present at MY-3.

Minimum of 260 stems/ac present at MY-5.

Minimum of 210 stems/ac present at MY-7.

Planted trees reach an average height of 7 ft
by Year 5 and 10 ft by Year 7
Vegetation plots

8.1 STREAM RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
8.1.1 Bankfull Events
Four bankfull events must be documented over the 7-year monitoring period, and the bankfull events
must occur in separate years. Otherwise, stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull events have
been documented in separate years. This will be accomplished through the use of auto-logging pressure
transducers at a stream gage.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 37 February 2023
8.1.2 Surface Flow
Stream reaches generating credit will be monitored to document surface flow. This will be accomplished
through direct observation and the use of auto-logging pressure transducers at a stream gage. Reaches
must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow each year.
8.1.3 Cross Sections
There will be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do occur, they will be evaluated to
determine if they are trending toward a less stable condition or are minor changes that represent an
increase in stability. Cross sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and
all monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the
design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less
than 2.2 within restored riffle cross sections for C/E channels and no less than 1.4 for B channels.
8.1.4 Digital Image Evaluations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate bank erosion, channel evolution (aggradation or
degradation), riparian vegetation success, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
images should not indicate the formation of bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel
depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over
time. A time series of images should indicate maturation of riparian vegetation. Detrimental bank erosion,
aggradation, structural integrity, and vegetative concerns must also be noted on the required Visual
Assessment tables and spatial extent depicted on the CCPV each monitoring year.
8.2 WETLAND RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a current WETS table (1991-2020) for Anson
County upon which to determine average growing season. The closest comparable data station was
determined to be WETS station: Wadesboro, NC. The station determined the growing season to be 262
days long, extending from March 8 to November 25, and is based upon the minimum temperature greater
than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years (accessed from AgACIS).
Based upon field observations at the Site, NRCS soil mapping units show a good correlation to actual site
conditions in the proposed wetland areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Piedmont
suggests a hydroperiod for Chewacla soil series of 10 to 12 percent of the growing season. Therefore, the
hydrology success criterion for the Site is to restore the water table so that it will remain continuously
within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12 percent of the growing season (approximately 31 days)
at each groundwater gage location throughout the monitoring period.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 38 February 2023
8.3 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Specific and measurable success criteria for planting density within the wetlands and riparian buffers on
the Site will follow IRT Guidance. Vegetative success will be the survival of at least 320 planted trees per
acre at the end of Year 3, 260 planted trees at an average of seven feet in height at the end of Year 5, and
the final vegetative success criteria of 210 trees per acre with an average height of ten feet at the end of
Year 7. Height requirements may be omitted for designated understory and shrub species if deemed
advantageous. Volunteer trees that are listed on the approved planting list will be counted, identified to
species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, and may be counted toward the success criteria of
the total planted stems. Any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number
of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in the monitoring
table but will not be used to demonstrate success.

9.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are met,
and project goals and objectives are achieved. Annual monitoring data will be reported using the DMS
Annual Monitoring Reporting Template (June 2017). The monitoring report shall provide project data
chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of DMS
databases for analysis and research purposes and assist in close-out decision making.
Table 18 details Site monitoring components. Locations of vegetation plots, groundwater gages, and
continuous stage recorders are included in Figure 12. The monitoring schedule is included in Table 19.
9.1 AS-BUILT SURVEY
Using the DMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data and Content Requirements guidance document
(October 2020), a baseline monitoring document and as-built record drawings of the project will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion and monitoring installation on the restored site. The
survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, top of bank and other features
required by the NCDMS As-Built Requirements document (October, 2020) to compare to future
geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual monitoring reports unless requested
by USACE.
9.2 VISUAL MONITORING
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year (MY)
by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species, and
easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete streamwalk and
structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record each
monitoring event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Fixed image locations will exist

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 39 February 2023
at each cross section, vegetation plot, stage recorder, flow gage, groundwater, culverts and crossings.
Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem
areas and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of channel structures.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive
increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation
of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
9.3 STREAM HYDROLOGY
Continuous stage recorders, which utilize auto-logging pressure transducers that are capable of
documenting height, frequency, and duration of bankfull events, will be installed on all perennial
restoration reaches. For credit generating intermittent streams, monitoring flow gages will be installed to
track the frequency and duration of stream flow events.
9.4 CROSS SECTIONS
Permanent cross sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in pools
and half in riffle on all Restoration and Enhancement I reaches. Morphological data will be measured and
recorded for all cross-sections; however, only riffle cross sections will include bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio calculations. A total of 27 cross sections are proposed across the Project. These cross
sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
9.5 WETLAND HYDROLOGY
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydrologic conditions in the Site’s wetland areas. This
will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gages installed in representative
locations across the restoration areas as well as some already jurisdictional wetland areas for reference
conditions. These groundwater gages will be installed in accordance with USACE guidelines and
subsequent NCIRT guidance. The gages will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be
calculated during the growing season. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology
indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits. A total of eleven groundwater gages are
proposed across the Site; seven in re-established wetlands and four in rehabilitated jurisdictional
wetlands, serving as hydrologic references.
9.6 VEGETATION MONITORING
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.0247 acres in size and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be 56 plots within the planted area (59.07 acres). Plots will be a
mixture of fixed and random plots, with 30 fixed plots and 26 random plots. Planted area indicates all area
in the easement that will be planted with trees. Other areas lacking tree density throughout the Site will

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 40 February 2023
be planted with supplemental trees. These areas will be monitored each monitoring year with random
plots to document both existing and planted trees to demonstrate both density and diversity. The
following data will be recorded for all trees in the fixed plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer),
and grid location. For random plots, species and height will be recorded for all woody stems. The location
(GPS coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will be identified in the annual monitoring reports.
Vegetation will be planted and plots established at least 180 days prior to the initiation of the first year of
monitoring. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between July 1st and leaf drop. Invasive and
noxious species will be monitored so that none become dominant or alter the desired community
structure of the Site. If necessary, a species-specific treatment plan will be developed.
9.7 SCHEDULE AND REPORTING
A baseline monitoring report with as-built drawings will be submitted within 60 days of planting
completion. The report will include all information required by DMS mitigation plan guidelines, including
elevations, photographs and sampling lot locations, gage locations, and a list of the species planted and
associated densities. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include species, height, date of planting, and grid
location of each stem. The baseline report will follow the most current DMS As-Built Baseline Monitoring
Report Template found on the DMS website, USACE guidelines, and the October 2017 Mitigation Credit
Calculation Memo.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the success of
the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until final success criteria
are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS by
December 1. These reports will be based on the DMS Annual Monitoring Template (June 2017). While
monitoring reports will be completed annually, not all monitoring reports will include the same
information. All monitoring reports will include at least a brief narrative of site developments, a
representative photo log, and a Current Condition Plan View (CCPV). Further monitoring measurements
are detailed in the following sections.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 41 February 2023
Table 18. Site Monitoring Components
Parameter Method Quantity Frequency Notes
Dimension
Riffle Cross
Sections 14 Year 1, 2, 3, 5 and
7 1
Pool Cross Sections 13
Pattern Pattern All restored channels Year 0
2
Profile Longitudinal Profile All restored channels Year 0
Surface Water Hydrology Continuous Stage
Recorder 7 surface water gages Semi-Annual
3
Groundwater Hydrology Groundwater
Gages 11 gages Semi-Annual
Vegetation Fixed Plots 30 Year 1, 2, 3, 5 and
7 4 Random Plots 26
Invasive and Noxious
Vegetation Visual Annual 5
Site Boundary Visual Annual 6
Reference Photos Photographs 298 Annual 7

Notes:
1. Cross-sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected
during as-built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate lack of stability and profile survey
is warranted in additional years.
3. Continuous stage recorders will be inspected quarterly to semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be
documented with a photo when possible. Transducers will be set to record stage once every hour.
4. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for the
open areas planted. 2% of the open planted acreage will be monitored with permanent plots and mobile plots.
Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation
monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100m2
square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed.
5. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
6. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
7. Reference photos include: upstream and downstream photos at every cross-section, one photo at every surface
water and groundwater gage, upstream and downstream photo at each easement break, and photos from all
cardinal directions at each vegetation plot.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 42 February 2023
Table 19. Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams X X X X X
Wetlands X X X X X X X
Vegetation X X X X X
Visual
Assessment X X X X X X X
Report
Submittal X X X X X X X

10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Adaptive management at the Site will include an Adaptive Management Remedial Action Plan (AMRAP),
which will provide detailed steps to address how potential problems identified during project
development will be resolved to ensure project success through the achievement of ecological
performance standards. Routine maintenance should be expected, particularly in the first two years post-
construction and may include the measures detailed in Appendix I. If the Site fails to achieve the defined
performance standards, an AMRAP will be developed in coordination with NC DMS and the IRT. Remedial
action required will be designed to achieve the success criteria previously specified and will include the
identification and causes of the failure, actions to remedy the failure, schedule to implement the actions,
and monitoring criteria. Most minor issues will be identified during annual post-construction monitoring
and site inspections. Minor issues that requiring small scale corrective actions include supplemental
planting and management of invasive species.
Anticipated project maintenance at the Site includes herbaceous vegetation control and addressing any
areas that do not meet native woody species density due to seedling mortality during the first two years
of establishment. Maintenance of groundwater gages and continuous stage recorders is anticipated
during the post-construction monitoring period. The easement boundary will be marked by signage and
will be monitored until project closeout. Identification of problems with project infrastructure during post-
construction monitoring and site inspections will help address minor issues and help to prevent gaps in
monitoring data.
Major issues discovered requiring large scale corrective measures include, but are not limited to, re-
grading of the Site, repair, or reinstallation of stream structures, replanting more than 20% of the site to
improve species composition or diversity, or the addition of additional stabilization structures. The
AMRAP will follow Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 43 February 2023
Should issues arise during site monitoring and inspections that may affect project success and
performance standards, NC DMS and the IRT will be notified of the need for an AMRAP. Once the plan has
been prepared, the following actions will occur:
· USACE will be notified as required by NWP 27 general conditions
· NCDWR will be notified of Section 401 conditions, as necessary
· Performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements will be
modified as required by USACE
· Obtain any additional required permits
· Submit the AMRAP for IRT review and approval
· Implement the AMRAP
· Provide NC DMS/IRT an as-built of remedial actions
11.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program (or 3rd party if approved). This party shall
serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is
established. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the non-
reverting, interest- bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the
Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest
gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship
administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The Stewardship Program will periodically install
signage as needed to identify warranted boundary markings.
12.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
The mitigation credits presented in Table 1 and Table 2 are projections based upon site soils, topography,
stream characteristics, and existing and proposed hydrologic conditions and designs. Upon completion of
the as-built survey, the project components and credits data will be revised, if necessary, with
explanations of how and why any adjustments occurred. As-built stream linear footage will be based on
surveyed stream center lines for credit calculations. Stream Restoration is requested at a ratio of 1:1,
Stream Enhancement I is requested at a ratio of 1.5:1. Wetland Reestablishment is requested at a ratio of
1:1 and Wetland Rehabilitation is requested at a ratio of 1.5:1. No credits are being sought for
Enhancement II, as the buffer area will not meet the 50-foot requirement on the right bank, and no credits
are being sought for the enhancement of existing wetland areas. All proposed buffers meet, and in most
cases exceed, the minimum 50-foot requirement for Piedmont streams. Appendix J contains a credit
release schedule and financial assurance documentation is provided in Appendix K.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Final Draft Mitigation Plan for IRT Review
DMS Project No. 100151 44 February 2023
13.0 REFERENCES
Fischenich, C., 2001. Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials.
Harman, W. A., and C. J. Jones. "Functional Lift Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in
North Carolina: Data Collection and Analysis Manual. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh,
NC." Functional Life Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in North Carolina Data
Collection and Analysis Manual Page i (2016): 4. Harman, W. A., and C. J. Jones. "Functional Lift
Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in North Carolina: Data Collection and Analysis
Manual. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC." Functional Life Quantification Tool for Stream
Restoration Projects in North Carolina Data Collection and Analysis Manual Page i (2016): 4.
Harman, William A., Gregory D. Jennings, Jan M. Patterson, Dan R. Clinton, Louise O. Slate, Angela G.
Jessup, J. Richard Everhart, and Rachel E. Smith. "Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for
North Carolina streams." AWRA Wildland Hydrology Proceedings (1999): 401-408.
Lotspeich, R. Russell. Regional curves of bankfull channel geometry for non-urban streams in the Piedmont
physiographic province, Virginia. U. S. Geological Survey, 2009.
Lowther, Brian Christopher. "Stream Channel Geomorphology Relationships for North Carolina Piedmont
Reference Reaches." (2008).
Matthews, E.R., Peet, R.K. and Weakley, A.S., 2011. Classification and description of alluvial plant
communities of the Piedmont region, North Carolina, USA. Applied Vegetation Science, 14(4),
pp.485-505.
NCDEQ (North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality). NC Surface Water Classifications. Accessed
March 30, 2020. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications
Rosgen, David L. "A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate." In Proceedings of the
Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, vol. 1. 2001.
Rosgen, David L. "A classification of natural rivers." Catena 22, no. 3 (1994): 169-199.
Schafale, Michael P. Guide to the natural communities of North Carolina: fourth approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2012.
Wakeley, J. S., R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. "Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland
delineation manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain region. Version 2.0." ERDC/EL TR-10-20 (2010).

¯Figure 1
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
Vicinity Map
NCDMS Project #: 100151531 N Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
§¨¦77
§¨¦95
§¨¦485
§¨¦85 §¨¦73
§¨¦95
Morven, NC
McFarlan, NC
Wadesboro, NC
Mount Croghan, SC
State Rd 1003
Sta
t
e

H
w
y

7
4
2
S
t
a
t
e

H
w
y

7
4
2

S
St
a
t
e

R
d

1
1
1
4
State Rd 1120
State R
d

1
1
1
0
Bethe
l

R
d
11
2
3
Pv
t

D
r
St
a
t
e

H
w
y

7
4
2
5 Miles
0 2.5 51.25 Miles
Legend
o Airports
Project Site Tracts
Project Area 5-mi Buffer
NHD Waterbody
Populated Places
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed¯0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
Legend
Parent Tract
Proposed Easement
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
NCDMS Project #: 100151
0 800400
Feet
0 0.10.05
Mi
±Figure 3 Landowner Map
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
Anson County, NC
Legend
Parent Tract
Proposed Easement
Data Retrieved From: http://www.co.anson.nc.us/252/GIS-Data-Downloads NCDMS Project #100151
RTB ASSOCIATES
PARCEL NO. 64600745113
AREA = 245.29 ACRES
RTB ASSOCIATES LLC
PARCEL NO. 646000760123
ACRES = 91.23
RTB ASSOCIATES LLC
PARCEL NO. 647000042754
ACRES = 100.95
0 1,000500
Feet
0 0.250.13
Mi
±
Data Retrieved From: www.mrlc.gov/data
Figure 4 Land Use Map
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
Anson County, NC
NCDMS Project #:100151
Legend
Parent Tract
NC Land Cover
Unclassified
Open Water
Perennial Snow/Ice
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Medium Intensity
Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub/Scrub
Herbaceous
Hay/Pasture
Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
Cultivated Crop Poly
Proposed Easement
ChA
EmB
ChA
EmB
NgC
NsB
BaC
AeB
TaB
BaB
CmA
EmB
CaB
AeB
NgC
NgC
EmB
AeB
PnB
GeB2
NsB
BgD
AeB
CeC2
AeB
NaB
NsB
GoE
EmB
MrB
ToA
MrB
TaB
EmB
BaC
EmC
AeB
BaC
EmB
NsB
BaC
EmC
NsB
EmB
ChA
NsB
NsB
BaC
TgC
AeC
BaC
CeB2
W
EmB
EmB
BgD
MrB
NsB
BgD
AeB
AeB
AeB
NsB
ToA
NgC
EmC
AeC
CaB
NgC
EmB
AeC
UdC
PnB
AeB
AeB
BaB
MrB
W
W
TgC
W
AeB
VaB
PnB
GoE
TaB
PnB
LgC
DoA
EmB
W
W
AeB
EmB
EmC
PnB
NsB
AeC
AeB
PnB
CeB2
TgC
W
TaB
W
NsB
W EmB
NgC
PnB
TaB
W
NsB ¯0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
Figure 5
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
NRCS Soil Survey Map
NCDMS Project #:100151
Legend
Parent Tract
Proposed Easement
0 3,0001,500
Feet
0 0.50.25
Mi
±Figure 6 Historical Aerials Map
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
Anson County, NC
1994 2005
2013 2019
Legend
Parent Tract
NCDMS Project #: 100151
Data Retrieved From: Google Earth
0 990495
Feet
0 0.140.07
Mi
±Figure 7 FEMA Map
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
Anson County, NC
Legend
Parent Tract
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Tributary Catchments
Proposed Easement
NCDMS Project #: 100151Data Retrieved From: fris.nc.gov
Trib 1A
DA Trib 1C
DA
Trib 1B
DA
Trib 2
DA
Trib 3
DA
Trib 4
DA
Trib 5
DA
Trib 6
DA
0 1,000500
Feet
0 0.20.1
Mi
±Figure 8 LiDAR Map
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
Anson County, NC
Legend
Parent Tract
Proposed Easement
LiDAR
Elevation (feet)
Low: 275
High: 565
Data Retrieved From: https://sdd.nc.gov/NCDMS Project #: 100151
NC CGIA, Maxar ¯0 490 980245 Feet
Legend
Parent Tracts
Proposed Easement
Existing Wetlands
Drainage Tiles
Tile/Ditch Outlet
Stream Form Locations
XS Locations
Stream Type
Intermittent Stream
Existing Ditch
Perennial Stream
Figure 9 Existing Conditions Map
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
NCDMS Project #: 100151
Existing
Tributary 1A
Existing
Tributary 2
Existing
Tributary 4
Existing
Tributary 5
Existing
Tributary 6
Existing South Fork Jones Creek
Existing
Tributary 1B
Existing
Tributary 1C Existing
Tributary 3
Existing
Headcut
Existing
Groundwater Seep
Existing Headcut
Existing Headcut
Existing Drainage
Tiles and Ditch (see left Inset)
Series of
Existing
Headcuts
Existing Drainage
Tiles and Ditches (see right Inset)
Existing Ditch
XS 1
XS 2
XS 3
XS 4
XS 5
XS 6
XS 7
XS 8
XS 9
XS 10
XS 12
XS 11
WB
WA WD
WC
WE
WP
WOWN
WF
WM WI
WW
WJ
WK
WR
WS
WH
WU
WL
WV
WT
WG
Gulledge Road
NC CGIA, Maxar Existing 24in RCP
Existing 24in RCP
Existing 60in RCP
NC CGIA, Maxar, Microsoft
WF
WO
WN
Locations of drainage tiles are approximated/reconstructed
based on field evidence and discussions with Landowner
0 2,0001,000
Feet
0 0.30.15
Mi
±Figure 10 National Wetlands Inventory Map
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
Anson County, NC
Legend
Parent Tract
Wetland Type
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Riverine
Proposed EasementData Retrieved From: www.fws.gov NCDMS Project #: 100151
NC CGIA, Maxar
¯0 650 1,300325 Feet
Legend
Project Site Tracts
Proposed Restoration
Channel
Proposed Restoration
Centerline
Proposed
Enhancement 1
South Fork Jones
Proposed Easement
Constructed
Treatment Marsh
Wetland Re-
Establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Proposed Road
Reroute
Site_Boundary
Existing Wetlands
Proposed Wetland A Re-Establishment
Figure 11 Proposed Mitigation Plan
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
NCDMS Project #: 100151
Existing South Fork Jones Creek
NC CGIA, Maxar, Microsoft
50'
See
Inset Map
Start of
Tributary 1A - Lower
Restoration Reach
(First 25ft Non-Credit)
Start of
Proposed
Tributary 2
Constructed Treatment Marsh
Start of Proposed Tributary 6
Below Existing Wetland
Start of Proposed
Tributary 5 at Headcut
Start of Proposed
Tributary 1C at Headcut Start of Proposed
Tributary 1B at Headcut
Proposed Wetland B
Re-Establishment
Start of Proposed Tributary 3
Below Existing Wetland
Proposed
Tributary 3
Remove Existing Soil
Road Crossing
Tributary 1A - Upper
(Non-credit Reach)
Proposed Rehabilitation of
Existing Wetland C
Proposed Rehabilitation of
Existing Wetland D
Add new road crossing and
48" CPP upstream of
conservation easement
Proposed Road Reroute
NC CGIA, Maxar
¯
0 475 950237.5 Feet
Figure 12 Proposed Monitoring Plan
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
NCDMS Project #: 100151
Legend
Weather Station
Groundwater Gauge
Continuous Stage
Recorder
Vegetation Plot-
Random
Vegetation Plot - Fixed
Permanent
Monumented Cross
Sections
Proposed Easement
Wetland Re-
Establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Proposed Enhancement
1
Proposed Restoration
Centerline
Proposed Restoration
Channel
Existing Tributary 1A -
Upper
Tributary 1A - Upper
(Non-credit Reach)
Tributary 1A - Lower
Tributary 1C
Tributary 1B
Tributary 2
Tributary 3
Tributary 4
Tributary 5
Tributary 6
Wetland A
Wetland BWetland C Wetland D
Photographs: Fixed image locations will exist at each cross section,
vegetation plot, stage recorder, groundwater well, and easement break.
Vegetation plots: Each vegetation plot will be 100 square meters. In
addition to the 30 fixed plots, there will be 26 random vegetation plots,
for a total of 56 plots utilized for vegetative success. Random plots will
be vary in location from year to year.
Total Planted Area: 59.07 Acres
Chesterfield County
Anson County
Marlboro County
Richmond County
Stanly County
Darlington County
Union County
Montgomery County Moore County
Kershaw County
Scotland County
Dillon County
Lee County
Cabarrus County
Lancaster County
030402010202
Figure 13 Hydrologic Location
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
NCDMS Project #: 100151
Legend
Project Site
Targeted Local Watershed
Non-Targeted Local Watershed
Lakes
Project Local Watershed
Middendorf Springs
Wetland & Stream Restoration
Site Location
¯0 4 82 Miles
Figure 14 - Tributary 5 Contour Analysis
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
Anson County, NC
NCDMS Project #: 100151
33
0
326
32
9
321
33
9
32
1
322329
3203
2
2
325
321
3
2
1
323
3
2
5
342
3
2
1
330
322
325
320
321
32
0
343
329
327
3423
4
1
340
337
33
9
338
336
335 333
334
32
0
332
331
330
329 324
3
2
1
327
323
328
326
32
5
32
2
NC CGIA, Maxar
Zoomed in area
around Tributary 5
Existing channelized
ditch running through
locally convex contours
Legend
Proposed Tributary 5
Alignment
1ft Contours
Tributary 5 Survey
Contours
Profile
±
0 40 80
Feet
Natural valley flowpath
following concave contours
Moore County GIS(NC), Esri, HERE,Garmin, FAO, NOAA,USGS, EPA, Esri, USGS
Note darker areas indicating
saturation of low groundA
A'
Low ridge between natural
valley and SFJones Creek
Natural valley low point
NC CGIA, Maxar
¯
0 400 800200 Feet
Figure 15 Existing Wetlands Impact Map
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Project
NCDMS Project #: 100151
Legend
Constructed Treatment
Marsh
Existing Wetland
Permanent Impact
Existing Wetland
Temporary Impact - To
Be Planted
Proposed Restored
Wetland - To Be Planted
Existing Wetland No
Impact
Parent Tracts
Proposed Easement
South Fork Jones

Appendix A

IRT Meeting Minutes

MEETING MINUTES

PROJECT: Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
NAME OF MEETING: Post-Contract IRT Site Visit
RECORDED BY: Ian Jewell, Bryan Dick
DATE: June 8, 2020
LOCATION: Middendorf Springs Site, Anson County, NC
ATTENDEES: Todd Tugwell (USACE) Erin Davis (NCDEQ-DWR)
Travis Wilson (NCWRC) Olivia Munzer (NCWRC)
Pau Wiesner (NCDEQ- DMS)
Kelly Phillips (NCDEQ- DMS)
Matthew Reid (NCDEQ-DMS)
Bryan Dick (FNI)
Ian Jewell (FNI)

The following reflects our understanding of the items discussed during the subject meeting.

ITEM DESCRIPTION
1. DMS started with introductions and overarching description of site.
2.
FNI provided detailed overview of site, including description of underlying geology. Noted
that the site sits at the intersection of sandhills Middendorf formation and slate belt meta-
argillite formation, which is hypothesized to be the cause of numerous springs and seeps on
site and presence of perennial flow in relatively small headwater streams. Option B in
proposal is selected Option, which represents 13,000 stream mitigation units and 5 riparian
wetland mitigation units. Described current impairment and impacts to streams and water
quality.
3. DMS opened up discussion to general questions before site tour began.
4.
NCDWR asked why one option listed restoration for all streams while another option listed
enhancement for all streams. If enhancement is possible why restore? FNI indicated that the
restoration approach to the streams was considered the best approach for full ecological
uplift of the site, due to current level of degradation. Enhancement option was provided
because it was uncertain whether IRT would agree with full need for restoration, so the
option was given to provide flexibility in viewpoints. However, FNI believes based on its best
scientific judgement and analysis of current conditions, that restoration on all reaches (with
exception of Tributary 1B and 1C) is necessary.
5.
Question was asked by DWR as to why only one side of Tributary 1A(upper) was being
proposed for protection in the Conservation Easement. Bryan responded because landowner
only owns one side of the stream and because FNI wanted to provide connectivity between
the restored reach of Tributary 1A(lower) and Tributary 1B and 1C. No credit is being
proposed for the connecting reach on which only one side is available.
6.
USACE and NCDWR stated there was confusion in proposal about what the proposed
wetland saturation/hydroperiod threshold would be for the project. In one place the
proposal indicated 5% but the established threshold in the 2016 “Wilmington District Stream
and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update” is 10% to 12% for Chewacla soils. FNI
indicated that they intent is to follow the 2016 guidelines for the threshold, so the 5% is
incorrect.
Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Post Contract IRT Site Visit
June 8, 2020
Page 2 of 3

ITEM DESCRIPTION
7.
Question was asked by DWR about the width and number of proposed crossings. They would
like to only see one crossing and indicated that it must be less than the proposed 80’. They
would like to see it get down to 30’ to 40’ in width. Bryan (FNI) explain that the crossing was
made this wide due to past experience with farmers not being able to get large combine
headers through a crossing without impact to conservation easement. However, FNI will
discuss with landowners about reducing the width down to 40’ to 60’.
8.
USACE indicated that they need to further investigate potential discharges of dredged
and/or fill materials into Waters of the US, including wetlands and streams. Such discharges
may be an unauthorized activity under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Information related to the site investigation has been forwarded to Scott Jones with the
Asheville USACE office. They asked for contact information for the landowner. FNI will
provide this.
9. DWR indicated that they would like to see a buffer on South Fork Jones Creek if possible.
10. For the sake of time, it was agreed that tour of the site would look at representative reaches
and wetland areas rather than all streams on the site.
11.
Tour began at upstream end of Tributary 6. Based on review, USACE agreed that restoration
approach could be justified here based on level of impairment. USACE asked about the
transition from upstream where the tributary begins to the start of proposed restoration,
and how the transition to a raised streambed would occur. FNI indicated that a flatter slope
would be designed in the channel from the start of restoration until the Priority I elevation
was achieved, which would require a short stretch of Priority II.
12.
DWR indicated that wood structures would be preferred. Bryan explained that wood sills
would be the primary form of structure used for grade control and to create dynamic
bedform in the channel.
13.
Tour continued to downstream end of Tributary 6. USACE noted that the flattening of the
slope at the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain might create a challenge for maintaining a
defined steam channel for the restored tributaries and may result in reduction of stream
credits where the stream transitions into a wetland system. The relatively small watersheds
and low slope within the South Fork Jones Creek floodplain may be problematic regarding
sediment accumulation in the lower reach. It may be acceptable to maintain streams during
the first few monitoring two monitoring years but should not be maintained after this time
to allow for evidence of wetland conversion prior to project closeout. DWR asked if similar
systems/reference systems could be examined across South Fork Jones Creek or elsewhere.
Bryan indicated that there are likely similar systems nearby both in North and South Carolina
and FNI will examine these during design for reference conditions. In addition, the ditches
observed at the lower end of Tributary 6 and associated drain tiles may be a potentially
unauthorized activity under Section 404 of the CWA.
14.
Tour continued upstream along Tributaries 5 and 4 and stopped at upstream end of
Tributary 4b. Question was asked by DWR and NCWRC about why restoration started
downstream of road when defined channel continues upstream of road. FNI explained that
the channel upstream was dry when investigated in the fall of 2019 while the baseflow
indicators seemed to start immediately below the road. USACE indicated a jurisdictional
determination will be important to establish the origin point of jurisdictional status for all
tributaries and help define appropriate starting point for restoration. USACE was concerned
about impacts on restored channel if upstream channel left unprotected. DWR indicated
that a wetland or marsh treatment could be used to help treat and filter nutrients prior to
entering conservation easement and should be considered.
Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Post Contract IRT Site Visit
June 8, 2020
Page 3 of 3

ITEM DESCRIPTION
15. Tour continued to upstream end of Tributary 1 and followed downstream to proposed
wetland restoration area.
16. Question was asked by USACE and DWR about widening the buffers due to numerous seeps
and side springs adjacent to the stream. They would like to see buffer widened if possible.
17.
At proposed wetland restoration area, USACE indicated that they would like to see a buffer
of the wetland, rather than wetland being the edge of the easement. Also should connect
easement of wetland area to stream easement, rather than it being disconnected.
18.
USACE indicated that jurisdictional determination of wetlands on site will be needed to
establish rehabilitation versus reestablishment approach to the wetland restoration. If
significant impact is shown to wetland from tiling and draining and re-establishment is
proposed, then will need gage data and establishment of water budget to show restoration
of hydrology.
19.
DWR indicated that with rehabilitation, will need to see description of existing function and
proposed function. Pre-construction function will need to be established with gage data. Any
areas proposed for possible alternative wetland restoration areas would also need
establishment of function through gages as well, so should install gages wherever we want
to have option to propose wetland restoration.
20.
Todd with USACE indicated that he thought wetland restoration area would be majority 1:1
credit ratio however any wetland areas upstream of Tributaries 4 and 5 would be a lower
credit ratio. USACE felt downstream wetland areas have a lot of potential for uplift.
21.
Tour continued to Tributaries 1B and 1C, which are upstream of Tributary 1A. After viewing
these streams, USACE and DWR were concerned that Enhancement Level I wasn’t fully
justified for these reaches but indicated that FNI would need to provide good
documentation and justification of proposed approach. USACE indicated that at tie-in point
of Tributary 1B with Tributary 1A, 1B should not run parallel with 1A since this approach has
created problems in the past. Both USACE and DWR indicated that minimal sinuosity would
appropriate for these reaches.
22.
WRC asked where material to fill abandoned channels would come from. FNI indicated that
material would be found on-site, primarily from areas lateral to the channel and from
excavation of new channels. FNI will examine the fill and determine if it suitable for this use.
23.
DWR and WRC encourage monitoring of streamflow on site. USACE will require
documentation of streamflow by gages or camera. WRC suggested using game cameras as a
visual monitoring device for presence of baseflow. FNI indicated they had a couple of these
at the site and would likely add more.

MEETING MINUTES

PROJECT: Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
NAME OF MEETING: Middendorf Springs USACE/DMS/ Freese and Nichols Discussion of
Project Next Steps following USACE Investigation
RECORDED BY: Ian Jewell, Bryan Dick
DATE: February 26, 2021
LOCATION: Virtual Meeting
ATTENDEES: Todd Tugwell (USACE) Scott Jones(USACE)
Kim Browning (USACE)
Paul Wiesner (NCDEQ- DMS)
Kelly Phillips (NCDEQ- DMS)
Ian Jewell (FNI)
Casey Haywood (USACE)
Matthew Reid (NCDEQ-DMS)
Bryan Dick (FNI)

The following reflects our understanding of the items discussed during the subject meeting.

ITEM DESCRIPTION
1.
Todd (USACE) began with update on results of their investigation:
o USACE had meeting on site with the landowners.
o USACE identified several unauthorized activities on the property:
· Wetlands:
o Landowners worked with NRCS, had worked with Forester.
o It is not clear to USACE what NRCS had reviewed on site.
o The Landowner’s standpoint is they thought they had done what they
needed to do with the wetlands on site.
· Streams:
o From USACE’s review, the correspondence between landowners and
NRCS didn’t deal with streams as much as it did with wetlands.
o USACE stated that if you straighten or ditch stream channels that
requires a permit.
o USACE didn’t see anything in permit that gave landowner’s permission
to do what they did in the streams.
o USACE reviewed all the tributaries and had the following findings:
 It was less clear that Tributaries 2, 3, 4 and 5 would have been
jurisdictional prior to work on property.
 Looking at it from the standpoint of unauthorized activity:
USACE wants to limit their remedial actions to tributaries that
they can say were subject to their jurisdiction at the time of the
activities.

2.
Todd stated that the way to move the project forward and to resolve a potential violation is
to make remedial actions part of the mitigation project. Otherwise, it would be a lot more
complicated to try to get the landowners to resolve it working with the USACE.
o USACE’s solution: adjust credit ratios to account for the impact that occurred.
o FNI will need to go back and have conversation with landowner. Todd said that it is
important that landowner knows they have to make some compromises.
Middendorf Springs USACE/DMS/ Freese and Nichols Discussion of Project Next Steps following USACE
Investigation
February 26, 2021
Page 2 of 3

ITEM DESCRIPTION
o USACE wants to make this a viable project.

3.
USACE discussed potential adjustments for mitigation plan:
Streams:
o Reduced Credit Ratio on Tributary 1A lower and Tributary 6
o Tributaries 2, 3, 4 and 5 could still be considered to be viable as mitigation streams
at the ratios that were originally proposed.

Wetlands:
o Todd stated that it is a little less clear that, because of past correspondence with
NRCS, there is a violation with the wetlands, so it is hard to make an enforcement
case.
o It is possible to extend the buffer along South Fork Jones Creek to accommodate the
additional wetland areas, this would be sufficient to address any clearing concerns
within that area.
o Within the buffer along the bottom- the buffer can come off the property line
(centerline of South Fork Jones Creek) and be extended 50' off the bank and include
the wetland areas on the project and connect the tributaries.
o The buffer along South Fork Jones Creek should start west of Proposed Wetland 1
and continue along floodplain to Tributary 6. This would tie it in and make it a single
complete buffer that would tie into South Fork Jones Creek.
o USACE feels like there has to be an accounting for the clearing activity and that the
reduced ratio addresses this.
o USACE won’t dictate a reduced ratio. They want FNI to discuss this with landowners
and come back with a proposal for what reduction they would have.

4.
o Todd stated that while the simplest approach to the streams is a credit reduction on
Tributaries 1A lower and 6, there could also be a proposal that talks about widening
buffer on the streams instead of a reduced credit ratio.
o He stated that there needs to be meaningful change in ratio that accounts for
change in function i.e., functional loss from landowner’s activity versus uplift from
the restoration.
5.
Paul (NCDMS) asked whether it would be possible to use the "buffer method" to expand
buffer to get additional credit on site, so that is a way to equal the credit adjustment as well.

Todd said he was fine with this:
o Can use the buffer tool to resolve the difference in credit ratio.
o However, if you proposed wider buffers, they would consider this regardless of the
tool calculation results.
o USACE said they like the idea of making wider buffer on Tributary 1A and on South
Fork Jones Creek.
o They believe there's a lot of value to protecting floodplain regardless of whether
they are wetland, as well as protecting the extra wetland down there, so they would
consider this is part of the package.
6.
Scott (USACE) said he wanted to re-emphasize what Todd said: based on what they looked at
on site, there is a really great opportunity to grow wetlands along the floodplain and create
uplift in those wetlands.
Middendorf Springs USACE/DMS/ Freese and Nichols Discussion of Project Next Steps following USACE
Investigation
February 26, 2021
Page 3 of 3

ITEM DESCRIPTION

7.
Bryan (FNI) said he believes landowners will be amenable to a widened buffer on Tributary
1A lower, because of steep sandy soils on west bank and also with widened buffer on
floodplain and widened valley flat of South Fork Jones Creek.
8.
Todd said one thing he will mention as part of the overall proposal is that having some type
of BMP, such as a constructed wetland BMP, that starts at the top of these tributaries would
also give a big benefit.
o This would act as a sediment sink to help treat some of the agricultural runoff and
herbicides etc.
9. Paul mentioned that Kim said they (USACE) have a new buffer tool, as a heads up that FNI
can use that tool.
10.
Paul said that, from a contract standpoint they can't re-negotiate the contracted cost per
credit. FNI can come up with a adjusted contract value based on reduced total credits but
can’t propose a reduced cost per stream and wetland credit.

Paul also stated that if FNI can’t live with the adjustments, then they would have to kill the
contract and put it back out to RFP.
11. Paul said that the next step is for FNI to talk to the landowners, see where they stand,
generate a proposal and then have a follow-up discussion.
12. Todd said that DMS/FNI can email proposal to them for review, or they can have another
call.
13. FNI will put a proposal together, send it over to Paul and his team first, then they will work
on setting up a follow-up meeting with Corps.
14. Todd clarified that the IRT will not be involved in this proposal review since this is a violation
resolution.
15.
Todd also stated that when we get to the mitigation plan development stage, FNI/DMS will
need to spell out in the mitigation plan that there is a history to this site that involves past
activities, and this needs to be taken into account and explained in the document.

531 N. Liberty St., + Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 + 336-790-6744 + FAX [phone]

TO: Todd Tugwell; Scott Jones (USACE)
CC: Paul Wiesner, Matthew Reid, Kelly Phillips (NCDEQ- Division of Mitigation
Services)
FROM: Bryan Dick, PhD, PE, PH; Ian Jewell (Freese & Nichols, Inc.)
SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
in response to Unauthorized Activities
DATE: 4/23/2021
PROJECT: Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration (DMS Project # 100151)

The purpose of this brief memorandum is to outline proposed revisions to the Middendorf Springs Stream
and Wetland Restoration site concept originally presented in a proposal to NC Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) on November 4, 2019 and reviewed by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) at a site
meeting on June 8, 2020. In an investigation conducted by the USACE following the IRT site meeting, the
USACE believes that unauthorized activities by the landowner had occurred in relation to the stream
channels on the site. At a meeting between USACE, NCDMS and FNI on February 26, 2021, the USACE
requested that FNI meet with the landowners to discuss potential modifications to the concept that would
provide increased uplift of the site to compensate for the drop in uplift from alleged unauthorized
activities. Specifically, the USACE stated that a reduced credit ratio could be proposed on Tributaries 1A
Lower and Tributary 6 or, alternatively, a combination of widened buffers, buffering along South Fork
Jones Creek as well as other improvements to the site could be used to provide the ecological uplift
needed to offset impacts to ecological function as a result of alleged unauthorized activities by the
landowners.

After having met with the landowners and evaluating potential for uplift from various activities, FNI
proposes the following modifications to the proposed restoration based on landowner concessions.
These modifications can also be seen on Exhibit 1, attached. It should be noted that the concessions made
below are not an admission of liability or agreement by the landowners with the findings of the USACE
that impacts were not authorized. Rather, the landowners agree that making substantial concessions as
outlined below is in the greatest interest of all parties:

1. A minimum 50’ wide buffer will be established along the entire length of South Fork Jones Creek
through the landowner’s property for a distance of approximately 8,500 feet, ending in the east
at NC Highway 742. This will be included in the proposed conservation easement.
· The buffer will extend from the top of bank of South Fork Jones Creek, to be confirmed
by site survey (approximate location shown on Exhibit 1).
· This buffer will provide protection of one side of this large stream as well as create a
wildlife corridor through the property connected with the other easement areas.
· This will also protect large swaths of hydric soils along the floodplain which will be planted
along with the other wetland restoration areas originally proposed.
· A perimeter ditch that runs alongside the edge of the property will be plugged to restore
hydrology to this area.
www.freese.com
MEMORANDUM
Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration- Proposed Modifications
April 14, 2021
Page 2 of 6

· Since additional areas of buffer along South Fork Jones Creek are protected as part of this
corrective action and not considered as credit-generating, we would propose these areas
follow the normal visual and qualitative monitoring protocols of a typical restoration in
response to a Notice of Violation (NOV), rather than the full monitoring protocols outlined
in the 2016 Mitigation Guidelines from the Wilmington District.
· Similarly, we propose to treat the non-credit portions of the South Fork Jones Creek buffer
with one round of invasive treatment and management of hardwoods. These areas would
be delineated from the credit-generating portions of the buffer in the mitigation plan.
2. A buffer will also be established around the proposed wetland cell to the west of Tributary 1, in
order to provide increased protection of the large area of hydric soils present in that area and
provide greater uplift overall to the riparian wetland restoration cell.
3. Portions of the conservation easement of Tributary 1A- Lower will be widened above what was
originally proposed to protect several large seeps and hillside areas. Specifically, the western side
of Tributary 1 will be widened to approximately 110 feet from proposed top of bank of the
restored stream while the eastern side will be widened by approximately 68 feet (from originally
proposed 55 feet) to encompass a large seep (labeled “Seep 1” on attached Exhibit 1).
4. Portions of Tributary 3 will also be widened to encompass a large Seep (“Seep 2” on Exhibit 1)
which will provide enhanced protection of the seep habitats present on the site. These areas will
be planted with appropriate wetland vegetation to provide functional uplift of these areas.
5. Upstream of Tributary 4, a wetland stormwater control measure (SCM) will be constructed to help
filter nutrients and sediment prior to entering the restoration reach. This SCM will be located
inside the easement. This device was discussed at both he IRT site visit on June 8 and at the
February 26 meeting. In addition, the existing crossing at the head of Tributary 4 will be replaced
with an improved culvert crossing and the crossing will be moved upstream of the easement.
6. A large seep (“Seep 3”) will be protected within the easement of Tributary 5. It should be noted
that, on Exhibit 1, Tributary 5 is show in a different route than originally proposed. This is because
further site analysis has revealed that the low point of the valley of Tributary 5 runs east rather
than south, thus running the restored channel along this alignment will create increased uplift for
the floodplain area of South Fork Jones Creek and the restored Tributary 5, while also allowing
protection of Seep 3.
7. Tributary 6 will have some areas of widened buffer to protect small seeps and springs. In addition,
the originally proposed crossing, which was located mid-way down the proposed alignment, will
be eliminated and moved instead to upstream of the easement. In this way, there will be no
breaks in the easement. The proposed alignment of Tributary 6 has also been modified slightly
at the bottom to run along the low point of the valley, which was determined through further
analysis since the IRT site meeting.

A summary of these proposed modifications is included in Table 1 along with an approximate
quantification of the potential uplift from these changes. In addition, the original mitigation credit table
as originally proposed for “Option B” is included in Table 2 for reference and a revised mitigation credit is
shown in Table 3. The modifications to the proposed concept of the site, as listed above, presents a large
amount of concession from the landowners to provide uplift the site as an offset to any unauthorized
activity. In total, the landowners will be offering approximately 20 acres of additional easement to provide
uplift to the site. The items outlined above were specifically discussed during the February 26 meeting as
an alternative to a reduced credit ratio on Tributaries 1A lower and Tributary 6. Specifically, the protection
of large swaths of the floodplain of South Fork Jones Creek will provide protection of areas of hydric soils
and will provide a continuous wildlife corridor throughout the site. In addition, widening of buffers on
the site to protect seeps and springs will help with overall uplift. We believe this proposal provides a level
Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration- Proposed Modifications
April 14, 2021
Page 3 of 6

of uplift that more than compensates for any decrease in function on the site due to unauthorized
activities and will provide a greatly enhanced project overall.
Table 1. Summary of Quantification of Potential Uplift from Modifications to Mitigation Proposal
Modification Quantification of Uplift
50’ wide buffer will be established along the north side of the entire length of
South Fork Jones Creek through the landowner’s property
· Riparian buffer and hydric soils of approx. 8,500 feet of stream protected.
· Equivalent credits would be approximately 425 SMU (assuming a 10:1
credit ratio, for half the length of stream to account for one sided buffer;
however, no credits are being claimed for this reach, this just illustrates a
potential credit equivalency of uplift)
· Includes approximately 20 additional acres of easement above what was
originally proposed.
· Protects approximately 2 acres of additional hydric soil
Provide widened buffer around proposed Wetland Cell 1
· Protection of increased areas of hydric soils, with potential for increased
wetland establishment above proposed credits
· We made sure it encompassed a relict meander scroll from South Fork
Jones Creek which is ecologically significant.
Widening of portions of buffer of Tributary 1A- Lower
· Buffers widened to be approx. 70’ to 110’ for approx. 730’ of restored
channel.
· Equivalent to a 7% to 16% increase in credits for this length of channel*
Widening of portions of buffer of Tributary 3
· Buffer on widened to be approx. 100’ on one side for approximately 270’
of channel.
· Equivalent to a 6% increase in credits for this length of channel*
Construction of wetland SCM upstream of Tributary 4 · Reduction in nutrients and sediment from upstream managed hillslope
areas
Protection of seeps and springs along Tributaries 5 and 6
with widened buffer
· Protection of seep/spring habitat, wetlands, as well as source of water
input into restored tributaries
*Based on USACE Wilmington District’s “USACE Buffer Calculation Tool 20200904” provided by USACE on March 1, 2021.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration- Proposed Modifications
April 14, 2021
Page 5 of 6

Table 2. Original Credit Table from Proposed Option B
Reach/Wetland Name Restored Length/Acres Mitigation Type Ratio (X:1) Proposed Mitigation
Credits (SMU/WMU)
Tributary 1A – Upper* 1055 Enhancement Level II
(Low Uplift)
No Credit - Half Buffer
Property Line 0
Tributary 1A - Lower 2188 Restoration 1 2188
Tributary 1B 590 Enhancement Level I 1.5 393
Tributary 1C 698 Enhancement Level I 1.5 465
Tributary 2 2616 Restoration 1 2616
Tributary 3 2622 Restoration 1 2622
Tributary 4 996 Restoration 1 996
Tributary 5 912 Restoration 1 912
Tributary 6 2808 Restoration 1 2808
Riparian Wetland 1 4 Restoration 1 4 (Re-establishment)
Riparian Wetland 2 1 Restoration 1 1 (Re-establishment)
Option B Summary
Total Stream Mitigation Units: 13,000
Total Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units: 5
Extra SMU - Contingency 700
Extra WMU - Contingency 3
*Tributary 1A Upper was discussed at the IRT site meeting as having potential to generate credit, this will be discussed in the mitigation plan as potential
contingency credits.

Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration- Proposed Modifications
April 14, 2021
Page 6 of 6

Table 3. Proposed Revised Credit Table
Reach/Wetland Name Restored Length/Acres Mitigation Type Ratio (X:1) Proposed Mitigation
Credits (SMU/WMU)
Tributary 1A – Upper* 1055 Enhancement Level II
(Low Uplift)
No Credit - Half Buffer
Property Line 0
Tributary 1A - Lower 2036 Restoration 1 2036
Tributary 1B 590 Enhancement Level I 1.5 393
Tributary 1C 618 Enhancement Level I 1.5 412
Tributary 2 2554 Restoration 1 2554
Tributary 3 2536 Restoration 1 2536
Tributary 4 979 Restoration 1 979
Tributary 5 1172 Restoration 1 1172
Tributary 6 2918 Restoration 1 2918
Riparian Wetland 1 4 Restoration 1 4 (Re-establishment)
Riparian Wetland 2 1 Restoration 1 1 (Re-establishment)
Option B Summary
Total Stream Mitigation Units: 13,000
Total Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units: 5

*
*Amount listed is contracted amount with DMS, however an an approximate 206 additional stream mitigation units and
3 additional Wetland Mitigation Unit credits are believed to be potentially obtainable from the site. Final credit amounts
based on detailed design will be presented in the mitigation plan.
*
Invasive Treat
m
e
n
t

D
u
r
i
n
g

O
n
e
Growing Season
Invasive Treatment During
One Growing Season
Invasiv
e

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

D
u
r
i
n
g

O
n
e
Growing

S
e
a
s
o
n
Full Invasive Treatment
Full

I
n
v
a
s
i
v
e

T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
1
Ian Jewell
From:Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 4:39 PM
To:Wiesner, Paul; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA); Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc:Reid, Matthew; Phillips, Kelly D; Bryan Dick; Ian Jewell; Andrew Burleson
Subject:RE: Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (6-4-2021)
Attachments:Middendorf Springs_Proposed Project Modifications_Exhibit 1_Rev 6-4-21.pdf
This is an email from an EXTERNAL source. DO NOT click links or open attachments without positive sender verification
of purpose. Never enter USERNAME, PASSWORD or sensitive information on linked pages from this email.

Paul,

Scott and I have looked over the amended map/proposal (attached for reference) submitted by Freese & Nichols and
agree with the proposed changes. Based on this, you may continue with development of the mitigation plan for the site.
Please note that as discussed during our last call, the mitigation plan must still go through review by the NC Interagency
Review Team, who may have further questions or recommendations, so it is possible that additional changes may be
required as part of this review to ensure that the proposal meets the minimum acceptable standards for a site to be
suitable to provide compensatory mitigation for impacts authorized by Corps of Engineers permit authorizations.

Additionally, implementation of the mitigation plan (once reviewed and approved by the NCIRT) will satisfactorily
resolve the concerns associated with the unauthorized work within wetlands and waters conducted by the property
owners, Aaron and Andrew Burleson, who are copied on this email for their awareness. Please note that if NCDMS
chooses not to pursue the mitigation site, we will coordinate any further corrective actions necessary to resolve the
unauthorized work directly with the Burlesons.

When preparing the mitigation plan, please be sure to include a discussion of the history of the site, including a
description of the unauthorized activities carried out on the site and actions taken as part of the mitigation work to
resolve those concerns. This is important to document resolution of those unauthorized actions, and also to inform the
NCIRT of the situation during their review of the mitigation plan. A copy of this email should also be included with the
agency corresponded normally included with the mitigation plan.

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Todd Tugwell
Mitigation Project Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
[phone]

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fregulatory.ops.usace.army.mil%2Fcustomer-
service-
2
survey%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7CIan.Jewell%40freese.com%7C1f7602ea527e449def1d08d92abd7590%7C191657ea
bcff43859d04659ef9cee515%7C0%7C0%7C637587815537815220%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=Lzw1bydTtGIEJQArhmDAUPFB26lljFdPT
jEFb%2BDA3l4%3D&amp;reserved=0 Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2021 2:01 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Bryan Dick
<[e-mail]>; Ian Jewell <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf Springs Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site (6-4-2021)

Good afternoon,

Please find attached the amended map/ proposal from Freese and Nichols, Inc based on our 5/24/2021 Web Ex meeting.

Here is a summary of the changes:

o Buffer of South Fork Jones Creek now includes 50' from the tree line at all locations.
o Added a table showing the additional acres of easement added compared with the original proposal, by location
o Corrected the easement boundary at the upper end of the reaches to include the "arc" at the upstream end of the
buffer, as per the original proposal, and also revised to include the existing wetland on the west side of Tributary 2
o Added callouts indicating where we would propose reduced invasive treatment versus where we would manage
invasives during the full life of the monitoring period.

Please let us know if you have any questions, comments or concerns.

I can set up a brief meeting this week to discuss if that would be helpful.

Thanks

Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services

828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]

Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801

3
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 8:03 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Kim Browning <[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf
Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (4-26-2021)

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>

Paul, sorry for the delay on this. Scott and I spoke and think we need to have a call with the provider to discuss the
proposal. I've included Scott on this email chain. I am out of the office the rest of the week, but am free Monday,
Thursday, or Friday next week if that would work with everyone.
Thanks,
Todd

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 2:31 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf
Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (4-26-2021)

Todd, Casey and Kim;

Any update on Middendorf Springs? I know you all are in the field this week w/ credit release site visits.

Please let me know when you are back in the office. I can set up a meeting if that would be helpful.

Thanks

Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services

828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]

Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
4

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 12:54 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Ian Jewell <[e-mail]>; Bryan Dick
<[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf
Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (4-26-2021)

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>

Paul, sorry I have not gotten back to you yet on this. We are discussing this and will get back to you soon with a
response or possible meeting times.

Thanks,
Todd

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 5:01 PM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Ian Jewell <[e-mail]>; Bryan Dick
<[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151: Proposed Revisions to the Middendorf Springs Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site (4-26-2021)

Good afternoon Casey, Kim, Scott and Todd;

As discussed at our 2/26/2021 meeting, please find Freese and Nichols' revised credit proposal for the Middendorf
Springs project site in Anson County.

Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

We would like to set up an on-line meeting to discuss next steps for moving the project forward. If you all can provide a
couple dates and times for a follow-up meeting, I will work with our team to set it up via WebEx.
5

Thanks

Paul Wiesner

Western Regional Supervisor

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Division of Mitigation Services

828-273-1673 Mobile

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

Western DMS Field Office

5 Ravenscroft Drive

Suite 102

Asheville, N.C. 28801

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 4:46 PM
To: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Ian Jewell <[e-mail]>; Bryan Dick
<[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: DMS/ USACE/ FNI Site Visit Meeting Minutes (2-26-2021): Middendorf Springs_DMS# 100151

Good afternoon Casey, Kim, Scott and Todd;

6

Thank you for meeting us via Web-Ex on Friday 2/26/2021. Please find the meeting minutes attached.

Please let us know if you have any additions, questions, comments or concerns.

As noted in the minutes, we will set up another meeting once FNI has had time to discuss options with the landowner
and develop a proposal.

Thanks

Paul Wiesner

Western Regional Supervisor

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Division of Mitigation Services

828-273-1673 Mobile

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

Western DMS Field Office

5 Ravenscroft Drive

Suite 102

Asheville, N.C. 28801

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Appendix B

Site Protection Instrument

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 1 of 11

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
ANSON COUNTY

SPO File Number: DMS
Project Number: 100151

Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321

THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this day of , 2022, by RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC.,
(“Grantors”), whose mailing address is 28838 Kendall’s Church Rd., Richfield, NC 28137, to
the State of North Carolina, (“Grantee”), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina,
Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties,
their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or
neuter as required by context.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq., the State of
North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the protection
and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and
recreational opportunities; and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 2 of 11

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract Freese and Nichols, Inc. and
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to provide stream,
wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract Number 8012-01.

WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding,
(MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU recognized that the
Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory mitigation for authorized
impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring, enhancing and preserving
the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
entered into an agreement to continue the In-Lieu Fee operations of the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources’ Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement
Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces the previously
effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and

WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and

WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument;
and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 3 of 11

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being in
Gulledge Township, Anson County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being more
particularly described as those certain parcels of land containing approximately 463.26 acres
and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 13 at Page 322,
Deed Book 1037 at Page 206 and Deed Book 1026 at Page 1263 of the Anson County
Registry, North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the areas
of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and purposes
hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights. The
Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of an unnamed
tributary of Sandpit Branch.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement and Right of Access together with an access easement to and from the Conservation
Easement Area described below.

The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:

Easement Areas A and B containing a total of 73.08 acres as shown on the plats of survey
entitled “Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services, Middendorf Springs” SPO File No. , DMS Site No. 100151,
Current Owners: RTB Associates, LLC and DEB, LLC,” dated August 29, 2022 by Mark Parris,
PLS Number L-4529 and recorded in the Anson County, North Carolina Register of Deeds at
Plat Book Pages .

See attached “Exhibit A”, Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
“Conservation Easement Area”

The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic
habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Conservation
Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of
the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these
purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:

I. DURATION OF EASEMENT

Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor’s heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 4 of 11

II. ACCESS EASEMENT

Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee, its employees, agents, successors and
assigns, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and upon the Property at
all reasonable times and at such location as practically necessary to access the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein (“Access Easement”). This grant of easement shall
not vest any rights in the public and shall not be construed as a public dedication of the Access
Easement. Grantor covenants, represents and warrants that it is the sole owner of and is seized of
the Property in fee simple and has the right to grant and convey this Access Easement.

III. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area by
the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Any
rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived
from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the
Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:

A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational uses,
including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation Easement
Area for the purposes thereof.

B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey plat.

C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to engage
in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such purposes including
organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the
property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 5 of 11

D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded survey
plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or vegetation
that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or natural habitat,
all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.

E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and commercial
uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.

F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.

G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.

H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.

All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.

I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except interpretive
signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Conservation Easement
Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement,
signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area.

J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned
vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited.

K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock,
peat, minerals, or other materials.

L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering or
tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides i n the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage
of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may temporarily be
withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the Property.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 6 of 11

M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple (“fee”) that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee’s right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Prop erty to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.

N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.

O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non -
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.

The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.

IV. GRANTEE RESERVED USES

A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees, agents,
successors and assigns, shall have a perpetual Right of Access over and upon the Conservation
Easement Area to undertake or engage in any activities necessary to construct, maintain, manage,
enhance, repair, restore, protect, monitor and inspect the stream, wetland and any other riparian
resources in the Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein or any long-term
management plan for the Conservation Easement Area developed pursuant to this Conservation
Easement.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and manmade
materials as needed to direct in-stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.

C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted to
place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe the
project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project boundaries
and the holder of the Conservation Easement.

D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the investment
and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which would cause
financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are required to restrict
livestock access to the Conservation Easement area. Repeated failure to do so may result in the
State (Grantee) repairing or installing livestock exclusion devices (fences) within the conservation
area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the landowner (Grantor) must
provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 7 of 11

E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.

V. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features
in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or
use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall,
except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the Grantor shall have
ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the
breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this
Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover
damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and
authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Conservation
Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b)
to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any
appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate
right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief,
if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from
this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would be
irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided
hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to
Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.

B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the right,
with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at reasonable
times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.

C. Acts Beyond Grantor’s Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall
be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the Grantor’s
control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate
significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor’s acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 8 of 11

E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.

B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property are
the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to
comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of
the Reserved Rights.

C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.

D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom the
Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made. Grantor
further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any interest in
the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.

E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.

F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable laws,
and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the Property shall
notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days
prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any request to void or
modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification requests shall be
addressed to:
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 9 of 11

Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321

and

General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in gross
and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event
it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a
qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code,
and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be
such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.

VII. QUIET ENJOYMENT

Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment
of the Conservation Easement Area,

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,

AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of the Property in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 10 of 20

IN TESTIMONY, WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.

(SEAL)

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF

I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally appeared before me this
day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.

IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 20 .

Notary Public

My commission expires:

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 11 of 20

Exhibit A

Easement Area A

Beginning at a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number 27;
thence N 66°46'42" E a distance of 67.34' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 46°42'58" E a distance of 53.15' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 37°39'04" E a distance of 134.12' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 68°52'40" E a distance of 86.09' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 88°12'41" E a distance of 912.72' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 88°53'05" E a distance of 238.90' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 87°50'06" E a distance of 589.96' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 76°18'25" E a distance of 103.69' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 07°44'54" E a distance of 162.18' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 49°15'47" W a distance of 123.87' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 21°38'59" W a distance of 169.30' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 18°37'56" W a distance of 187.43' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 18°56'41" W a distance of 294.59' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 28°05'18" W a distance of 365.88' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number
43;
said point lies
N 72°16'50" E a distance of 700.13' from a Granite Monument;
thence N 64°12'13" E a distance of 194.66' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 40°12'54" E a distance of 68.40' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 24°52'33" E a distance of 252.86' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 40°33'24" E a distance of 163.01' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 04°29'20" E a distance of 204.31' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 10°49'06" E a distance of 148.23' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 17°25'02" E a distance of 226.88' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 53°14'48" E a distance of 142.17' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 65°22'43" E a distance of 304.79' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 48°22'57" E a distance of 69.21' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 43°07'19" E a distance of 109.07' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 89°16'30" E a distance of 65.35' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 21°47'30" E a distance of 55.91' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 20°03'20" W a distance of 139.22' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 08°35'17" W a distance of 141.57' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 59°26'17" E a distance of 229.43' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 11°19'27" E a distance of 145.02' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 18°18'10" E a distance of 168.09' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 07°10'12" W a distance of 249.46' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 06°29'42" W a distance of 280.98' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 12°37'53" W a distance of 294.16' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 36°29'11" W a distance of 578.38' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 51°06'04" E a distance of 130.57' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 12 of 20

thence S 41°40'35" E a distance of 135.71' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 37°23'10" E a distance of 426.90' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 25°49'10" E a distance of 101.60' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 13°34'07" E a distance of 366.80' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 02°57'01" E a distance of 233.68' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 05°16'29" E a distance of 129.35' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 04°16'31" E a distance of 167.05' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 18°53'45" W a distance of 181.16' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 05°30'55" W a distance of 102.24' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 08°56'11" E a distance of 87.03' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 48°53'10" E a distance of 80.94' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 65°10'08" E a distance of 122.95' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 57°14'52" E a distance of 132.29' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 79°46'14" E a distance of 207.08' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 85°45'42" E a distance of 733.92' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 64°30'17" E a distance of 137.33' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 50°31'23" W a distance of 309.06' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 49°54'25" W a distance of 190.86' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 32°32'05" W a distance of 239.80' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 41°06'31" W a distance of 254.44' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 20°52'46" W a distance of 319.72' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 20°25'06" W a distance of 268.24' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 35°25'43" W a distance of 215.00' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 55°29'42" W a distance of 154.83' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 71°12'47" W a distance of 176.31' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 48°45'27" W a distance of 92.21' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 11°56'54" W a distance of 284.18' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 17°08'38" E a distance of 79.26' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 72°52'35" E a distance of 93.16' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 10°59'20" E a distance of 117.44' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 12°32'55" E a distance of 203.45' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 61°11'41" E a distance of 90.20' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 89°05'04" E a distance of 135.69' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 04°03'55" W a distance of 335.20' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 19°18'55" W a distance of 247.64' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 69°34'49" E a distance of 120.91' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 22°43'16" E a distance of 254.43' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 06°33'43" E a distance of 294.22' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 18°54'17" E a distance of 67.02' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 27°28'13" E a distance of 193.29' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 13°37'46" E a distance of 167.82' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 24°27'47" E a distance of 287.05' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 19°06'46" E a distance of 116.63' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 07°34'36" E a distance of 137.76' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 38°36'04" E a distance of 599.20' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 50°29'42" E a distance of 379.80' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 51°20'58" E a distance of 105.30' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 13 of 20

thence N 53°36'35" E a distance of 50.19' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 83°26'41" E a distance of 216.46' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 65°06'18" E a distance of 199.28' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 70°33'10" E a distance of 157.55' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 36°59'26" E a distance of 105.58' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 03°07'35" E a distance of 138.62' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 84°28'53" W a distance of 111.19' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 86°01'15" W a distance of 143.31' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 89°02'33" W a distance of 349.40' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 75°10'35" W a distance of 166.27' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 61°21'53" W a distance of 216.90' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 15°21'23" W a distance of 93.80' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 06°05'39" E a distance of 240.90' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 19°01'37" E a distance of 64.47' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 80°44'24" E a distance of 111.23' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 03°24'22" W a distance of 162.51' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 06°48'13" E a distance of 129.19' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 66°19'40" E a distance of 197.22' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 86°08'36" E a distance of 277.79' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 85°38'18" E a distance of 190.35' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 84°31'45" E a distance of 186.13' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 31°23'13" E a distance of 98.09' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 62°22'10" W a distance of 311.39' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 51°10'24" W a distance of 209.08' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 62°07'12" W a distance of 288.43' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 40°44'42" W a distance of 139.72' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 17°18'07" W a distance of 84.39' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 29°02'51" W a distance of 89.95' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 35°11'45" W a distance of 106.44' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 45°17'15" W a distance of 115.27' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 39°54'42" W a distance of 234.92' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 39°52'05" W a distance of 206.80' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 24°26'51" W a distance of 222.14' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 21°35'51" W a distance of 195.30' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 34°47'55" W a distance of 119.36' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 50°13'29" E a distance of 104.31' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number
149;
said point lies
S 6°26'08" W a distance of 568.85' from a 3/4" bent OTP;
thence S 47°42'53" E a distance of 124.26' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 33°14'09" E a distance of 139.78' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 22°19'08" E a distance of 225.63' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 29°25'28" E a distance of 125.85' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 39°10'34" E a distance of 184.00' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 39°44'56" E a distance of 174.39' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 42°32'44" E a distance of 248.84' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 33°39'41" E a distance of 132.15' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 14 of 20

thence S 52°37'11" E a distance of 636.33' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 67°33'25" E a distance of 103.75' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 76°22'54" E a distance of 91.38' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 49°08'31" E a distance of 214.42' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 79°26'07" E a distance of 244.34' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 49°49'45" E a distance of 249.08' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 36°02'35" E a distance of 111.74' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 60°09'31" E a distance of 182.44' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 78°16'30" E a distance of 115.82' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 30°52'44" W a distance of 187.13' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 42°24'55" E a distance of 104.57' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 85°14'08" E a distance of 151.99' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 89°02'45" E a distance of 549.75' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 79°25'06" E a distance of 117.08' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number
172 at the right of way for NC 742;
thence S 06°09'10" W a distance of 64.80' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 79°19'49" W a distance of 106.47' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 87°54'32" W a distance of 114.23' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 59°25'07" W a distance of 55.39' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 74°01'58" W a distance of 48.43' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 66°50'32" W a distance of 51.91' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 79°06'58" W a distance of 93.03' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 72°35'21" W a distance of 64.88' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 71°18'55" W a distance of 89.19' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 62°40'55" W a distance of 56.43' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 66°08'47" W a distance of 74.21' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 82°41'30" W a distance of 51.51' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 71°14'17" W a distance of 43.09' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 00°22'08" E a distance of 33.38' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 51°19'01" E a distance of 61.01' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 31°12'38" E a distance of 61.16' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 38°19'37" E a distance of 88.57' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 37°41'59" W a distance of 29.68' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 78°43'36" W a distance of 67.93' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 75°31'35" W a distance of 113.69' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°36'04" W a distance of 71.69' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 53°55'53" W a distance of 63.69' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 72°39'57" W a distance of 43.80' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 71°36'26" W a distance of 39.16' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°23'44" W a distance of 50.14' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 65°55'41" W a distance of 32.17' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 30°40'57" W a distance of 20.40' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 26°04'29" E a distance of 51.62' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 36°59'31" W a distance of 38.17' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 48°21'42" W a distance of 30.16' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 45°16'39" W a distance of 74.61' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 82°46'34" W a distance of 36.26' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 15 of 20

thence S 71°16'45" W a distance of 31.61' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 06°01'48" E a distance of 22.53' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 08°14'04" E a distance of 26.84' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 12°46'31" W a distance of 32.86' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 25°34'53" E a distance of 27.82' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 30°08'12" E a distance of 17.12' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 15°17'55" W a distance of 31.18' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 49°56'09" W a distance of 69.26' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 04°24'14" E a distance of 39.73' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 31°38'43" W a distance of 24.84' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 75°10'11" W a distance of 72.99' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 49°39'55" W a distance of 37.69' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 64°33'25" W a distance of 43.05' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 70°40'01" W a distance of 41.81' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 55°25'55" W a distance of 55.72' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 86°49'05" W a distance of 36.77' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 52°26'18" W a distance of 53.10' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 55°11'53" W a distance of 41.27' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 72°49'57" W a distance of 39.98' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 58°18'21" W a distance of 24.53' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 15°02'03" W a distance of 37.99' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 54°12'52" E a distance of 14.68' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 87°40'31" E a distance of 18.02' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 88°10'19" E a distance of 26.74' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 16°03'23" E a distance of 39.44' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 37°00'17" W a distance of 32.39' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 63°08'58" W a distance of 27.56' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°08'44" W a distance of 22.90' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 08°49'40" E a distance of 28.52' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 17°37'48" E a distance of 45.56' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 06°20'51" E a distance of 40.36' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 30°12'40" W a distance of 47.12' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 13°46'25" W a distance of 37.50' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 05°06'48" E a distance of 55.48' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 07°29'39" E a distance of 38.43' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 39°23'52" W a distance of 29.35' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°53'18" W a distance of 64.55' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 64°07'08" W a distance of 94.94' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 61°31'46" W a distance of 71.60' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 58°19'54" W a distance of 57.73' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 78°07'14" W a distance of 46.23' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 84°45'58" W a distance of 65.68' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 61°27'50" W a distance of 45.32' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 04°26'16" W a distance of 43.88' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 41°10'52" W a distance of 21.78' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 70°34'46" W a distance of 53.71' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 88°42'34" W a distance of 96.49' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 16 of 20

thence N 76°57'05" W a distance of 83.72' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 53°44'16" W a distance of 48.64' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 57°08'41" W a distance of 50.27' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 10°12'05" W a distance of 45.32' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°19'12" W a distance of 35.03' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 19°36'02" W a distance of 37.84' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 03°04'26" E a distance of 60.22' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 74°31'46" W a distance of 26.13' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 60°22'53" W a distance of 46.11' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 23°35'24" W a distance of 43.34' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 83°46'54" W a distance of 36.12' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 59°56'24" W a distance of 24.28' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 53°57'31" W a distance of 50.92' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 67°33'24" W a distance of 55.67' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 73°43'10" W a distance of 74.41' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 73°59'39" W a distance of 109.33' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 74°40'16" W a distance of 130.02' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 78°02'31" W a distance of 157.26' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 77°08'17" W a distance of 58.10' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 85°22'50" W a distance of 66.17' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 87°54'38" W a distance of 91.53' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 76°11'28" W a distance of 57.69' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 76°34'58" W a distance of 75.97' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 76°11'56" W a distance of 122.40' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 88°37'24" W a distance of 78.41' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 87°14'58" W a distance of 37.72' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 84°13'05" W a distance of 27.12' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 81°06'02" W a distance of 90.84' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 82°20'32" W a distance of 48.76' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 87°01'13" W a distance of 34.76' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 72°03'12" W a distance of 37.99' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 80°47'35" W a distance of 77.41' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 77°41'59" W a distance of 58.59' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 86°01'08" W a distance of 62.48' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 75°23'51" W a distance of 70.08' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 70°04'17" W a distance of 32.68' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 22°12'55" W a distance of 20.93' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 40°40'14" W a distance of 41.12' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 58°55'05" W a distance of 28.84' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 64°04'44" W a distance of 23.88' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 79°03'40" W a distance of 75.74' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 54°48'31" W a distance of 55.11' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 62°46'26" W a distance of 26.16' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 79°36'32" W a distance of 65.73' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 70°48'43" W a distance of 41.31' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 86°41'53" W a distance of 56.84' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 86°50'49" W a distance of 60.54' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 17 of 20

thence N 63°45'08" W a distance of 65.89' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 85°11'35" W a distance of 45.02' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 27°30'31" W a distance of 24.38' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 37°03'24" W a distance of 60.63' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 18°03'08" W a distance of 39.62' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 73°29'21" W a distance of 28.63' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 69°37'19" W a distance of 34.71' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 07°05'16" E a distance of 36.78' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 35°21'18" E a distance of 29.37' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 50°10'29" W a distance of 28.29' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 74°04'55" W a distance of 34.98' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 88°28'32" W a distance of 24.02' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 26°49'30" W a distance of 35.78' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 20°38'14" W a distance of 42.13' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 43°08'49" W a distance of 41.98' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 70°10'07" W a distance of 28.60' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 42°26'10" W a distance of 29.42' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 13°17'36" E a distance of 53.77' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 33°33'02" E a distance of 71.44' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 32°26'28" W a distance of 34.47' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 43°41'44" W a distance of 43.18' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 20°37'31" W a distance of 27.44' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 53°28'33" W a distance of 22.15' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 77°30'33" W a distance of 33.76' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 82°56'12" W a distance of 68.35' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 56°22'24" W a distance of 34.86' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 60°59'10" W a distance of 21.93' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 44°13'53" W a distance of 29.15' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 37°43'59" E a distance of 24.98' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 34°23'01" E a distance of 36.85' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 12°18'28" W a distance of 24.06' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 68°36'18" W a distance of 29.25' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 11°49'24" W a distance of 14.11' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 24°09'36" W a distance of 52.34' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 80°07'14" W a distance of 42.33' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 28°36'33" W a distance of 23.91' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 22°29'33" W a distance of 28.64' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 17°46'05" E a distance of 20.24' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 41°21'21" E a distance of 35.07' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 17°15'41" W a distance of 21.74' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 50°56'31" W a distance of 21.86' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 57°27'17" W a distance of 19.42' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 61°56'00" W a distance of 35.58' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 87°46'13" W a distance of 65.88' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 41°53'03" W a distance of 35.70' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 41°04'23" W a distance of 49.27' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 58°47'54" W a distance of 58.28' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 18 of 20

thence S 56°21'35" W a distance of 78.12' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 64°53'20" W a distance of 34.54' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 80°50'19" W a distance of 59.33' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 64°49'31" W a distance of 34.83' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 83°28'30" W a distance of 61.59' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 38°22'29" W a distance of 49.35' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 60°01'34" W a distance of 65.50' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 66°00'24" W a distance of 104.37' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 47°04'19" W a distance of 27.21' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 23°14'21" E a distance of 30.23' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 13°46'14" W a distance of 27.89' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 61°24'55" W a distance of 23.21' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 87°08'12" W a distance of 25.14' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 71°42'51" W a distance of 47.79' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 61°39'05" W a distance of 77.64' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 74°54'36" W a distance of 64.26' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence S 71°13'41" W a distance of 48.88' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence S 83°23'15" W a distance of 44.32' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 74°11'10" W a distance of 78.86' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 65°43'51" W a distance of 78.48' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence N 67°13'40" W a distance of 97.01' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence S 85°50'33" W a distance of 45.91' to a point in the center of South Fork of Joens Creek;
thence S 87°17'52" W a distance of 133.02' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 57°57'07" W a distance of 116.44' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 51°16'08" W a distance of 38.87' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 39°22'49" E a distance of 39.50' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 29°38'01" W a distance of 34.29' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 61°30'29" W a distance of 78.03' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 60°53'01" W a distance of 84.80' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence S 82°03'23" W a distance of 45.76' to a point in the center of South Fork of Jones Creek;
thence N 06°13'13" E a distance of 21.97' to a metal T-Post;
thence N 06°13'13" E a distance of 102.76' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number 27;
which is the point of beginning,
having an area of 67.74 acres

Easement Area B
Beginning at a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number 1;
thence N 28°11'25" E a distance of 156.36' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 28°39'26" E a distance of 155.20' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap
thence N 01°16'05" W a distance of 70.26' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 22°15'22" E a distance of 57.22' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
said point lies
S 06°39'01" E a distance of 937.37' from a 1/2" OTP;
thence N 86°39'36" E a distance of 77.63' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 37°46'19" E a distance of 72.26' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 07°44'47" W a distance of 127.17' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 29°46'52" W a distance of 184.22' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 19 of 20

thence S 18°25'10" W a distance of 82.81' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 08°50'41" E a distance of 118.89' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 13°17'35" E a distance of 148.40' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 19°31'14" E a distance of 190.90' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 29°42'42" E a distance of 317.31' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence N 42°07'29" E a distance of 195.75' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 58°40'06" E a distance of 71.06' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 01°36'19" E a distance of 56.16' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 34°49'41" W a distance of 145.28' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 29°58'31" W a distance of 369.50' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 04°31'10" W a distance of 58.82' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 14°24'25" E a distance of 59.84' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 17°53'27" E a distance of 196.78' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 20°59'59" E a distance of 91.63' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
thence S 11°33'00" E a distance of 109.33' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap number 25;
said point lies
N 66°50'47" E a distance of 814.81' from a granite monument;
thence with the center line of the creek the following;
N 26°37'36" W a distance of 46.59' to a point in the creek;
thence S 81°13'27" W a distance of 39.50' to a point in the creek;
thence N 61°24'46" W a distance of 20.34' to a point in the creek;
thence N 74°34'14" W a distance of 12.08' to a point in the creek;
thence N 03°06'29" W a distance of 35.74' to a point in the creek;
thence N 58°43'40" W a distance of 24.92' to a point in the creek;
thence N 43°09'00" W a distance of 21.73' to a point in the creek;
thence N 01°46'54" W a distance of 17.18' to a point in the creek;
thence N 19°48'56" E a distance of 34.20' to a point in the creek;
thence N 41°19'39" W a distance of 51.63' to a point in the creek;
thence N 18°38'42" W a distance of 16.31' to a point in the creek;
thence N 75°08'57" W a distance of 18.12' to a point in the creek;
thence N 18°47'12" W a distance of 21.59' to a point in the creek;
thence N 42°04'02" E a distance of 10.16' to a point in the creek;
thence N 00°59'37" W a distance of 82.76' to a point in the creek;
thence N 31°31'41" W a distance of 28.63' to a point in the creek;
thence N 80°59'38" W a distance of 20.09' to a point in the creek;
thence N 17°35'45" E a distance of 42.04' to a point in the creek;
thence N 00°46'14" E a distance of 18.44' to a point in the creek;
thence N 49°53'58" W a distance of 37.01' to a point in the creek;
thence N 72°47'54" W a distance of 11.67' to a point in the creek;
thence N 02°00'42" E a distance of 9.91' to a point in the creek;
thence N 67°19'40" W a distance of 33.58' to a point in the creek;
thence S 71°39'45" W a distance of 16.56' to a point in the creek;
thence N 57°06'51" W a distance of 48.46' to a point in the creek;
thence N 59°08'00" E a distance of 18.82' to a point in the creek;
thence N 09°42'05" E a distance of 21.82' to a point in the creek;
thence N 75°16'21" E a distance of 27.42' to a point in the creek;
thence N 31°04'14" E a distance of 21.25' to a point in the creek;
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template AG reviewed 11 May 2017
Page 20 of 20

thence N 63°33'52" E a distance of 9.70' to a point in the creek;
thence N 00°13'20" E a distance of 28.12' to a point in the creek;
thence N 42°04'16" W a distance of 9.04' to a point in the creek;
thence N 63°56'23" W a distance of 35.79' to a point in the creek;
thence N 00°08'56" E a distance of 11.17' to a point in the creek;
thence N 36°28'50" W a distance of 21.89' to a point in the creek;
thence N 01°47'08" W a distance of 13.41' to a point in the creek;
thence N 47°41'33" E a distance of 23.69' to a point in the creek;
thence N 14°08'14" E a distance of 15.29' to a point in the creek;
thence N 00°13'46" E a distance of 15.98' to a point in the creek;
thence N 43°40'15" W a distance of 11.31' to a point in the creek;
thence N 82°39'51" W a distance of 18.10' to a point in the creek;
thence N 16°39'30" W a distance of 31.53' to a point in the creek;
thence N 09°25'39" W a distance of 20.07' to a point in the creek;
thence N 49°37'00" W a distance of 19.50' to a point in the creek;
thence S 79°19'57" W a distance of 34.00' to a point in the creek;
thence leaving the creek; N 35°55'45" W a distance of 60.50' to a metal T-Post;
thence N 15°01'15" W a distance of 273.94' to a 5/8" rebar with aluminum easement cap;
which is the point of beginning,
having an area of 5.34 acres

Appendix C

Geomorphological Site Data
Station Elevation
0 96.38 Bankfull Elevation (ft):94.47
3 96.6 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):3.96
6.25 96.59 Bankfull Width (ft):3.64
8.5 95.54 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):95.78
9.83 94.67 Floodprone Width (ft):7.35
10 93.36 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):1.31
10.66 93.16 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):1.09
12 93.24 W/D Ratio:3.34
12.5 93.38 Entrenchment Ratio:2.02
13 93.41 Bank Height Ratio:1.00
13.5 94.47
14 95.36
16 95.99
18 96.2
20 95.85
0 94.47
20 94.47
0 95.78
20 95.78
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 1A Upper - 2.8.22
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.145
Date:Feburary 8th, 2022
Geomorphic Summary Data
Field Crew:L. Ward, L. Hales
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
0 5 10 15 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 1A Upper -2.8.22
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 351.784 Bankfull Elevation (ft):349.898
2.2776 351.91 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):2.09
2.2942 351.867 Bankfull Width (ft):3.83
3.2536 350.506 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):350.61
4.5069 350.3 Floodprone Width (ft):12.12
5.4058 350.05 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.71
5.9749 349.898 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.55
6.19 349.609 W/D Ratio:6.96
6.3771 349.386 Entrenchment Ratio:3.16
6.9012 349.319 Bank Height Ratio:1.85
7.5005 349.25
7.8875 349.224
8.2144 349.189
8.4972 349.225
8.7597 349.258
9.1 349.286
9.8163 349.779
11.2327 349.609
13.0553 350.064
14.99 350.373
15.8057 350.993
16.5237 352.256
21.4762 352.471
0 349.9
21.4762 349.9
0 350.61
21.4762 350.61
Geomorphic Summary Data
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.145
Date:January 10th, 2022
Field Crew:I. Jewell, E. Brown, M. Mizutani
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 1A - XS9
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354
356
358
360
0 5 10 15 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 1A -XS9
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 343.276 Geomorphic Summary Data
2.6428 342.933 Bankfull Elevation (ft):341.95
7.9918 342.798 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):5.04
12.4157 342.523 Bankfull Width (ft):10.42
14.5011 342.353 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):342.78
15.1788 341.948 Floodprone Width (ft):17.82
16.5437 341.633 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.83
17.1874 341.466 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.48
17.562 341.518 W/D Ratio:21.71
18.0326 341.144 Entrenchment Ratio:1.71
18.9322 341.119 Bank Height Ratio:2.02
19.8885 341.159
21.0052 341.551
21.8311 341.565
22.6529 341.584
24.1115 341.36
24.8595 341.477
25.51 341.841
25.8016 342.221
26.4793 343.556
27.9112 343.731
30.5863 343.719
32.6929 343.814
0 341.95
32.6929 341.95
0 342.78
32.6929 342.78
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 1A -XS10
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.145
Date:January 10th, 2022
Field Crew:I. Jewell, E. Brown, M. Mizutani
340
340.5
341
341.5
342
342.5
343
343.5
344
344.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 1A-XS10
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
28.8286 379.917
32.5578 378.741 Bankfull Elevation (ft):378.8
33.173 377.944 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):0.43
33.6557 377.903 Bankfull Width (ft):2.2
34.0258 378.217 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):378.8
34.4198 378.347 Floodprone Width (ft):3.81
34.8986 378.258 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.45
35.6032 378.655 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.2
35.9271 378.903 W/D Ratio:11
36.4529 378.979 Entrenchment Ratio:1.73
38.1211 378.811 Bank Height Ratio:0.99
Date:January 10th, 2022
Field Crew:I. Jewell, E. Brown, M. Mizutani
Geomorphic Summary Data
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 1B - XS11
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.031
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
28 30 32 34 36 38 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 1B -XS11
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 386.255
1.2079 386.064 Bankfull Elevation (ft):384.51
2.359 385.251 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):6.78
2.5867 385.403 Bankfull Width (ft):5.53
3.853 384.867 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):386.57
5.1511 384.51 Floodprone Width (ft):11.53
6.2655 382.802 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):2.06
6.3414 382.563 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):1.22
7.203 382.445 W/D Ratio:4.53
7.7848 382.506 Entrenchment Ratio:2.08
9.6296 383.871 Bank Height Ratio:1.00
10.7039 384.521
11.5293 384.88
0 384.5
11.5293 384.5
0 386.6
11.5293 386.6
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 1C - XS12
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.018
Date:January 10th, 2022
Field Crew:I. Jewell, E. Brown, M. Mizutani
Geomorphic Summary Data
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 1C -XS12
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 96.28
5 95.79 Bankfull Elevation (ft):89.6
9 95.4 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):2.43
12.08 95.01 Bankfull Width (ft):2.99
16.5 94.5 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):90.96
20.5 93.83 Floodprone Width (ft):5
23 93.4 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):1.36
25.91 93.11 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.81
29 92.97 W/D Ratio:3.69
32 92.67 Entrenchment Ratio:1.67
35 92.59 Bank Height Ratio:2.63
39.16 92.15
41.5 91.81
42.33 90.32
43 89.5
43.83 88.24
44.83 88.5
45.91 89.6
46.83 90.68
47.75 92.49
50.83 92.02
56 92.96
63 92.95
70 93.63
75 94.95
82 94.97
89 95.11
0 89.6
89 89.6
0 90.96
89 90.96
Date:Feburary 8th, 2022
Field Crew:L. Ward, L. Hales
Geomorphic Summary Data
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 1C - 2.8.22
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.018
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 1C -2.8.22
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 338.618
1.8852 338.507 Bankfull Elevation (ft):335.5
2.8807 337.408 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):1.19
3.9641 337.14 Bankfull Width (ft):3.48
5.7636 336.674 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):335.97
7.032 336.008 Floodprone Width (ft):5.17
8.1927 335.502 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.47
9.0473 335.09 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.34
9.6416 335.038 W/D Ratio:10.24
10.452 335.032 Entrenchment Ratio:1.49
11.1619 335.147 Bank Height Ratio:6.57
11.9143 335.666
12.9208 336.47
13.8638 337.24
15.3985 338.117
17.8244 338.319
21.4166 338.441
0 335.5
21.4166 335.5
0 335.97
21.4166 335.97
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 2 -XS6
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.039
Date:November 1st, 2019
I. Jewell, B. DickField Crew:
Geomorphic Summary Data
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
0 5 10 15 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 2 -XS6
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 357.907
1.7249 357.71 Bankfull Elevation (ft):356.48
3.43 357.286 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):4.82
4.7779 356.481 Bankfull Width (ft):6.02
5.8726 355.994 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):357.59
7.0071 355.437 Floodprone Width (ft):9.47
7.7543 355.51 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):1.11
8.4453 355.406 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.8
9.5173 355.375 W/D Ratio:7.52
10.2131 355.43 Entrenchment Ratio:1.57
11.3502 357.471 Bank Height Ratio:0.99
12.4681 357.843
14.1591 358.027
0 356.48
14.1591 356.48
0 357.59
14.1591 357.59
Field Crew:I. Jewell, B. Dick
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 3 (Upper) - XS7
Geomorphic Summary Data
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.045
Date:November 1st, 2019
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 3 (Upper) -XS7
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 323.602
1.8067 323.355 Bankfull Elevation (ft):323.01
4.0969 323.028 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):5.2
5.9848 323.011 Bankfull Width (ft):8.09
6.6987 322.789 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):324.05
7.1996 322.141 Floodprone Width (ft):17.68
8.2424 322.075 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):1.04
9.4304 322.036 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.64
10.3037 321.974 W/D Ratio:12.64
10.896 322.173 Entrenchment Ratio:2.19
12.3551 322.542 Bank Height Ratio:1.00
13.9362 322.992
15.7339 323.224
17.6802 323.243
0 323.01
17.6802 323.01
0 324.05
17.6802 324.05
Field Crew:I. Jewell, B. Dick
Geomorphic Summary Data
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 3 (Lower) - XS5
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.045
Date:November 1st, 2019
321
321.5
322
322.5
323
323.5
324
324.5
325
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 3 (Lower) -XS5
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 368.849
1.569 368.616 Bankfull Elevation (ft):365.32
3.4523 367.572 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):0.81
4.72 366.743 Bankfull Width (ft):2.74
6.1876 366.138 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):365.8
7.2358 365.07 Floodprone Width (ft):4.18
7.9382 364.843 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.48
8.4192 364.863 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.3
9.721 365.317 W/D Ratio:9.13
11.4278 366.152 Entrenchment Ratio:1.53
14.209 366.455 Bank Height Ratio:2.69
17.5073 366.773
0 365.32
17.5073 365.32
0 365.8
17.5073 365.8
Field Crew:I. Jewell, B.Dick
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 4 - XS8
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
Date:
Geomorphic Summary Data
November 1st, 2019
0.051
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 4 -XS8
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 324.795
1.5772 324.829 Bankfull Elevation (ft):323.8
2.7893 324.912 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):2.23
3.4418 324.508 Bankfull Width (ft):4.24
4.07 323.926 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):324.5
4.7819 323.382 Floodprone Width (ft):5.71
5.3251 323.133 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.7
6.0422 323.156 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.53
6.8526 323.226 W/D Ratio:8
7.8689 323.103 Entrenchment Ratio:1.35
8.475 323.798 Bank Height Ratio:2.59
9.1489 324.489
9.7311 324.88
10.7556 325.209
12.0924 325.28
14.9385 325.134
0 323.8
14.9385 323.8
0 324.5
14.9385 324.5
Geomorphic Summary Data
0.025
November 1st, 2019
Field Crew:I. Jewell, B.Dick
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 5 - XS4
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
Date:
322
322.5
323
323.5
324
324.5
325
325.5
326
326.5
327
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 5 -XS4
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 326.6 Geomorphic Summary Data
3.73 326.7 Bankfull Elevation (ft):324.6
4.78 326.3 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):1.14
7.12 326.2 Bankfull Width (ft):4.11
8.19 325.9 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):325
9.62 325.6 Floodprone Width (ft):5.1
10.45 325.2 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.4
11.4 324.6 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.28
11.66 324.3 W/D Ratio:14.68
12.17 324.3 Entrenchment Ratio:1.24
12.21 324.2 Bank Height Ratio:2.50
13.2 324.4
13.99 324.3
14.58 324.3
15.08 324.2
15.51 324.6
16.04 325.2
17.46 325.4
19.89 325.7
21.39 325.8
0 324.6
21.39 324.6
0 325
21.39 325
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 6 - XS1
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.069
Date:November 1st, 2019
Field Crew:I. Jewell, B. Dick
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
0 5 10 15 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 6 -XS1
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 324.7
1.1 324.5 Bankfull Elevation (ft):322.4
1.5 324.4 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):1.72
1.64 323.4 Bankfull Width (ft):3.24
2.32 322 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):323.2
3.46 321.7 Floodprone Width (ft):4.47
4.12 321.6 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.8
4.89 322 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.53
5.37 322.4 W/D Ratio:6.11
6.07 322.8 Entrenchment Ratio:1.38
6.56 324.2 Bank Height Ratio:3.25
7 324.2
8.2 324.6
0 322.4
8.2 322.4
0 323.2
8.2 323.2
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 6 - XS2
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.069
Date:November 1st, 2019
Field Crew:I. Jewell, B. Dick
Geomorphic Summary Data
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 6 -XS2
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Station Elevation
0 333.782
1.7313 333.68 Bankfull Elevation (ft):331.75
3.8317 333.241 Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2):1.2
4.8785 332.904 Bankfull Width (ft):3.28
6.0837 332.163 Floodprone Area Elevation (ft):332.26
7.1592 331.471 Floodprone Width (ft):5.41
7.7704 331.31 Max Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.51
8.7369 331.246 Mean Depth at Bankfull (ft):0.37
9.304 331.242 W/D Ratio:8.86
10.0032 331.75 Entrenchment Ratio:1.65
10.9568 332.147 Bank Height Ratio:4.78
12.6365 332.639
13.9232 333.11
15.1042 334.85
0 331.75
15.1042 331.75
0 332.26
15.1042 332.26
Geomorphic Summary Data
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)0.069
Date:November 1st, 2019
Field Crew:I. Jewell, B. Dick
River Basin:Yadkin - Pee Dee
Site Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
XS ID Trib 6 - XS3
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Trib 6 -XS3
Section Profile Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Elevation
Middendorf Springs, DMS # 100151, Yadkin River Basin CU 03040201
Tributaries 1A-6
Geomorphic Parameter
Rosgen Stream Type
Drainage Area
Design/Calculated Bankfull Discharge
Dimension Riffle Pool Avg Riffle Pool Avg Riffle Pool Avg Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool
FP Width (ft)14.00 125.0 ---72.4 --31.0 21.00 63.00 -22.00 52.00
BF Width (ft)6.3 9.3 ---12.2 11.5 12.3 -10.42 8.00 8.00 2.20 4.00 6.00 2.99
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.6 8.7 ---16.3 8.9 12.2 -5.04 5.80 10.00 0.43 1.80 3.15 2.43
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.8 1.0 ---1.3 0.8 1.0 -0.48 0.73 1.25 0.20 0.45 0.53 0.81
BF Max Depth (ft)1.0 1.2 ---1.8 1.2 1.6 -0.83 1.30 2.00 0.45 0.80 0.90 1.36
Width/Depth Ratio 7.9 9.3 ---9.1 12.3 14.4 -21.71 11.03 6.40 11.00 8.89 11.43 3.69
Entrenchment Ratio 1.7 4.3 ---6.0 2.5 2.7 -3.16 >2.2 >2.2 1.73 >2.2 >2.2 1.67
Wetted Perimeter (ft)---------6.96 8.43 -2.57 4.32 -4.21
Hydraulic radius (ft)---------0.48 0.61 0.95 0.17 0.37 0.47 0.58
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 ----1.4 2.5 -1.59 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.0 2.63
Pool Area/Riffle Area 1.0 1.1 ---1.2 1.2 1.4 -1.00 1.00 1.00
Max riffle depth/mean riffle depth 1.25 1.2 ---1.38 1.5 1.6 -1.73 2.25 1.68
Max pool depth/mean riffle depth 1.5 1.8 ---1.6 1.00 2.9 -1.00 1.00 1.00
Pattern Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Channel Beltwidth (ft)10.00 50.00 ------102 8.58 40.18
Radius of Curvature (ft)12.00 85.00 -------20.00 50.00
Meander Wavelength 55.00 142.00 ----45.00 81.00 -86.48 127.14
Meander Width ratio 1.60 5.40 ----8.30 8.90 -1.07 5.02
Radius of Curvature/Riffle Width (ft)1.90 9.10 ----2.00 3.10 -2.50 8.62
Meander Length Ratio 8.73 15.27 ----3.90 6.60 -10.81 15.89
Pool Length/Riffle Width ---------4.61 10.18
Pool to Pool Spacing/ Riffle Width 1.43 4.95 ----2.60 4.70 -7.09 17.82
Profile Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Min Max
Riffle Length (ft)---------19.54 37.62
Pool length (ft)---------36.85 81.40
Pool spacing (ft)9.00 46.00 -26.30 81.00 -49.00 91.00 -56.69 142.52
Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0180 0.0343 -0.0610 0.0890 -0.0150 0.0350 -
Pool slope (ft/ft)0.0010 0.0140 -0.0000 0.0040 -0.0008 0.0030 -
Riffle Slope/Avg. Water Surface Slope 0.97 1.56 -2.54 3.71 -1.00 2.33 -
Pool Slope/Avg. Water Surface Slope 0.04 0.64 -0.00 0.17 -0.05 0.20 -
Substrate Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
Description (based on D50)
D16 (mm)
D35 (mm)
D50 (mm)
D84 (mm)
D95 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameters Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max
Valley Length (ft)---------
Channel Length (ft)---------
Valley Slope (ft/ft)0.02200 0.03100 -0.02600 --0.02600 --
Channel Slope (ft/ft)0.01900 0.02200 -0.02400 --0.01500 --
Sinuosity 1.00 1.3 -1.10 --1.40 --
Channel has
severely
degraded
with lack of
dyamic
bedform-
No Pools
Present
1.11
120
256
0.42 101.60 3.33
0.63 ---0.21 ---0.63
Medium Gravel
0.6
Channel has
severely
degraded
with lack of
dyamic
bedform-
No Pools
Present
35 cfs 85 cfs 40 cfs 7.4 7.4 1.6 1.6 1.1
Existing Tributary 1C
Channel has
severely
degraded
with lack of
dyamic
bedform-
No Pools
Present
Proposed Tributary 1BProposed Tributary 1AReference Reach - Spencer Creek 3 Reference Reach - UT to Rocky Creek Reference Reach - UT to Cane Creek Existing Tributary 1A
C4
0.37 square miles 1.05 square miles 0.29 square miles 0.15 square miles 0.15 square miles 0.029 square miles 0.029 square miles 0.036 square miles
E4 E4b
1.78 1.78
1.72
2.74 2.00
0.0145 0.012 0.044 0.044 0.054
1.02 1.01 1.01 1.04
0.0151 0.013 0.045 0.045 0.059
1761.00 1761.00 495.81 495.81 669.38
1800.00 1950.86 500.12 500.12 698.00
54.50 152.40 10.48 152.40 54.50
27.97 ---4.00 ---27.97
3.33 101.60
Very Fine Gravel Small Cobble Medium Sand Small Cobble Very Fine Gravel
0.00 0.00
0.04
128.00
11.00
64.00
8.85
1.866
Medium Gravel
0.02
1.72
0.21 50.80 0.14
0.00
74.50
128.00
Coarse Gravel
Incised and lacks
bedform
Incised and lacks
bedform
2.4
22.6
12.20
27.80
<0.063
Existing Tributary 1B
Existing channel is
straight and lacks
dynamic planform
1.75
Existing channel is
straight and lacks
dynamic planform
0.21
Incised and lacks
bedform
Existing channel is
straight and lacks
dynamic planform
50.80
Enhancement Reach- no
proposed planform
modifications
Middendorf Springs, DMS # 100151, Yadkin River Basin CU 03040201
Tributaries 1A-6
Geomorphic Parameter
Rosgen Stream Type
Drainage Area
Design/Calculated Bankfull Discharge
Dimension Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool
FP Width (ft)11.00 -5.00 55.00 -6.00 131.50 -23.00 65.00 -8.00 335.00 -11.00 66.00 -
BF Width (ft)4.00 6.00 3.48 4.00 6.00 8.09 4.00 6.00 2.74 4.00 7.00 4.24 4.00 6.00 3.28 4.00 6.00
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.80 3.15 1.19 1.80 3.15 5.20 1.80 5.30 0.81 1.80 3.90 2.23 1.80 3.15 1.20 1.80 6.20
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.45 0.53 0.34 0.45 0.53 0.64 0.45 0.88 0.30 0.45 0.56 0.53 0.45 0.53 0.37 0.45 1.03
BF Max Depth (ft)0.80 0.90 0.47 0.80 0.90 1.04 0.80 1.40 0.48 0.80 1.00 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.51 0.80 1.60
Width/Depth Ratio 8.89 11.43 10.24 8.89 11.43 12.64 8.89 6.79 9.13 8.89 12.56 8.00 8.89 11.43 8.86 8.89 5.81
Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 1.49 >2.2 >2.2 2.19 >2.2 >2.2 1.53 >2.2 >2.2 1.35 >2.2 >2.2 1.65 >2.2 >2.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)4.32 -3.69 4.32 -8.59 4.32 -2.96 4.32 -4.77 4.32 -3.55 4.32 -
Hydraulic radius (ft)0.37 0.47 0.32 0.37 0.47 0.61 0.37 0.68 0.27 0.37 0.48 0.47 0.37 0.47 0.34 0.37 0.77
Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 6.57 1.00 1.00 2.63 1.00 1.00 2.69 1.00 1.00 2.59 1.00 1.00 4.78 1.00 1.00
Pool Area/Riffle Area 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Max riffle depth/mean riffle depth 1.38 1.63 1.60 1.32 1.38
Max pool depth/mean riffle depth 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Pattern Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Channel Beltwidth (ft)4.31 24.33 14.47 34.01 9.94 29.78 11.16 22.37 8.92 31.65 8.85 36.36
Radius of Curvature (ft)15.00 21.00 15.00 40.00 15.00 80.00 17.00 75.00 17.00 45.00 15.00 38.00
Meander Wavelength 48.41 75.59 50.47 94.32 49.02 79.20 50.16 87.34 53.71 89.12 47.03 77.25
Meander Width ratio 1.08 6.08 3.62 8.50 2.49 7.45 2.79 5.59 2.23 7.91 2.21 9.09
Radius of Curvature/Riffle Width (ft)3.75 11.67 3.75 22.22 3.75 44.44 4.25 41.67 4.25 25.00 3.75 21.11
Meander Length Ratio 12.10 18.90 12.62 23.58 12.26 19.80 12.54 21.84 13.43 22.28 11.76 19.31
Pool Length/Riffle Width 3.68 2.98 3.49 7.86 3.61 5.54 3.12 4.11 1.78 7.61 2.30 6.92
Pool to Pool Spacing/ Riffle Width 4.34 6.20 6.20 14.55 6.07 11.45 5.58 12.64 5.29 11.83 3.33 11.24
Profile Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Riffle Length (ft)12.98 47.16 5.54 41.37 8.06 29.68 8.49 18.49 3.96 37.83 2.02 36.16
Pool length (ft)14.71 17.87 13.94 31.42 14.44 22.14 12.47 16.45 7.10 30.45 9.20 27.66
Pool spacing (ft)17.37 37.22 24.78 58.20 24.27 45.79 22.31 50.56 21.14 47.30 13.32 44.96
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool slope (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope/Avg. Water Surface Slope
Pool Slope/Avg. Water Surface Slope
Substrate
Description (based on D50)
D16 (mm)
D35 (mm)
D50 (mm)
D84 (mm)
D95 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
Sinuosity 1.06 1.03 1.11 1.06 1.121.04 1.06 1.09 1.01 1.11 1.01
0.02420 0.02345 0.02020 0.01613 0.02580 0.01532
0.02492 0.02088 0.01798 0.02740 0.01710
0.026 0.02710 0.02131 0.0251 0.0185
973.31 1489.44 2343.00 2875.49
0.027 0.02875 0.02321 0.0253 0.0206 0.02452
1336.52 2200.63 2576.14
698.00 2180.00 2525.75 2185.00 2451.11 926.15 971.46
669.38 2054.60 2318.81 2167.30 2205.30 914.19 914.19 941.75
152.40
38.00 ---18.93 ---
152.40 20.95 152.40 58.30 152.40 48.80
101.60 5.70 101.60
---13.65 ---40.27 ---29.31 ---
1.00 ---2.50 ---
101.60 0.95 101.60 16.47 101.60 0.97
50.80 0.15 50.80
---0.61 ---7.08 ---0.50 ---
Small Cobble Fine Gravel Small Cobble
50.80 0.24 50.80 0.18 50.80 0.24 50.80
Small Cobble Coarse Sand Small Cobble Coarse Gravel Small Cobble Coarse Sand Small Cobble Medium Gravel
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.67 1.45 1.72 1.51 2.18 2.64
0.04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Incised and lacks bedform Incised and lacks bedform Incised and lacks bedform Incised and lacks bedform Incised and lacks bedform
0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Existing channel is straight and
lacks dynamic planform
Existing channel is straight and
lacks dynamic planform
Existing channel is straight and
lacks dynamic planform
Existing channel is straight and lacks
dynamic planform
Existing channel is straight and
lacks dynamic planform
2.00 2.00 3.11 2.22 2.00 3.56
1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78
1.75 1.75 2.94 2.17 1.75 3.44
3.2 1.8 1.8 4.1 4.1
Channel has
severely degraded
with lack of
dyamic bedform-
No Pools Present
Channel has
severely degraded
with lack of
dyamic bedform-
No Pools Present
Channel has been
modified into ditch
with uniform
bedform- No Pools
Present
Channel has severely
degraded with lack of
dyamic bedform- No
Pools Present
Channel has been
modified into
ditch with uniform
bedform- No Pools
Present
0.033 square miles 0.033 square miles 0.079 square miles 0.079 square miles
1.1 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.2
G4
0.036 square miles 0.048 square miles 0.048 square miles 0.055 square miles 0.055 square miles 0.048 square miles 0.048 square miles
Proposed Tributary 5 Existing Tributary 6 Proposed Tributary 6
G5 G4 G5
Proposed Tributary 1C Existing Tributary 2 Proposed Tributary 2 Existing Tributary 3 Proposed Tributary 3 Existing Tributary 4 Proposed Tributary 4 Existing Tributary 5
152.40 53.44 152.40 30.66
101.60 12.15
0.05
G4

Appendix D

Jurisdictional Determination Information

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. SAW-2021-01973 County: Anson U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-Morven West
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Requestor: Freese & Nichols, Inc.
Attn: Jason Steele
Address: 531 N. Liberty Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101

Size (acres) ~72 Nearest Town Wadesboro
Nearest Waterway South Fork Jones Creek River Basin Lower Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040201 Coordinates 34.854514, -80.105156
Location description: The project area is located between Gulledge Road, and South Fork Jones Creek, approximately 0.7 mile
west of NC Highway 742, near Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina.

The Approved Jurisdictional Determination Review Area is shown as the purple outlined “AJD Review Area” on the attached
map entitled “Exhibit 4 WOTUS Features.”
The Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Review Area is shown as the pink outlined "PJD Review Area" on the attached
maps entitled “Exhibit 2 WOTUS Features”, “Exhibit 3 WOTUS Features”, and “Exhibit 4 WOTUS Features.”
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A.PreliminaryDetermination
܈ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33
USC § 403). The waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be
sufficiently accurate and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown within the above-described PJD
Review Area on the enclosed delineation map. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the
permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts,
compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a
preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as
if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the
Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an
approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
܆ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However,
since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an
effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which is not
sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters, including
wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
܆ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
܆ There are waters, including wetlandson the above-described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
SAW-2021-01973

܆We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
܆The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the
Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated . We strongly suggest you
have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this
survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no
change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
܆The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may
be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
܈ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present within the above-described AJD Review Area which are
subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the
law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date
of this notification
܆ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management to determine their requirements.

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David E. Bailey at [phone] X 30 or
[e-mail].
C. Basis For Determination: See the preliminary and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination forms, dated 07/27/2022.
D. Remarks:
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)

If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed
you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Floor M9
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8803
AND
[e-mail]

SAW-2021-01973

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

Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________
Date of JD: 07/27/2022 Expiration Date of Approved JD: 7/27/2027
Expiration Date of Preliminary JD: Not applicable

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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/.

Electronic Copies Furnished:
Chad Turlington, NCDWR
Tim Baumgartner, NCDMS

Date: 2022.07.27 17:19:07 -04'00'
0 875437.5 Feet
0 0.10.05 Mi
±
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
Exhibit 1 WOTUS Features
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
Data Point
AJD Review Area
PJD Review Area
Potential Wetland
Potential Stream
Non-jurisdictional Ditch
NOTES:
1. THE WETLANDS AND STREAMS DEPICTED ON THIS MAP WERE
DELINEATED PURUSANT TO THE USACE WETLAND DELINEATION
MANUAL (1987 MANUAL) AND THE USACE REGIONAL
SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1987 MANUAL (EASTERN MOUNTAINS AND
PIEDMONT REGION, V 2.0). FIELD WORK WAS CONDUCTED BY
ACER ENVIRONMENTAL ON 11 AND 17 MAY 2020.
2. WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS WERE COLLECTED WITH
SUB-METER ACCURACY DIFFERENTIAL GPS.
3. FEATURES REVISED BASED UPON USACE FIELD REVIEW ON 24
FEB 2022.
0 550275Feet
0 0.090.04 Mi
±
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
Exhibit 2 WOTUS Features
dp9 updp10 wet
dp1 wet
dp2 up
dp3 wetdp4 up
dp5 updp6 wet
dp7 updp8
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
Data Point
AJD Review Area
PJD Review Area
Potential Wetland
Potential Stream
NOTES:
1. THE WETLANDS AND STREAMS DEPICTED ON THIS MAP WERE
DELINEATED PURUSANT TO THE USACE WETLAND DELINEATION
MANUAL (1987 MANUAL) AND THE USACE REGIONAL
SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1987 MANUAL (EASTERN MOUNTAINS AND
PIEDMONT REGION, V 2.0). FIELD WORK WAS CONDUCTED BY
ACER ENVIRONMENTAL ON 11 AND 17 MAY 2020.
2. WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS WERE COLLECTED WITH
SUB-METER ACCURACY DIFFERENTIAL GPS.
3. FEATURES REVISED BASED UPON USACE FIELD REVIEW ON 24
FEB 2022.
Stream A
Perennial
2,864.1 Lin Ft
Wetland B
PSS
12,736.90 Sq Ft
0.29 Acre
Wetland A
PSS
19,321.56 Sq Ft
0.44 Acre
Wetland D
PSS
7,174.30 Sq Ft
0.17 Acre
Wetland C
PSS
2,104.14 Sq Ft
0.05 Acre
Wetland Q
PEM
120.28 Sq Ft
0.003 Acre
Wetland E
PEM
31,436.95 Sq Ft
0.72 Acre
Wetland P
PEM
1,616.63 Sq Ft
0.04 Acre
Wetland N
PEM
8,322.20 Sq Ft
0.19 Acre
Wetland O
PEM
13,690.64 Sq Ft
0.31 Acre
Stream B
Perennial
636.6 Lin Ft
Stream E
Multiple Segments
South Fork Jones Creek
1,594.50 Lin Ft
Stream L
Perennial
25.3 Lin Ft
0 375187.5 Feet
0 0.060.03 Mi
±
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
Exhibit 3 WOTUS Features
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
Data Point
AJD Review Area
PJD Review Area
Potential Wetland
Potential Stream
Non-jurisdictional Ditch
Wetland F
PEM
48,407.82 Sq Ft
1.11 Acre
Stream E
Multiple Segments
South Fork Jones Creek
1,594.50 Lin Ft
Stream M
Perennial
99.0 Lin Ft
Wetland M
PEM
4,062.17 Sq Ft
0.09 Acre
Stream D
Perennial
2,102.5 Lin Ft
Stream K
Perennial
14.9 Lin Ft
Wetland Q
PEM
120 Sq Ft
0.003 Acre
Stream I
Perennial
450.8 Lin Ft
Wetland K
PEM
6,985.77 Sq Ft
0.16 Acre
Wetland J
PEM
3,292.98 Sq Ft
0.08 Acre
Wetland S
PEM
636.37 Sq Ft
0.01 Acre
Wetland R
PEM
247.97 Sq Ft
0.005 Acre
Wetland I
PEM
9,231.45 Sq Ft
0.21 Acre
Wetland W
PEM
5,786.09 Sq Ft
0.13 Acre
Wetland V
PEM
1,829.85 Sq Ft
0.04 Acre
Wetland W
PEM
884.03 Sq Ft
0.02 Acre
Wetland H
PEM
40,858.05 Sq Ft
0.94 Acre
Wetland U
PEM
504.13 Sq Ft
0.01 Acre
Stream H
Perennial
2,765.0 Lin Ft
Stream F
Perennial
1,000.3 Lin Ft
Stream G
Perennial
2,381.5Lin Ft
Stream A
Perennial
2,864.1 Lin Ft
NOTES:
1. THE WETLANDS AND STREAMS DEPICTED ON THIS MAP WERE
DELINEATED PURUSANT TO THE USACE WETLAND DELINEATION
MANUAL (1987 MANUAL) AND THE USACE REGIONAL
SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1987 MANUAL (EASTERN MOUNTAINS AND
PIEDMONT REGION, V 2.0). FIELD WORK WAS CONDUCTED BY
ACER ENVIRONMENTAL ON 11 AND 17 MAY 2020.
2. WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS WERE COLLECTED WITH
SUB-METER ACCURACY DIFFERENTIAL GPS.
3. FEATURES REVISED BASED UPON USACE FIELD REVIEW ON 24
FEB 2022.
0 375187.5 Feet
0 0.060.03 Mi
±
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
Exhibit 4 WOTUS Features
Wetland I
Wetland H
Wetland L
Wetland G
Wetland U
Wetland T
Wetland V
531 N. Liberty St
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
Data Point
AJD Review Area
PJD Review Area
Potential Wetland
Potential Stream
Non-jurisdictional Ditch
Stream E
Multiple Segments
South Fork Jones Creek
1,594.50 Lin Ft
Stream M
Perennial
99.0 Lin Ft
Wetland I
PEM
9,231.45 Sq Ft
0.21 Acre
Wetland L
PEM
5,786.09 Sq Ft
0.13 Acre
Wetland V
PEM
1,829.85 Sq Ft
0.04 Acre
Wetland T
PEM
804.77 Sq Ft
0.02 Acre
Wetland H
PEM
40,858.05 Sq Ft
0.94 Acre
Wetland U
PEM
504.13 Sq Ft
0.01 Acre
Non-jurisdictional Ditch
Constructed in Uplands
356.8 Lin Ft
Stream F
Perennial
1,000.3 Lin Ft
Stream G
Perennial
2,381.5Lin Ft
NOTES:
1. THE WETLANDS AND STREAMS DEPICTED ON THIS MAP WERE
DELINEATED PURUSANT TO THE USACE WETLAND DELINEATION
MANUAL (1987 MANUAL) AND THE USACE REGIONAL
SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1987 MANUAL (EASTERN MOUNTAINS AND
PIEDMONT REGION, V 2.0). FIELD WORK WAS CONDUCTED BY
ACER ENVIRONMENTAL ON 11 AND 17 MAY 2020.
2. WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS WERE COLLECTED WITH
SUB-METER ACCURACY DIFFERENTIAL GPS.
3. FEATURES REVISED BASED UPON USACE FIELD REVIEW ON 24
FEB 2022.
Stream E
Multiple Segments
South Fork Jones Creek
1,594.50 Lin Ft
Wetland G
PEM
8959.27 Sq Ft
0.21 Acre

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Freese & Nichols, Inc. (Attn: Jason Steele) File Number: SAW-2021-01973 Date: 07/27/2022
Attached is: See Section below
܆ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
܆ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
܆ PERMIT DENIAL C
܈ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
܈ PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: David E. Bailey
Raleigh Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
MR. PHILIP A. SHANNIN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW OFFICER
CESAD-PDS-O
60 FORSYTH STREET SOUTHWEST, FLOOR M9
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8803

PHONE: [phone]; FAX [phone]
EMAIL: [e-mail]

RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.

________________________________________
Signature of appellant or agent.
Date: Telephone number:

For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:

District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: David E. Bailey, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina
28403

For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:

Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Philip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.

SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): July 27, 2022

B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Middendorf Springs, SAW-2021-01973

C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The AJD Review Area is shown on the map entitled “Exhibit
4 WOTUS Features” as the purple outlined “AJD Review Area.”
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Anson County City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34.85725°N, Long. -80.10923° W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 581426.3 3857574.59
Name of nearest waterbody: South Fork Jones Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Pee Dee River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Lower Pee Dee, 03040201
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc…) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:

D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 3/1/2022

SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.

There Are no “navigable waters of the U.S.” within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:

B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.

There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]

1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands

b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet, wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.

c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Not Applicable.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):

2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: The feature labeled as "Non-jurisdictional Ditch Constructed in Uplands" meets the criteria in the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate Regional Supplement (though it does not have
consistent OHWM indicators). However, based on my site visit, QL2 LiDAR, and aerial photography, this feature
was constructed entirely in uplands. This information indicates that this feature was constructed as a ditch through
upland soils between 2015 and 2022. There are no potentially jurisdictional features above the "Non-jurisdictional
Ditch" that drain into it. Further, the areas immediately alongside the feature did not display any indicators of
wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology, or hydric soils. Federal Register pg. 41217, Vol. 51, No. 219, 11/13/1986,

1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least “seasonally”
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

- 2 -

states that "Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land" are generally not considered to be
waters of the US; as such, the "Non-jurisdictional Ditch Constructed in Uplands" is not considered a water of the
US.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS

A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs

The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.

1. TNW
Identify TNW:

Summarize rationale supporting determination:

2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is “adjacent”:

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):

This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.

The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are “relatively permanent
waters” (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.

A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.

If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.

1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW

(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches

(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
Tributary flows directly into TNW.
Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.

Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:

4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.

- 3 -

Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: Natural
Artificial (man-made). Explain:
Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:

Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.

Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
Silts Sands Concrete
Cobbles Gravel Muck
Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover:
Other. Explain:

Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %

(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:

Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:

Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
Dye (or other) test performed:

Tributary has (check all that apply):
Bed and banks
OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
clear, natural line impressed on the bank the presence of litter and debris
changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation
shelving the presence of wrack line
vegetation matted down, bent, or absent sediment sorting
leaf litter disturbed or washed away scour
sediment deposition multiple observed or predicted flow events
water staining abrupt change in plant community
other (list):
Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:

If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
oil or scum line along shore objects survey to available datum;
fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) physical markings;
physical markings/characteristics vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
tidal gauges
other (list):

(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:

5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody’s flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7Ibid.

- 4 -

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
Habitat for:
Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:

2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW

(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:

(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:

Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:

Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
Dye (or other) test performed:

(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
Directly abutting
Not directly abutting
Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
Ecological connection. Explain:
Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:

(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.

(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:

(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
Habitat for:
Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:

3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:

Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)

- 5 -

Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:

C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION

A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.

Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
 Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
 Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
 Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
 Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?

Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:

1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:

2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:

3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:

D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):

1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.

2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow “seasonally” (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet wide.
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:

3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):

8See Footnote # 3.

- 6 -

Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:

4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:

Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow “seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:

Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.

5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.

Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.

6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.

7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from “waters of the U.S.,” or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).

E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.

F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
“Migratory Bird Rule” (MBR).

9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

- 7 -

Waters do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above): The feature labeled as "Non-jurisdictional Ditch Constructed in Uplands" meets the
criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate Regional Supplement (though it
does not have consistent OHWM indicators). However, based on my site visit, QL2 LiDAR, and aerial photography, this
feature was constructed entirely in uplands. This information indicates that this feature was constructed as a ditch
through upland soils between 2015 and 2022. There are no potentially jurisdictional features above the "Non-
jurisdictional Ditch" that drain into it. Further, the areas immediately alongside the feature did not display any indicators
of wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology, or hydric soils. Federal Register pg. 41217, Vol. 51, No. 219, 11/13/1986, states
that "Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land" are generally not considered to be waters of the
US; as such, the "Non-jurisdictional Ditch Constructed in Uplands" is not considered a water of the US.

Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: 0.05 acres.

Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.

SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.

A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (F&N)
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters’ study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; Morven West
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Anson Co. Soil Survey
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): 2015 and 2021 NCCGIA
or Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify): QL2 LiDAR (NC SDD website)

B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B.NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C.DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D.PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.:Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E.REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE”SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
See TableAttached
7/27/2022
Jason Steele, 531 N. Liberty St, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
SAW-2021-01973 (Middendorf Springs / NCDMS)
NC Anson
34.855 -80.1075
South Fork Jones Creek
3/1/2022
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the
district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Page 2 of 4
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION.
Site Number Latitude (decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic
resource in review
area (acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic
authority to which
the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or
Section 10/404)
Stream A 34.8597 -80.113 2864 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Stream B 34.8584 -80.112 637 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Stream D 34.857 -80.1091 2103 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Stream E segments 34.8518 -80.115 1595 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Stream F 34.855 -80.1034 1000 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Stream G 34.8589 -80.105 2382 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Stream H 34.8586 -80.1067 2765 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Stream I 34.8568 -80.107 451 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Stream K 34.857 -80.109 15 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Stream L 34.8518 -80.1113 25 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Stream M 34.8521 -80.1084 99 feet Non-wetland waters Section 404
Wetland A 34.8585 -80.1135 0.4436 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland B 34.8597 -80.1131 0.2924 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland C 34.858 -80.1122 0.0483 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland D 34.8585 -80.1119 0.1647 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland E 34.855 -80.1116 0.7217 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland F 34.8525 -80.1083 1.1113 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland G 34.8536 -80.1002 0.2057 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland H 34.8573 -80.104 0.938 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland I 34.8542 -80.1048 0.2119 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland J 34.8565 -80.1065 0.0756 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland K 34.8569 -80.1074 0.1604 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland L 34.8588 -80.105 0.1328 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland M 34.854 -80.1077 0.9327 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland N 34.852 -80.1138 0.191 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland O 34.852 -80.1133 0.3143 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland P 34.8526 -80.1097 0.0371 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland Q 34.857 -80.1092 0.0028 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland R 34.8575 -80.1065 0.0057 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland S 34.8581 -80.1066 0.0146 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland T 34.8556 -80.1021 0.0185 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland U 34.8564 -80.1029 0.0116 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland V 34.8584 -80.1048 0.042 acres Wetland Section 404
Wetland W 34.8561 -80.106 0.0203 acres Wetland Section 404
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit)or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be”navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: _______BBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____BBBBBBBBBBBB.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
or Other (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Other information (please specify): ______________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Aerial, soils, and topo maps (F&N)
1:24,000 Morven West Quad
Anson Co. Soil Survey
Most recent available, State of NC (accessed 2021)
QL2 LiDAR (NC SDD website)
Date: 2022.07.27
16:30:48 -04'00'
Stream A
Date: / Q
Evaluator:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if� 19 or erennial if� 30*
A.Geomorpholoav (Subtotal =
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
I I
3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool seQuence
4.Particle size of stream substrate
5.Active/relict floodplain
6.Depositional bars or benches
7.Recent alluvial deposits
8.Headcuts
9.Grade control
10.Natural valley
11.Second or greater order channel
)
a art1fic1al ditches are not rated, see d1scuss1ons m manual
B.Hydrology {Subtotal= 4.S-)
12.Presence of Baseflow
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria
14.Leaf litter
15.Sediment on plants or debris
16.Organic debris lines or piles
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?
C.BioloQV {Subtotal =n )
18.Fibrous roots in streambed
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed
20.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
21.Aquatic Mollusks
22.Fish
23.Crayfish
24.Amphibians
25.Algae
26.Wetland plants in streambed
Project/Site: M.ir/.dt,,nc/o(f Latitude:
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
Absent Weak Moderate
_Q_ 1 2
<; 0� 1 2 C o_) 1 2
0 C L.J 2
Q_ 1 C 2 )C' o__) 1 2
0 1 2
0 _j 2
0 \_ I 0.5 J 1
Strona C 3 J
3
3
3
3
3
3
(;3 J
-1...5
0 0.5 1 {, 1.5 J
( No=0 ) Yes =3
-
0 (. 1 __) 2 3 ti 0 )1 -2 3
1.5 1 (l 0.5)0
(( 0 )0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
No= 0 ( rYes = 3 )
( 3 __) 2 1 0 < � 2 1 0
( Q)1 2 3
( o..::> 1 2 3
(,Jl....,' 0.5 1 1.5
(; O__) 0.5 1 1.5
t; o_) 0.5 1 1.5 < a.,_..) 0.5 1 1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other= 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Stream B
NCD
Date: II
Evaluator:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if� 19 or erennial if� 30*
A.Geomorpholoav (Subtotal =
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
I
3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
rioole-pool sequence
4.Particle size of stream substrate
5.Active/relict floodplain
6.Depositional bars or benches
7.Recent alluvial deposits
8.Headcuts
9.Grade control
10.Natural valley
11.Second or greater order channel
)
a art1fic1al ditches are not rated, see d1scuss1ons m manual 7B.Hydroloav (Subtotal = )
12.Presence of Baseflow
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria
14.Leaf litter
15.Sediment on plants or debris
16.Organic debris lines or piles
17.Soil-based evidence of high �ater table?
C.Biology (Subtotal -{,., )
18.Fibrous roots in streambed
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed
20.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
21.Aquatic Mollusks
22.Fish
23.Crayfish
24.Amphibians
25.Algae
26.Wetland plants in streambed
Stream De nrulftll'lmtt<LI le one) Other
Ephemera erennial e.g. Quad Name:
Absent Weak Moderate
0 _j_ 2
0 ,(. 1 J 2
0 C 1)2
_Q_ ( 1� 2
( 0 _J 1 2
0 Cl 1-,) 2 C 0 J 1 2 -u � 2
0 (, 0.5__) 1
0 0.5 1
(
('
C C-No= 0 )Yes= 3
0 (, 1 } 2
c_ 0 _..)·1 2
1.5 1 C 0.5 )c., 0 __) 0.5 1
0 � 0.5 J 1 --
No= 0 ( Yes= 3
l, � ) 2 1
( 3 J 2 1
{t. 0 ) 1 2
{ 0,/ 1 2
( 0) 0.5 1
( 0) 0.5 1
C,Jl.) 0.5 1
( oJ 0.5 1
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 /Other= l);,
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.-
Notes:
Sketch:
-· --
3
3
3
3
3
3
J.-....
3 J1 5
1.5 _)
3
3
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Evaluator: / 6J e f3M p
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 3 7
if'i?. 19 or erennial if'i?. 30*
A.Geomoroholoav (Subtotal= �0,S--)
18• Continuity of channel bed and bank
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
rioole-oool seauence
4.Particle size of stream substrate
5.Active/relict floodplain
6.Depositional bars or benches
7.Recent alluvial deposits
8.Headcuts
9.Grade control
10.Natural valley
11.Second or greater order channel
artificial ditches are not rated, see d1scuss1ons in manual
8.HvdrolO!lV (Subtotal = ;?,,.,S-)
12.Presence of Baseflow
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria
14.Leaf litter
15.Sediment on plants or debris
16.Organic debris lines or piles
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?
C.Bioloav {Subtotal -X )
18.Fibrous roots in streambed
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed
20.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
21.Aquatic Mollusks
22.Fish
23.Crayfish
24.Amphibians
25.Algae
County:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Absent Weak
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 _"I_
0 (. 1 __)
,....-Q-... 1
( n _.) 0.5
0 -0.5
(,No= o '\
0 1_
0 /C 1 _.,)
G 1...5. ) 1
(�, 0.5
rl n � 0.5
No=0 -
�_3../ 2
(. :U 2
( Q..) 1
\. o.J 1
(c 0 J 0.5 t o...J 0.5
0 G 0,5__)
0 0.5
Latitude:
Longitude:
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
Moderate Strong
2 C 3 J
� 2)3
( 2) 3 -
2 C 3�
-2-... l 3 )C 2 _) 3
2 3
2 ( -3 )
1 1.5
1 ( 1.5 )
Yes =3
2 C 3 _)
2 3
0.5 0
1 1.5
1 -1.5
( Yes= 3,/
1 0
1 0
2 3
2 3
1 1.5
1 1.5
1 1.5
1 C 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:
Stream D
Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 0
Evaluator:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if-;;:. 19 or erennial if-;;:. 30*
Latitude:
County: Longitude:
Stream De errmna 1 ·911u;u;i�-1 OtherEphemeral lntermitt e.g. Quad Name:
A.Geomorpholoav (Subtotal = t7.s • )Absent Weak Moderate C:tr,.�n
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,-Q? rioole-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 C 2 )3
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 C 3)6.Depositional bars or benches 0 C 1 �2 3 7.Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 C 2� 3
8.Headcuts 0 1 { 2 )3
9.Grade control C 0 �0.5 1 li 10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1 { 1.5 )
11. Second or greater order channel ( No= 0 .)Yes= 3 a -art1ftc1al ditches are not rated, see d1s�s1ons in manual
B.Hydrology (Subtotal =)
12.Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 C 3 ) 13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 C 1 J 2 3
14.Leaf litter C 1.5) i 0.5 0
15.Sediment on plants or debris -o / 0.5 )1 1.5
16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 C, osJ 1 --1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No= 0 (Yes=3 )
C.Biology (Subtotal -7,S ) 18.Fibrous roots in streambed { _3 J 2 1 0
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed C 3 ) 2 1 0
20.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance){ 0 ) 1 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks \.. o__.J 1 2 3
22.Fish 0 C 0.5 _)1 1.5
23.Crayfish C 0 _)0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 C 05 ) 1 1.5
25.Algae 0 l 0.5) 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 at_�er = 0 �*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Stream J
Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Evaluator:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if'i?. 19 or erennial if'i?. 30*
A.Geomoroholoav (Subtotal = / I .1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,riaale-oool seauence4. Particle size of stream substrate
5.Active/relict floodplain
6.Depositional bars or benches
7.Recent alluvial deposits
8.Headcuts
9.Grade control
10.Natural valley
11.Second or greater order channel
l
8 art1fic1al ditches are not rated; see d1scuss1ons in manual
B.Hvdroloov (Subtotal =5? )
12.Presence of Baseflow
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria
14.Leaf litter
15.Sediment on plants or debris
16.Organic debris lines or piles
Project/Site: M\�a Latitude:
Stream Dete �.IAI.IU.W.-l' ircle one) Other
Ephemeral Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
Absent Weak Moderate
0 --1..... 2
0 ,{ 1 J 2
0 {_D 2
0 ( 1 _.J --2.... 0 1 { 2 __) C 0 _) 1 2
0 (_ 1 _J 2
_Q__ 1 ' 2 J c.. fl _) 0.5 1
0 0.5 1
(, No = 0 ) Yes = 3 -
-
0 _.1...... ( 2 �
0 ( 1� 2
1.5 ( 1 ) 0.5
0 t 0.5.) 1
0 Ct ni::') 1
Strong
C 3_) 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
i5
(._ 1.5 )
3
3
0
1.5
1.5 17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?No= 0 <.. Yes = 3 )
C.Biology (Subtotal =� ) 18.Fibrous roots in streambed C 3_) 2 1 0
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed Ct 3 _J 2 1 0
20.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)(_ _o.) 1 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks {" nJ 1 2 3
22.Fish {O') 0.5 1 1.5
23.Crayfish ,C "1J:J 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians �0/ 0.5 1 1.5
25.Algae L cu 0.5 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 (Other = 11)
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Stream I
NCD Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /o
Evaluator:
Total Points: Stream is at least intermittent 3 LJ S if'i?. 19 or erennial if'i?. 30* -{ •
A.Geomorphology (Subtotal =. l
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
rioole-pool sequence
4.Particle size of stream substrate
5.Active/relict floodplain
6.Depositional bars or benches
7.Recent alluvial deposits
8.Headcuts
9.Grade control
10. Natural valley
11. Second or greater order channel
a artificial ditches are not rated; see di�
ssions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12.Presence of Baseflow
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria
14.Leaf litter
15.Sediment on plants or debris
16.Organic debris lines or piles
17.Soil-based evidence of high�ater table?
C.Biology (Subtotal = �)
18.Fibrous roots in streambed
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed
20.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
21. Aquatic Mollusks
22. Fish
23.Crayfish
24.Amphibians
25.Algae
26.Wetland plants in streambed
Project/Site: /\11 'Jd,,.d" rf Latitude:
County: Longitude:
Stream Determination (
Ephemeral lntermitten
·=-....,.,1....._ 1 Othere.g. Quad Name:
Absent Weak Moderate Strang
0 __j 2 ( 3)
0 C 1 )2 3
0 1 G 3
0 1 C 2 �3
0 1 2 r 3)
0 (1-=> __2 3
0 1 C ? ) 3
0 1 2 C 3 .J( 0 _.)0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 ( 1.5)
(No=O___.)Yes =3
0 1 2 [ 3 J
__Q_ [ 1 J 2 3
,. 1.5)1 0.5 0
{ oJ 0.5 1 1.5
0 { o.�J 1 1.5
No= 0 C_ Yes= 3 �
C 3")2 1 0 C ___3__� 2 1 0
{ 0 J 1 2 3
{ o") 1 2 3-o t-_O.Y 1 1.5
( o_.J 0.5 1 1.5
__Q__ t( 0.5)1 1.5
(' 0 )0.5 1 1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other= 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Stream G
Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /o Project/Site: (\\ 1'cl.dMJ cf f-Latitude:
Evaluator:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if� 19 or erennial if� 30*
A.Geomorpholoov (Subtotal = /
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
#
3.In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,rioole-oool seauence
4.Particle size of stream substrate
5.Active/relict floodplain
6.Depositional bars or benches
7.Recent alluvial deposits
8.Headcuts
9.Grade control
10.Natural valley
11.Second or greater order channel
)
artificial ditches are not rated, see d1scuss1ons m manual
-� B.Hvdroloov (Subtotal =)
12.Presence of Baseflow
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria
14.Leaf litter
15.Sediment on plants or debris
16.Organic debris lines or piles
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?
C.Bioloav (Subtotal =X )
18.Fibrous roots in streambed -
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed
20.Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
21.Aquatic Mollusks
22.Fish
23.Crayfish
24.Amphibians
25.Algae
County: Of\_.,,
Stream Determination (
Ephemeral Intermittent
Absent Weak
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
(, 0 __) 0.5
0 0.5
{No=O _=::>
0 1
0 1
(( 1.5) 1 C OJ 0.5
0 0.5
No= 0 -
( � )2
(__�� 2
( o)1C o_) 1
0 0.5 C 0 ) 0.5
0 0.5 C 0 �0.5
Longitude:
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
Moderate Strong
-2. (__ 3 )
\ 2 J 3
c:i:) 3 r 2.J __3_ -2 C 3_}C 2� 3
( 2 _.) 3 t 2] 3
1 1_._5__
1 C 1.5
Yes= 3
-
2 C 3
(. 2 ) 3
0.5 0
1 1.5
1 -�<11.5
( l Yes= 3 .J
1 0
1 0
2 3
--2. 3 l 1 J 1.5
i 1.5
C.1 __)1.5
1_1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5l Other= 0 )*perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.-
Notes:
Sketch:
_)
)
)
Stream H

Appendix E

Hydric Soils Investigation
Figure 2. Young’s Mill Mitigation Site Soil Map.
Figure 1. Young’s Mill Mitigation Site Hydric Soil Areas.
Soil Boring Unit 1 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-10 2.5Y 5/1 Silty Clay Loam
10-14 2.5Y 5/2 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 2 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-14 10YR 5/2 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 3 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-5 2.5Y 5/2 Silty Clay Loam
5-14 10YR 5/1 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 4 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-14
Soil Boring Unit 5 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-16 2.5Y 5/1 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 6 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-14 10YR 5/2 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 7 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-3 10YR 5/2 Silty Clay Loam
3-14 10YR 5/1 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 8 Hydric Soil Indicator:None met
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-3 10YR 5/2 Silty Clay Loam
3-14 10YR 5/1 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 9 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-12 2.5Y 5/2 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 10 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-14 2.5Y 5/2 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 11 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-3 10YR 5/2 Silty Clay Loam
3-14 10YR 5/1 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 12 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-14 2.5Y 5/1 Silty Clay Loam
Soil Boring Unit 13 Hydric Soil Indicator:Depleted Matrix
Depth (inches)Color Texture Notes
0-12 10YR 5/2 Silty Clay Loam
10% 10YR 5/6 concentrations
5% 10YR 4/4 concentrations
10% 10YR 5/6 concentrations
5% 10YR 5/4 concentrations
5% 10YR 5/6 concentrations
wet area associated with channel
5% 10YR 5/4 concentrations. Appears to be a headwater area
5% 10YR 5/4 concentrations
5% 10YR 5/6 concentrations
5% 10YR 4/4 concentrations
10% 7.5YR 5/4 concentrations, free water at 14"
5% 10YR 4/4 concentrations
5% 10YR 5/4 concentrations
5% 10YR 5/4 concentrations
5% 10YR 5/4 concentrations
5% 10YR 5/6 concentrations
Possible Buried/Impacted Depleted Matix
5% 10YR 5/6 concentrations

Appendix F

Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Appendix A

Categorical Exclusion Form for Division of Mitigation Services Projects
Version 2

Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the environmental
document.
Part 1: General Project Information Project Name: County Name: DMS Number: Project Sponsor: Project Contact Name: Project Contact Address: Project Contact E-mail: DMS Project Manager: Project Description
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:

Date DMS Project Manager

Conditional Approved By:

Date For Division Administrator
FHWA

Check this box if there are outstanding issues

Final Approval By:

Date For Division Administrator
FHWA

10-14-21
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the specie and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
SUMMARY
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a
Federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites as well as accidents,
spills, or other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment.
Since the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is a full-delivery project, a Government Environmental
Records Report was ordered for the site through Envirosite Corporation on March 23, 2021. Neither the
target property, nor adjacent properties, were listed in any of the Federal, State, or Tribal environmental
databases searched by Envirosite. The assessment revealed no evidence of any recognized environmental
conditions (RECs) connected to the target property. The Report is included in the Appendix.
National Historic Preservation Action (Section 106)
National Historic Preservation Action (Section 106) declares a national policy of historic preservation to
protect, rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in
American architecture, history, archaeology and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal agencies
take into account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion
in, the National Register of Historic Places.
Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) requested a review and comment from the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) with respect to architectural and archaeological resources related to Middendorf Springs
Mitigation Site on April 24, 2020. SHPO responded on June 11,2020 and stated they were aware of “no
historic resources which would be affected by the project” and would have no further comment. Section
106 correspondence is included in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (Uniform Act)
These acts, known collectively as the Uniform Act, provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons
displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit associations, or farms by Federal and Federally-
assisted programs, and establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies.
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is a full-delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of
the fair market value of the project property and the lack of condemnation authority by FNI was
provided to the property owners. A copy of the notification is included in the Appendix.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the
Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species.
The Anson County listed endangered species includes Red-cockaded woodpecker, Carolina heelsplitter,
and Schweinitz’s sunflower. The project area does not include any in-stream work, and no habitat for red-
cockaded woodpecker is present within the project area. Therefore, due to lack of habitat for the listed
species at the site, the project has been determined by FNI to have “no effect” on listed species.
FNI requested review and comment from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on April 24, 2020 for
the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened and endangered species.
USFWS responded on May 13, 2020 stating that suitable summer roosting habitat may be present for the
federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and the agency encouraged
“…conduct any associated tree clearing activities outside of the pup season (June 1 to July 31) and/or
active season (April 1 to October 31) to reduce the chance of impacting identified maternity roosts.” In
addition, occurrences of Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) were identified in the vicinity of
the project area. A targeted survey was requested during the optimal survey window of late August –
October. A habitat assessment and survey for Schweinitz’s sunflower was conducted by FNI
environmental scientists on September 28, 2020, and results were submitted to USFWS on January 18,
2021. USFWS responded with concurrence on the negative species survey documentation on January 22,
2021: “Based on the information provided, we have no concerns for any other federally protected species
and we require no further action at this time.” All documents submitted to USFWS are included in the
Appendix.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
The FPPA requires that, before taking or approving any Federal action that would result in the conversion
of farmland, the agency must examine the effects of the action using the criteria set forth in the FPPA,
and, if there are adverse effects, must consider alternatives to lessen them.
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Stie includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD-
1006 has been completed and submitted to the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The
completed form and correspondence documenting its submittal are included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and appropriate state wildlife agencies on projects that
impounded, diverted, deepened or otherwise modify waterbodies. The Middendorf Springs Mitigation
project includes stream restoration. FNI requested comment on the project from both the UFSWS and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) on April 24, 2020. NCWRC responded on May 18,
2020 with comments about the possible presence of rare and aquatic species in the project area: “NCWRC
does not have any known records of federal or state-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species near
the site.” All correspondence with USFWS and WRC are included in the Appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or
export any migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by the
MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a taking.
FNI requested comment on the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site from the USFWS regarding migratory
birds on April 14, 2021. The USFWS responded on May 13, 2020 and recommended that, “To avoid
impacts to migratory birds, we recommend conducting a visual inspection of any migratory bird nesting
habitat within the project area during the migratory bird nesting season of March through September and
avoiding impacting the nests during the migratory bird nesting season. If birds are discovered nesting near
the project area during years prior to the proposed construction date, we recommend that you and the
NCDOT, in consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service, develop measures to discourage birds from
establishing nests within the project area by means that will not result in the take of birds or eggs; or avoid
construction activities during the nesting period.” All correspondence with USFWS is included in the
Appendix.

Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
APPENDIX
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
CERCLA DOCUMENTATION
Government Records Report | 2021
Order Number: 52637
Report Generated: 03/23/2021
Project Name: Middendorf Springs
Project Number: Middendorf
Middendorf SpringsGulledge RdWadesboro, NC 28170
2 Corporate DriveSuite 450Shelton, CT 06484Toll Free: 866-211-2028www.envirositecorp.com
Table of Contents 2021
Section Page
Executive Summary 1
Executive Summary by Distance 2
Executive Summary by Database 3
Property Proximity Map 7
Area Map 8
Map Findings Summary 9
Unmappable Summary 15
Environmental Records Searched 16
Geological Landscape Section 34
Geological Landscape Section Soil Map 37
Geological Landscape Section Summary 38
Geological Findings Map 100
Geological Landscape Section Map Findings 101
Geological Landscape Section Map Findings Radon 106
Geological Landscape Records Searched 107
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
All information contained in this report are based on data available from various public, government and other sources and are based upon
the best data available from those sources. The information available in this report may be available from other sources and is not exclusive
or the exclusive property of Envirosite Corporation.
NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY
OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY USER AND Envirosite assumes no liability for faulty or inaccurate
information. The Reports may utilize a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Envirosite. Envirosite cannot, and does not
assure, warrant, guarantee or assume any liability for the correctness, comprehensiveness, timeliness or completeness of any of such
information, nor is the information in any Report to be construed as legal advice with respect to environmental risks associated with any
property. Envirosite shall not be liable to anyone for any claims, causes of action, suits, damages, losses, costs and expenses (including,
without limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of or caused by this report regardless of the acts, errors or omissions, or negligence
of Envirosite. Any damages shall be limited to the purchase price of the report.
Purchaser of the report accepts the report “As Is”. The report is intended only to provide information only and should not be considered as
providing any legal advice, prediction, forecast, or fact as to the environmental risk for any specific property. Reports are proprietary to
Envirosite, and contain copyrighted material and trademarks of Envirosite. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their
respective owners. All rights of Envirosite as to the Reports are reserved.
Executive Summary 2021
Envirosite Corporation has conducted a search of all reasonably ascertainable records in accordance with EPA’s AAI (40 CFR Part 312) requirements and the ASTM E-1527-13 Environmental Site Assessments standard.
SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION:
ADDRESS:
Middendorf SpringsGulledge RdWadesboro, NC 28170
COORDINATES:
Latitude (North):34.855547 - 34°51'20"
Longitude (West):-80.108185 - -80°6'29.5"
Universal Transverse Mercator:Zone 17N
UTM X (Meters):581523.51
UTM Y (Meters):3857386.54
ELEVATION:
Elevation:369.944 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Subject Property Map: 34080-G1 Morven West, NCMost Recent Revision: 2016
Page 1 of 109
Executive Summary by Distance 2021
No Mapped Sites
Page 2 of 109
Executive Summary by Database 2021
SUBJECT PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS:
The subject property was not listed in any of the databases searched by Envirosite Corporation.
SEARCH RESULTS:
No unmappable sites reported.
DATABASE(S) WITH NO MAPPED SITES:
FEDERAL RCRA NON-CORRACTS TSD FACILITIES LISTARCHIVED RCRA TSDF Archived Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Treatment Storage and Disposal FacilitiesRCRA_TSDF Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
FEDERAL CERCLIS LISTCERCLIS NFRAP Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act No Further Remedial Action PlannedCERCLIS-HIST Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability ActFEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility sitesSEMS_8R_ACTIVE SITES Sites on SEMS Active Site InventorySEMS_8R_ARCHIVED SITES Sites on SEMS Archived Site Inventory
FEDERAL RCRA CORRACTS FACILITIES LISTCORRACTSHazardous Waste Corrective ActionHIST CORRACTS 2 Historical Hazardous Waste Corrective Action
FEDERAL DELISTED NPL SITE LISTDELISTED NPL Delisted National Priority ListDELISTED PROPOSED NPL Delisted proposed National Priority ListSEMS_DELETED NPL Sites Deleted from National Priorities List
FEDERAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTSEPA LF MOP EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Project Database
FEDERAL ERNS LISTERNS Emergency Response Notification System
FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIESFED E C Engineering ControlsFED I C Institutional ControlsRCRA IC_EC RCRA sites with Institutional and Engineering Controls
FEDERAL RCRA GENERATORS LISTHIST RCRA_CESQG Historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity GeneratorsHIST RCRA_LQG Historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_ Large Quantity GeneratorsHIST RCRA_NONGEN Historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_Non GeneratorsHIST RCRA_SQG Historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_Small Quantity GeneratorsRCRA_LQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_ Large Quantity GeneratorsRCRA_NONGEN Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_Non GeneratorsRCRA_SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_Small Quantity GeneratorsRCRA_VSQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act_Very Small Quantity Generator
FEDERAL NPL SITE LISTNPL National Priority ListNPL EPA R1 GIS GIS for EPA Region 1 NPLNPL EPA R3 GIS GIS for EPA Region 3 NPL
Page 3 of 109
Executive Summary by Database 2021
FEDERAL NPL SITE LIST (cont.)NPL EPA R6 GIS GIS for EPA Region 6 NPLNPL EPA R8 GIS GIS for EPA Region 8 NPLNPL EPA R9 GIS GIS for EPA Region 9 NPLPART NPL Part National Priority ListPROPOSED NPL Proposed National Priority ListSEMS_FINAL NPL Sites included on the Final National Priorities ListSEMS_PROPOSED NPL Sites Proposed to be Added to the National Priorities List
STATE- AND TRIBAL - EQUIVALENT CERCLISARCHIVED HSDS - NC Archived Hazardous Substance Disposal SitesARCHIVED HSDS AREAS - NC Areas of Archived Hazardous Substance Disposal SitesFRB SUPERFUND - NC FRB Superfund - NCSHWS - NC State Hazardous Waste Sites
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTSFEMA UST FEMA Underground Storage TanksINDIAN UST R1 Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 1INDIAN UST R10 Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 10INDIAN UST R2 Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 2INDIAN UST R4 Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 4INDIAN UST R5 Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 5INDIAN UST R6 Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 6INDIAN UST R7 Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 7INDIAN UST R8 Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 8INDIAN UST R9 Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 9AST - NC Aboveground Storage TanksUST - NC Underground Storage TanksUST 2 - NC UST Facilities
STATE AND TRIBAL BROWNFIELD SITESTRIBAL BROWNFIELDS Tribal BrownfieldsBROWNFIELDS - NC Brownfield
STATE RCRA GENERATORS LISTHWG - NC State Hazardous Waste Generators
STATE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIESI C - NC Institutional Controls
STATE AND TRIBAL LEAKING STORAGE TANK LISTSINDIAN LUST R1 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 1INDIAN LUST R10 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 10INDIAN LUST R2 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 2INDIAN LUST R4 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 4INDIAN LUST R5 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 5INDIAN LUST R6 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 6INDIAN LUST R7 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 7INDIAN LUST R8 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 8INDIAN LUST R9 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 9LAST - NC Leaking Aboveground Storage TanksLUST - NC Leaking Underground Storage TanksLUST TRUST - NC Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Trust
STATE AND TRIBAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTSPRLF - NC Pre-Regulatory Landfill SitesSWF/LF - NC Solid Waste Facilities Landfills
LOCAL BROWNFIELD LISTSBROWNFIELDS-ACRES EPA ACRES BrownfieldsFED BROWNFIELDS Federal Brownfields
Page 4 of 109
Executive Summary by Database 2021
LOCAL LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE / CONTAMINATED SITESFED CDL DOJ Clandestine Drug LabsUS HIST CDL Historical Clandestine Drug LabsINACTIVE HWS - NC Inacitve Hazardous Waste Sites
LOCAL LISTS OF LANDFILL / SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITESHIST INDIAN ODI R8 Historical Open Dump InventoryINDIAN ODI R8 Open Dump InventoryODIOpen Dump InventoryTRIBAL ODI Indian Open Dump Inventory SitesSWRCY - NC Recycling FacilitiesSWRCY 2 - NC Material Recovery FacilitiesSWTIRE - NC Solid Waste Tire
RECORDS OF EMERGENCY RELEASE REPORTSHMIRS (DOT)Hazardous Materials Information Reporting Systems
LOCAL LAND RECORDSLIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDSAFS Air Facility SystemsALT FUELING Alternative Fueling StationsAST PBS ASTs at Bulk Petroleum TerminalsBRSBiennial Reporting SystemsCDC HAZDAT Hazardous Substance Release and Health Effects InformationCOAL ASH DOE Coal Ash: Department of EnergyCOAL ASH EPA Coal Ash: Environmental Protection AgencyCOAL GAS Coal Gas PlantsCONSENT (DECREES)Superfund Consent DecreeCORRECTIVE ACTIONS_2020 Wastes - Hazardous Waste - Corrective ActionDEBRIS EPA LF EPA Disaster Debris Landfill SitesDEBRIS EPA SWRCY EPA Disaster Debris Recovery SitesDODDepartment of DefenseDOT OPS Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline SafetyECHOEPA Enforcement and Compliance History OnlineENOIElectronic Notice of IntentEPA FUELS EPA Fuels Registration, Reporting, and Compliance ListEPA OSC EPA On-Site CoordinatorEPA WATCH EPA Watch ListFA HWF Financial Assurance for Hazardous Waste FacilitiesFEDLANDFederal LandsFRSFacility Index SystemsFTTSFIFRA/TSCA Tracking SystemFTTS INSP FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System: InspectionsFUDSFormerly Used Defense SitesHIST AFS Historical Air Facility SystemsHIST AFS 2 Historical Air Facility SystemsHIST DOD Department of Defense historical sitesHIST LEAD_SMELTER Historical Lead Smelter SitesHIST MLTS Historical Material Licensing Tracking SystemsHIST PCB TRANS Historical Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) FacilitiesHIST PCS ENF Historical Enforced Permit Compliance FacilitiesHIST PCS FACILITY Historical Permit Compliance FacilitiesHIST SSTS Historical Section 7 Tracking SystemsHWC DOCKET Hazardous Waste Compliance DocketICISIntegrated Compliance Information SystemINACTIVE PCS Inactive Permit Compliance FacilitiesINDIAN RESERVATION Indian ReservationsLUCISLand Use Control Information Systems
Page 5 of 109
Executive Summary by Database 2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)LUCIS 2 Land Use Control Information Systems 2MINESMinesMINES USGS Mines list from USGSMLTSMaterial Licensing Tracking SystemsNPL AOC Areas related to NPL remediation sitesNPL LIENS National Priority List LiensOSHAOccupational Safety & Health AdministrationPADSPCB Activity Database SystemsPCB TRANSFORMER Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) WastePCS ENF Enforced Permit Compliance FacilitiesPCS FACILITY Permit Compliance FacilitiesRAATSRCRA Administrative Action Tracking SystemsRADINFORadiation Information SystemsRMPRisk Management PlansRODRecord of DecisionSCRD DRYCLEANERS SCRD DrycleanersSEMS_SMELTER Sites on SEMS Potential Smelter ActivitySSTSSection 7 Tracking SystemsSTORMWATERStorm Water PermitsTOSCA-PLANT Toxic Substance Control Act: PlantsTRISToxic Release Inventory SystemsUMTRAUranium Mill Tailing SitesVAPOREPA Vapor IntrusionBROWNFIELDS AEC - NC Brownfields with Areas of Environmental ConcernCOAL ASH - NC Coal Ash sitesDAYCARE - NC Daycare FacilityDRYCLEANERS - NC DrycleanersDRYCLEANERS 2 - NC DrycleanersDRYCLEANERS CLEANUP - NC Drycleaners CleanupHIST COAL ASH - NC Historical Coal Ash sitesIMD - NC Incident Management DatabaseMGP - NC Manufactured Gas Plant SitesNFA - NC No Further Action SitesNPDES - NC State Wastewater and NPDES PermitsOLI - NC Old Landfill InventoryUIC - NC Underground Injection Controls
Page 6 of 109
Property Proximity Map 2021
SUBJECT NAME: Middendorf Springs PREPARED FOR: Freese and Nichols, Inc.ADDRESS: Gulledge Rd, Wadesboro, NC, 28170 ORDER #: 52637LAT/LONG: 34.855547 / -80.108185 REPORT DATE: March 23, 2021
A
1
2
3
4
5
36
29
2615
3
1
2824
23
32
30
19 711
17
5
37
34 2514
13 9
4
18
8
31
35
33 10
21
20
6
2
38
12
27
22
16
Subject Property Equal/Higher Elevation Lower Elevation Brownfields Areas (No Data)
CDC HAZDAT (No Data)Department of Defense (No Data)DFIRM Floodzone 100 DFIRM Floodzone 500 (No Data)
Federal Lands (No Data)FEMA FloodZone 100 (No Data)FEMA FloodZone 500 (No Data)Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites (No Data)Historical DOD (No Data)Indian Reservation (No Data)National Priority List (No Data)NWI
Page 7 of 109
Area Map 2021
SUBJECT NAME: Middendorf Springs PREPARED FOR: Freese and Nichols, Inc.ADDRESS: Gulledge Rd, Wadesboro, NC, 28170 ORDER #: 52637LAT/LONG: 34.855547 / -80.108185 REPORT DATE: March 23, 2021
A
1
2
3
4
5
36
29
2615
3
1
28
24
23
32
30
19
711
17
5
37
34 25 14
13
9
4
18
8
31
35
33
10
21
20
6
2
38
12
27
22
16
Subject Property Equal/Higher Elevation Lower Elevation Brownfields Areas (No Data)
CDC HAZDAT (No Data)Department of Defense (No Data)DFIRM Floodzone 100 DFIRM Floodzone 500 (No Data)
Federal Lands (No Data)FEMA FloodZone 100 (No Data)FEMA FloodZone 500 (No Data)Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites (No Data)Historical DOD (No Data)Indian Reservation (No Data)National Priority List (No Data)NWI
Page 8 of 109
Map Findings Summary 2021
DATABASE SUBJECT PROPERTY
SEARCH DISTANCE(MILES)<1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 >1 TOTAL MAPPED
FEDERAL RCRA NON-CORRACTS TSD FACILITIES LIST
ARCHIVED RCRA TSDF 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
RCRA_TSDF 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
FEDERAL CERCLIS LIST
CERCLIS NFRAP 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
CERCLIS-HIST 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
FEDERAL FACILITY 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
SEMS_8R_ACTIVE SITES 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
SEMS_8R_ARCHIVED SITES 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
FEDERAL RCRA CORRACTS FACILITIES LIST
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
HIST CORRACTS 2 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
FEDERAL DELISTED NPL SITE LIST
DELISTED NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
DELISTED PROPOSED NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
SEMS_DELETED NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
FEDERAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
EPA LF MOP 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
FEDERAL ERNS LIST
ERNS SP 0 --------0
FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
FED E C 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
FED I C 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
RCRA IC_EC 0.250 0 0 ------0
FEDERAL RCRA GENERATORS LIST
HIST RCRA_CESQG 0.250 0 0 ------0
HIST RCRA_LQG 0.250 0 0 ------0
HIST RCRA_NONGEN 0.250 0 0 ------0
HIST RCRA_SQG 0.250 0 0 ------0
RCRA_LQG 0.250 0 0 ------0
RCRA_NONGEN 0.250 0 0 ------0
RCRA_SQG 0.250 0 0 ------0
RCRA_VSQG 0.250 0 0 ------0
Page 9 of 109
Map Findings Summary 2021
DATABASE SUBJECT PROPERTY
SEARCH DISTANCE(MILES)<1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 >1 TOTAL MAPPED
FEDERAL NPL SITE LIST
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
NPL EPA R1 GIS 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
NPL EPA R3 GIS 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
NPL EPA R6 GIS 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
NPL EPA R8 GIS 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
NPL EPA R9 GIS 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
PART NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
PROPOSED NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
SEMS_FINAL NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
SEMS_PROPOSED NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
STATE- AND TRIBAL - EQUIVALENT CERCLIS
ARCHIVED HSDS - NC 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
ARCHIVED HSDS AREAS - NC 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
FRB SUPERFUND - NC 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
SHWS - NC 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTS
FEMA UST 0.250 0 0 ------0
INDIAN UST R1 0.250 0 0 ------0
INDIAN UST R10 0.250 0 0 ------0
INDIAN UST R2 0.250 0 0 ------0
INDIAN UST R4 0.250 0 0 ------0
INDIAN UST R5 0.250 0 0 ------0
INDIAN UST R6 0.250 0 0 ------0
INDIAN UST R7 0.250 0 0 ------0
INDIAN UST R8 0.250 0 0 ------0
INDIAN UST R9 0.250 0 0 ------0
AST - NC 0.250 0 0 ------0
UST - NC 0.250 0 0 ------0
UST 2 - NC 0.250 0 0 ------0
STATE AND TRIBAL BROWNFIELD SITES
TRIBAL BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
BROWNFIELDS - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
STATE RCRA GENERATORS LIST
HWG - NC 0.250 0 0 ------0
Page 10 of 109
Map Findings Summary 2021
DATABASE SUBJECT PROPERTY
SEARCH DISTANCE(MILES)<1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 >1 TOTAL MAPPED
STATE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
I C - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
STATE AND TRIBAL LEAKING STORAGE TANK LISTS
INDIAN LUST R1 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
INDIAN LUST R10 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
INDIAN LUST R2 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
INDIAN LUST R4 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
INDIAN LUST R5 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
INDIAN LUST R6 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
INDIAN LUST R7 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
INDIAN LUST R8 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
INDIAN LUST R9 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
LAST - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
LUST - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
LUST TRUST - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
STATE AND TRIBAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
PRLF - NC 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
SWF/LF - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
LOCAL BROWNFIELD LISTS
BROWNFIELDS-ACRES 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
FED BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
LOCAL LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE / CONTAMINATED SITES
FED CDL SP 0 --------0
US HIST CDL SP 0 --------0
INACTIVE HWS - NC 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
LOCAL LISTS OF LANDFILL / SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
HIST INDIAN ODI R8 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
INDIAN ODI R8 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
ODI 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
TRIBAL ODI 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
SWRCY - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
SWRCY 2 - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
SWTIRE - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
Page 11 of 109
Map Findings Summary 2021
DATABASE SUBJECT PROPERTY
SEARCH DISTANCE(MILES)<1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 >1 TOTAL MAPPED
RECORDS OF EMERGENCY RELEASE REPORTS
HMIRS (DOT)SP 0 --------0
LOCAL LAND RECORDS
LIENS 2 SP 0 --------0
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS
AFS SP 0 --------0
ALT FUELING 0.250 0 0 ------0
AST PBS 0.250 0 0 ------0
BRS SP 0 --------0
CDC HAZDAT 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
COAL ASH DOE 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
COAL ASH EPA 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
COAL GAS 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
CONSENT (DECREES)1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS_2020 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
DEBRIS EPA LF 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
DEBRIS EPA SWRCY 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
DOT OPS SP 0 --------0
ECHO SP 0 --------0
ENOI SP 0 --------0
EPA FUELS SP 0 --------0
EPA OSC 0.125 0 --------0
EPA WATCH SP 0 --------0
FA HWF SP 0 --------0
FEDLAND 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
FRS SP 0 --------0
FTTS SP 0 --------0
FTTS INSP SP 0 --------0
FUDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
HIST AFS SP 0 --------0
HIST AFS 2 SP 0 --------0
HIST DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
HIST LEAD_SMELTER SP 0 --------0
HIST MLTS SP 0 --------0
HIST PCB TRANS SP 0 --------0
Page 12 of 109
Map Findings Summary 2021
DATABASE SUBJECT PROPERTY
SEARCH DISTANCE(MILES)<1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 >1 TOTAL MAPPED
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
HIST PCS ENF SP 0 --------0
HIST PCS FACILITY SP 0 --------0
HIST SSTS SP 0 --------0
HWC DOCKET SP 0 --------0
ICIS SP 0 --------0
INACTIVE PCS SP 0 --------0
INDIAN RESERVATION 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
LUCIS 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
LUCIS 2 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
MINES 0.250 0 0 ------0
MINES USGS 0.250 0 0 ------0
MLTS SP 0 --------0
NPL AOC 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
NPL LIENS SP 0 --------0
OSHA SP 0 --------0
PADS SP 0 --------0
PCB TRANSFORMER SP 0 --------0
PCS ENF SP 0 --------0
PCS FACILITY SP 0 --------0
RAATS SP 0 --------0
RADINFO SP 0 --------0
RMP 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS 0.250 0 0 ------0
SEMS_SMELTER SP 0 --------0
SSTS SP 0 --------0
STORMWATER SP 0 --------0
TOSCA-PLANT SP 0 --------0
TRIS SP 0 --------0
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
VAPOR 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
BROWNFIELDS AEC - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
COAL ASH - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
DAYCARE - NC SP 0 --------0
DRYCLEANERS - NC 0.250 0 0 ------0
DRYCLEANERS 2 - NC 0.250 0 0 ------0
Page 13 of 109
Map Findings Summary 2021
DATABASE SUBJECT PROPERTY
SEARCH DISTANCE(MILES)<1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 >1 TOTAL MAPPED
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
DRYCLEANERS CLEANUP - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
HIST COAL ASH - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
IMD - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
MGP - NC 1.000 0 0 0 0 --0
NFA - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
NPDES - NC SP 0 --------0
OLI - NC 0.500 0 0 0 ----0
UIC - NC SP 0 --------0
Page 14 of 109
Unmappable Summary 2021
No unmappable sites reported.
Page 15 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
FEDERAL RCRA NON-CORRACTS TSD FACILITIES LIST
ARCHIVED RCRA TSDF: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste transportation storage disposal and treatment facilities
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
RCRA_TSDF: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste transportation storage disposal and treatment facilities
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
FEDERAL CERCLIS LIST
CERCLIS NFRAP: The CERCLIS sites with No Further Remedial Action Planned from the CERCLIS program database. The Environmental Protection Agency decommissioned the CERCLIS data in 2014. The last update was November 12, 2013.
Agency Version Date: 10/25/2013Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 800-424-9346Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
CERCLIS-HIST: The CERCLIS program database contains information on the assessment and remediation of federal hazardous waste sites. The Environmental Protection Agency decommissioned the CERCLIS data in 2014. The last update was November 12, 2013.
Agency Version Date: 10/29/2013Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 800-424-9346Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
FEDERAL FACILITY: Sites where Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) arranged cleanup for Base Closure and Property Transfer at Federal Facilities
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8712Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SEMS_8R_ACTIVE SITES: The Active Site Inventory Report displays site and location information at active SEMS sites. An active site is one at which site assessment, removal, remedial, enforcement, cost recovery, or oversight activities are being planned or conducted. NPL sites include latitude and longitude information. For non-NPL sites, a brief site status is provided.
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SEMS_8R_ARCHIVED SITES: The Archived Site Inventory displays site and location information at sites archived from SEMS. An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program at this time.
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
Page 16 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
FEDERAL RCRA CORRACTS FACILITIES LIST
CORRACTS: List of facilities where Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program used to investigate and remediate hazardous releases
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 202-566-1667Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
HIST CORRACTS 2: List of facilities where Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program used to investigate and remediate hazardous releases that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2018Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 06/08/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 202-566-1667Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
FEDERAL DELISTED NPL SITE LIST
DELISTED NPL: National Priority List of sites that were delisted and no longer require action
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
DELISTED PROPOSED NPL: Sites that have been delisted from the proposed National Priority List
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SEMS_DELETED NPL: All Deleted National Priority List Sties
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
FEDERAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
EPA LF MOP: Sites in the EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program
Agency Version Date: 01/11/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 01/11/2021
FEDERAL ERNS LIST
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System records of reported spills
Agency Version Date: 02/04/2021Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 05/03/2021
Agency: National Response Center United States Coast GuardAgency Contact: N/RMost Recent Contact: 02/04/2021
FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
FED E C: Federal listing of remediation sites with engineering controls
Agency Version Date: 03/11/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 06/07/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 800-424-9346Most Recent Contact: 03/11/2021
Page 17 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES (cont.)
FED I C: Federal listing of remediation sites with institutional controls
Agency Version Date: 03/11/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 06/07/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 800-424-9346Most Recent Contact: 03/11/2021
RCRA IC_EC: Sites with institutional or engineering controls related to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Agency Version Date: 02/19/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/18/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
FEDERAL RCRA GENERATORS LIST
HIST RCRA_CESQG: List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act licensed conditionally exempt small quantity generators that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2018Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 06/08/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
HIST RCRA_LQG: List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act licensed large quantity generators that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2018Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 06/08/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
HIST RCRA_NONGEN: List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act licensed non-generators that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2018Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 06/08/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
HIST RCRA_SQG: List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act licensed small quantity generators that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2018Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 06/08/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
RCRA_LQG: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act listing of licensed large quantity generators
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
RCRA_NONGEN: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act listing of licensed non-generators
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
RCRA_SQG: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act listing of licensed small quantity generators
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
Page 18 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
FEDERAL RCRA GENERATORS LIST (cont.)
RCRA_VSQG: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act listing of licensed very small quantity generators.
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 215-814-2469Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
FEDERAL NPL SITE LIST
NPL: List of priority contaminated sites among identified releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances pollutants or contaminants nationally
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL EPA R1 GIS: Geospatial data for the Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 National Priority List subject to environmental regulation
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 202-566-2132Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL EPA R3 GIS: Geospatial data for the Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 National Priority List subject to environmental regulation
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 202-566-2132Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL EPA R6 GIS: Geospatial data for the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 National Priority List subject to environmental regulation
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 202-566-2132Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL EPA R8 GIS: Geospatial data for the Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 National Priority List subject to environmental regulation
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 202-566-2132Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL EPA R9 GIS: Geospatial data for the Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 National Priority List subject to environmental regulation
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 202-566-2132Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
PART NPL: Sites that are a part of an National Priority List site referred to as the parent site
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
Page 19 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
FEDERAL NPL SITE LIST (cont.)
PROPOSED NPL: Sites that have been proposed for the National Priority List
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SEMS_FINAL NPL: All Included National Priority List Sites
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SEMS_PROPOSED NPL: All Proposed National Priority List Sites
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
STATE- AND TRIBAL - EQUIVALENT CERCLIS
ARCHIVED HSDS - NC: The Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites that were listed on both the National Priority List and the State Priority List as of June 21, 1995. Updated 1998 and 2004.
Agency Version Date: 12/13/2018Agency Update Frequency: No Longer MaintainedPlanned Next Contact: 05/24/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysisAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/25/2021
ARCHIVED HSDS AREAS - NC: Areas of Archived Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites
Agency Version Date: 12/13/2018Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/24/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysisAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/25/2021
FRB SUPERFUND - NC: The NC DENR Federal Remediation Branch list of Superfund and CERCLA sites.
Agency Version Date: 12/21/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 06/15/2021
Agency: Department of Environmental QualityAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/19/2021
SHWS - NC: Hazardous Substances Cleanup Fund list of sites
Agency Version Date: 02/11/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: Department of Environmental QualityAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTS
FEMA UST: FEMA underground storage tank listing
Agency Version Date: 06/21/2019Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/16/2021
Agency: FEMAAgency Contact: 202-212-5283Most Recent Contact: 01/19/2021
INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 1
Agency Version Date: 02/03/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/03/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/03/2021
Page 20 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTS (cont.)
INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 10
Agency Version Date: 12/02/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/27/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 03/01/2021
INDIAN UST R2: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 2
Agency Version Date: 12/07/2016Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/05/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 4
Agency Version Date: 04/14/2020Agency Update Frequency: Semi AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 05/27/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 03/01/2021
INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 5
Agency Version Date: 11/19/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/14/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/15/2021
INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 6
Agency Version Date: 12/18/2020Agency Update Frequency: Semi AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 06/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 03/17/2021
INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 7
Agency Version Date: 11/19/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/14/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/15/2021
INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 8
Agency Version Date: 02/01/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/29/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/01/2021
INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 9
Agency Version Date: 02/01/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/29/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/01/2021
AST - NC: Oil terminal facility Locations
Agency Version Date: 02/05/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/04/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
UST - NC: Registered Underground Storage Tanks
Agency Version Date: 01/08/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/06/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/08/2021
Page 21 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED STORAGE TANK LISTS (cont.)
UST 2 - NC: UST Facility Operating Permits
Agency Version Date: 01/26/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/23/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/26/2021
STATE AND TRIBAL BROWNFIELD SITES
TRIBAL BROWNFIELDS: Tribal brownfield remediation site listing
Agency Version Date: 02/10/2017Agency Update Frequency: No Longer MaintainedPlanned Next Contact: 04/02/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
BROWNFIELDS - NC: Brownfield Projects Inventory
Agency Version Date: 02/11/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
STATE RCRA GENERATORS LIST
HWG - NC: Hazardous Waste sites that are regulated by the hazardous waste portions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Agency Version Date: 01/05/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/01/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysisAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
STATE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS / ENGINEERING CONTROLS REGISTRIES
I C - NC: Sites with land Use Restrictions Monitoring
Agency Version Date: 02/11/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
STATE AND TRIBAL LEAKING STORAGE TANK LISTS
INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 1
Agency Version Date: 02/02/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/30/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/02/2021
INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 10
Agency Version Date: 04/14/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/27/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 03/01/2021
INDIAN LUST R2: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 2
Agency Version Date: 12/07/2016Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/05/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
Page 22 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
STATE AND TRIBAL LEAKING STORAGE TANK LISTS (cont.)
INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 4
Agency Version Date: 12/02/2020Agency Update Frequency: Semi AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 05/27/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 03/01/2021
INDIAN LUST R5: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 5
Agency Version Date: 11/19/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/14/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/15/2021
INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 6
Agency Version Date: 11/23/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/18/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 7
Agency Version Date: 04/15/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/14/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/15/2021
INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 8
Agency Version Date: 11/23/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/18/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land in EPA Region 9
Agency Version Date: 02/01/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/29/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9Agency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/01/2021
LAST - NC: Aboveground Storage Tanks with reported leaks
Agency Version Date: 12/15/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 06/09/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
LUST - NC: Underground Storage Tanks with reported leaks
Agency Version Date: 12/15/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 06/09/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
LUST TRUST - NC: State Trust Fund Database
Agency Version Date: 01/07/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/05/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/07/2021
Page 23 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
STATE AND TRIBAL LANDFILL AND/OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LISTS
PRLF - NC: List of non-permitted landfills that have been closed since 1/1/1983.
Agency Version Date: 01/29/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/27/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysisAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/29/2021
SWF/LF - NC: Landfill sites
Agency Version Date: 02/10/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/10/2021
LOCAL BROWNFIELD LISTS
BROWNFIELDS-ACRES: EPA Brownfields Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System.
Agency Version Date: 12/28/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 03/26/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 12/28/2020
FED BROWNFIELDS: Federal brownfield remediation sites
Agency Version Date: 02/05/2021Agency Update Frequency: Semi AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 05/05/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
LOCAL LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE / CONTAMINATED SITES
FED CDL: The U.S. Department of Justice listing of clandestine drug lab locations
Agency Version Date: 01/28/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/26/2021
Agency: U.S. Department of JusticeAgency Contact: 202-307-7610Most Recent Contact: 01/28/2021
US HIST CDL: The U.S. Department of Justice historical listing of clandestine drug lab locations
Agency Version Date: 08/05/2019Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/31/2021
Agency: U.S. Department of JusticeAgency Contact: 202-307-7610Most Recent Contact: 03/03/2021
INACTIVE HWS - NC: Listing of inactive hazardous sites where a hazardous substance release has been identified
Agency Version Date: 01/07/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/05/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysisAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/07/2021
LOCAL LISTS OF LANDFILL / SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
HIST INDIAN ODI R8: List of Region 8 Indian land open dump inventory sites maintained within the STARS program that is no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 11/12/2018Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 04/29/2021
Agency: Indian Health ServiceAgency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/01/2021
INDIAN ODI R8: Region 8 Indian land open dump inventory sites maintained within the STARS program
Agency Version Date: 02/12/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Indian Health ServiceAgency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
Page 24 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
LOCAL LISTS OF LANDFILL / SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES (cont.)
ODI: Open dump inventory sites
Agency Version Date: 10/03/2017Agency Update Frequency: No UpdatePlanned Next Contact: 05/24/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 02/25/2021
TRIBAL ODI: Indian land open dump inventory for all regions
Agency Version Date: 12/18/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 06/04/2021
Agency: Indian Health ServiceAgency Contact: 301-443-3593Most Recent Contact: 03/10/2021
SWRCY - NC: Listing of recycling facilities
Agency Version Date: 11/13/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: 919.707.8236Most Recent Contact: 02/10/2021
SWRCY 2 - NC: Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs)
Agency Version Date: 02/04/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/03/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: 919.707.8236Most Recent Contact: 02/04/2021
SWTIRE - NC: Solid Waste Permitted Facility List
Agency Version Date: 02/11/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: Department of Environmental QualityAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
RECORDS OF EMERGENCY RELEASE REPORTS
HMIRS (DOT): Hazardous Material spills reported by the Department of Transportation
Agency Version Date: 01/05/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/02/2021
Agency: U.S. Department of TransportationAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
LOCAL LAND RECORDS
LIENS 2: Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act sites with liens
Agency Version Date: 05/11/2017Agency Update Frequency: No Longer MaintainedPlanned Next Contact: 04/02/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 800-424-9346Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS
AFS: Air Facility Systems Quarterly Extract
Agency Version Date: 02/16/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/14/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/16/2021
ALT FUELING: Alternative Fueling Stations by fuel type.
Agency Version Date: 01/14/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/12/2021
Agency: U.S. Department of EnergyAgency Contact: N/RMost Recent Contact: 01/14/2021
Page 25 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
AST PBS: Bulk petroleum terminals with a total bulk storage capacity of 50,000 barrels or more.
Agency Version Date: 12/11/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 06/04/2021
Agency: Department of Homeland SecurityAgency Contact: 202-853-5361Most Recent Contact: 03/09/2021
BRS: Reporting of hazardous waste generation and management from large quantity generators
Agency Version Date: 10/12/2020Agency Update Frequency: BiennialPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
CDC HAZDAT: The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Hazardous Substance Release/Health Effects Database.
Agency Version Date: 08/21/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryAgency Contact: 770-488-6399Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
COAL ASH DOE: List of existing and planned generators with 1 megawatt or greater of combined capacity that are utilizing coal ash impoundments.
Agency Version Date: 01/08/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/07/2021
Agency: Department of EnergyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/08/2021
COAL ASH EPA: Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
Agency Version Date: 02/18/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/17/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/18/2021
COAL GAS: Manufactured Gas Plant locations
Agency Version Date: 01/22/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/20/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 01/22/2021
CONSENT (DECREES): Legal decisions regarding responsibility for Superfund locations
Agency Version Date: 11/13/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/10/2021
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS_2020: In 2009 the EPA created the 2020 Corrective Action Baseline list of contaminated or potentially contaminated sites with a cleanup goal to complete 95% by the year 2020. The names on the list indicate the facility owners who may or may not have caused the contamination.
Agency Version Date: 12/21/2018Agency Update Frequency: No Longer MaintainedPlanned Next Contact: 05/04/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: N/RMost Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
DEBRIS EPA LF: EPA list of designated landfill facilities for the safe disposal of disaster debris.
Agency Version Date: 01/26/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/27/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 01/26/2021
Page 26 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
DEBRIS EPA SWRCY: EPA list of facilities for the safe recovery, recycling, and disposal of disaster debris.
Agency Version Date: 01/26/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/27/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 01/26/2021
DOD: Department of Defense sites
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
DOT OPS: Incident Data Report
Agency Version Date: 11/30/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/26/2021
Agency: U.S. Department of TransportationAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/26/2021
ECHO: ECHO is EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online website to search for facilities in your community to assess their compliance with environmental regulations related to CAA, CWA, RCRA, & SDWA.
Agency Version Date: 01/07/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/05/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 202-566-1667Most Recent Contact: 01/07/2021
ENOI: The Electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) database contains construction sites and industrial facilities that submit permit requests to EPA for Construction General Permits (CGP) and Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGP).
Agency Version Date: 09/25/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 06/15/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/19/2021
EPA FUELS: List of companies and facilities registered to participate in EPA Fuel Programs under Title 40 CFR Part 80.
Agency Version Date: 11/23/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/18/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
EPA OSC: Listing of oil spills and hazardous substance release sites requiring EPA On-Site Coordinators.
Agency Version Date: 10/09/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/02/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
EPA WATCH: The EPA Watch List was used to facilitate dialogue between EPA, state and local environmental agencies on enforcement matters relating to facilities with alleged violations identified as either significant or high priority. EPA maintained the lists from 2011 - 2013.
Agency Version Date: 02/09/2018Agency Update Frequency: No Longer MaintainedPlanned Next Contact: 04/02/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
FA HWF: Hazardous Waste Facilities with Financial Assurance
Agency Version Date: 01/20/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/19/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/20/2021
Page 27 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
FEDLAND: Federal land locations
Agency Version Date: 01/06/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/07/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/09/2021
FRS: Facility Registry Systems
Agency Version Date: 11/27/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/24/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/23/2021
FTTS: Tracking of administrative and enforcement activities related to FIFRA/TSCA
Agency Version Date: 04/16/2013Agency Update Frequency: No Longer MaintainedPlanned Next Contact: 04/20/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/22/2021
FTTS INSP: Tracking of inspections related to FIFRA/TSCA
Agency Version Date: 05/08/2017Agency Update Frequency: No Longer MaintainedPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
FUDS: Defense sites that require cleanup
Agency Version Date: 11/23/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/19/2021
Agency: US Army Corps of EngineeringAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
HIST AFS: List of Air Facility Systems Quarterly Extract that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 06/14/2019Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/01/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/05/2021
HIST AFS 2: List of Air Facility Systems Quarterly Extract that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 11/26/2018Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/04/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
HIST DOD: Department of Defense historical sites
Agency Version Date: 08/17/2018Agency Update Frequency: No Longer MaintainedPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
HIST LEAD_SMELTER: List of former lead smelter sites that is no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 12/12/2018Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 04/19/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/21/2021
HIST MLTS: List of sites in possession/use of radioactive materials regulated by NRC that is no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 07/13/2016Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 04/29/2021
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/01/2021
Page 28 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
HIST PCB TRANS: List of PCB Disposal Facilities that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 01/18/2018Agency Update Frequency: No UpdatePlanned Next Contact: 05/17/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/18/2021
HIST PCS ENF: List of permitted facilities to discharge wastewater (Federal equivalent to NPDES) that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 12/08/2018Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 06/04/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/09/2021
HIST PCS FACILITY: List of Permitted facilities to discharge wastewater (Federal equivalent to NPDES) that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 12/18/2018Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 06/03/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/09/2021
HIST SSTS: List of tracking of facilities who produce pesticides and their quantity that are no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 02/13/2019Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 05/21/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/23/2021
HWC DOCKET: Listing of Federal facilities which are managing or have managed hazardous waste; or have had a release of hazardous waste.
Agency Version Date: 02/16/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/17/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/16/2021
ICIS: Comprised of all Federal Administrative and Judicial enforcement information [intended to replace PCS] by tracking enforcement and compliance information (also contains what used to be known as FFTS)
Agency Version Date: 01/12/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/12/2021
INACTIVE PCS: Inactive Permitted facilities to discharge wastewater
Agency Version Date: 01/12/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/12/2021
INDIAN RESERVATION: Indian Reservation sites
Agency Version Date: 10/26/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/19/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/21/2021
LUCIS: Land Use Control Information Systems
Agency Version Date: 07/24/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/06/2021
Agency: Department of the Navy: BRAC PMOAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/08/2021
Page 29 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
LUCIS 2: Land Use Control Information Systems
Agency Version Date: 01/17/2018Agency Update Frequency: No Longer MaintainedPlanned Next Contact: 05/18/2021
Agency: Department of the Navy: BRAC PMOAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/19/2021
MINES: Mines Master Index Files
Agency Version Date: 01/11/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Department of LaborAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/11/2021
MINES USGS: Listing of all active mines and mineral plants in 2003
Agency Version Date: 02/02/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: USGS Mineral Resources ProgramAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
MLTS: Sites in possession/use of radioactive materials regulated by NRC
Agency Version Date: 05/19/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/04/2021
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
NPL AOC: Areas of Concern related to NPL remediation sites
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: N/RMost Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
NPL LIENS: National Priority List of sites with Liens
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
OSHA: OSHA's listing of inspections violations and fatality information
Agency Version Date: 10/16/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/08/2021
Agency: Occupational Safety & Health AdministrationAgency Contact: 800-321-6742Most Recent Contact: 01/11/2021
PADS: Listing of generators transporters commercial store/ brokers and disposers of PCB
Agency Version Date: 02/12/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
PCB TRANSFORMER: Disposal and Storage of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Waste
Agency Version Date: 11/27/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/24/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/24/2021
PCS ENF: Permitted facilities to discharge wastewater (Federal equivalent to NPDES)
Agency Version Date: 01/12/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/12/2021
Page 30 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
PCS FACILITY: Permitted facilities to discharge wastewater (Federal equivalent to NPDES)
Agency Version Date: 01/12/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/12/2021
RAATS: Listing of major violators with enforcement actions issued under RCRA. Includes administrative and civil actions filed by the EPA. This dataset is no longer maintained.
Agency Version Date: 09/23/2019Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/04/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
RADINFO: EPA regulated facilities with radiation and radioactive materials
Agency Version Date: 08/01/2019Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/23/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/26/2021
RMP: Facilities producing/handling/ process/ distribute/ store specific chemicals report plans required by the Clean Air Act
Agency Version Date: 03/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: MonthlyPlanned Next Contact: 04/16/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/19/2021
ROD: Permanent remedy at an NPL site
Agency Version Date: 11/17/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners
Agency Version Date: 12/18/2020Agency Update Frequency: No UpdatePlanned Next Contact: 06/14/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/16/2021
SEMS_SMELTER: This report includes sites that have smelting-related, or potentially smelting-related, indicators in the SEMS database. The report includes information on the site location as well as contaminants of concern.
Agency Version Date: 10/28/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/11/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 703-603-8867Most Recent Contact: 02/12/2021
SSTS: Tracking of facilities who produce pesticides and their quantity
Agency Version Date: 12/25/2020Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 06/18/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/23/2021
STORMWATER: Permitted storm water sites
Agency Version Date: 01/12/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/12/2021
Page 31 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
TOSCA-PLANT: Plants controlled by the Toxic Substance Control Act
Agency Version Date: 12/28/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 03/26/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 12/28/2020
TRIS: Information regarding toxic chemicals that are being used/manufactured/ treated/ transported/released into the environment
Agency Version Date: 10/14/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/09/2021
Agency: Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/11/2021
UMTRA: Uranium Recovery Sites
Agency Version Date: 01/14/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/12/2021
Agency: United States Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/14/2021
VAPOR: EPA Vapor Intrusion Database
Agency Version Date: 12/21/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 06/15/2021
Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAgency Contact: 855-246-3642Most Recent Contact: 03/19/2021
BROWNFIELDS AEC - NC: Brownfield projects with Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) boundaries.
Agency Version Date: 11/16/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysisAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
COAL ASH - NC: Coal Ash Disposal Sites
Agency Version Date: 01/15/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysisAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
DAYCARE - NC: Daycare facility sites
Agency Version Date: 11/10/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/05/2021
Agency: Division of Child Development and Early EducationAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/05/2021
DRYCLEANERS - NC: Drycleaner Sites
Agency Version Date: 12/18/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 06/14/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/16/2021
DRYCLEANERS 2 - NC: Listing of dry cleaning facilities.
Agency Version Date: 02/22/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/19/2021
Agency: North Carolina Department of Environmental QualityAgency Contact: N/RMost Recent Contact: 02/22/2021
DRYCLEANERS CLEANUP - NC: Listing dry cleaning facilities under remediation.
Agency Version Date: 11/25/2020Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/19/2021
Agency: North Carolina Department of Environmental QualityAgency Contact: N/RMost Recent Contact: 02/22/2021
Page 32 of 109
Environmental Records Searched 2021
OTHER ASCERTAINABLE RECORDS (cont.)
HIST COAL ASH - NC: List of Coal Ash Disposal Sites that is no longer in current agency list.
Agency Version Date: 06/05/2017Agency Update Frequency: AnnuallyPlanned Next Contact: 06/04/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysisAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/08/2021
IMD - NC: List of sites from the Incident Management Database for Regional Underground Storage Tanks (RUST) and the Aboveground Incident Management Database
Agency Version Date: 12/15/2020Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 06/09/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 03/12/2021
MGP - NC: Locations of all Manufactured Gas Plants involved in the MGP Assessment and Remediation Program
Agency Version Date: 01/15/2021Agency Update Frequency: No UpdatePlanned Next Contact: 04/13/2021
Agency: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and analysisAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/15/2021
NFA - NC: No further action cleanup sites listing
Agency Version Date: 02/11/2021Agency Update Frequency: QuarterlyPlanned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/11/2021
NPDES - NC: Active General permits: NPDES and wastewater facility Location listing
Agency Version Date: 02/04/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/03/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/04/2021
OLI - NC: Old Landfill inventory location information
Agency Version Date: 02/10/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 05/10/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 02/10/2021
UIC - NC: Underground Injection Wells Database List
Agency Version Date: 01/19/2021Agency Update Frequency: VariesPlanned Next Contact: 04/16/2021
Agency: Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAgency Contact: [phone]Most Recent Contact: 01/19/2021
Page 33 of 109
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
SECTION 106 CORRESPONDENCE
531 North Liberty Street  Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101  336-790-6744 www.freese.com

April 24, 2020

Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Via email: [e-mail]

Subject: Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, North Carolina

Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,

Freese and Nichols, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that may emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site. A
project review narrative, Site Map, Topographic Map, Aerial Photograph and results from the NC Historic
Preservation Office database are attached.

The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel and wetland impacts in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin. This project will include stream
restoration to unnamed tributaries of South Fork Jones Creek and restoration and rehabilitation of
degraded riparian wetlands located adjacent to the unnamed tributaries. The site has been disturbed due
to agricultural row crop use. Historically the site has been in agricultural production (crops and timber)
for the last 70 years. Furthermore, no archaeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys for restoration purposes.

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

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

Sincerely,
Freese and Nichols, Inc.

Jason Steele, PWS
Environmental Scientist

Enclosures:
1) Project Review Package
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
June 11, 2020
Jason Steele [e-mail]
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
531 North Liberty Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Re: Middendorf Springs mitigation, Tanner Hill Road, Wadesboro, Anson County, ER 20-1048
Dear Mr. Steele:
Thank you for your email of April 24, 2020, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
UNIFORM ACT DOCUMENTATION
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
USFWS CORRESPONDENCE

531 North Liberty Street + Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 www.freese.com

April 20, 2020

Claire Ellwanger
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zilicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Via email: [e-mail]

Re: Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site, Anson County, North Carolina
Ref: USFWS Consultation Code 04EN1000-2020-SLI-0542

Dear Ms. Ellwanger,

Freese and Nichols, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to threatened, endangered and candidate species, migratory birds, or other trust resources with
a potential stream and wetland restoration project on the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site located in
Anson County, NC. A USGS Topographic Map and Overview Map showing the approximate project are
enclosed. The site is depicted on the attached project location map (Figure 1), quadrangle map (Figure 2)
and aerial photograph (Figure 3).

The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream and wetland mitigation in
the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin. The project includes the restoration and enhancement of unnamed
tributaries of South Fork Jones Creek and the restoration and rehabilitation of riparian wetlands.
Currently, the streams throughout the site are extensively impacted by row crop agriculture, lack of
riparian and streambank vegetation, active erosion, nutrient loading from fertilization practices, upland
erosion and sedimentation, incision, and altered groundwater hydrology. The major goals of the proposed
project are to provide ecological and water quality enhancement to the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin while
creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level. This will be accomplished by restoring native
riparian vegetation, creating stable stream dimension, pattern and profile, improving in-stream habitat,
and protecting the site in perpetuity through establishing a conservation easement.

The enclosed project review package provides the information about the species, critical habitat, and bald
eagles considered in our review, and the species conclusions table included in the package identifies our
determinations for the resources that may be affected by the project. All applicable erosion and sediment
control and stormwater regulations will be adhered to for the entirety of the project.

If we have not heard from you in 30 days, we will assume that you concur with the Species Conclusion
Table, do not have any comments regarding any associated laws, and that you do not have any
information relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Jason Steele, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures:
1)Figures
a.Figure 1 – Project Location
b.Figure 2 – Topographic Map
c.Figure 3 – Aerial Photograph
2)USFWS IPaC Official Species List
3)NC Natural Heritage Program Project Review Species List
4)USFWS IPaC Species Conclusion Table
5)Site Photographs

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite #B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

May 13, 2020
Jason Steele
Senior Environmental Scientist
531 North Liberty Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101

Subject: 20-276 Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site; Anson Co

Dear Jason Steele,

This responds to your email received by our office on April 24th, 2020, concerning the subject
project. We have reviewed the information presented and submit the following comments and
recommendations in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. §§661-667e); the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.); the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§703-712); and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
§4321 et seq.).

Project Summary

Freese and Nichols on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration proposes a stream and
wetland restoration project on the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site in Anson County, NC.
The project includes restoring native riparian vegetation, developing a stable stream profile and
improving in-stream habitat for ecological and water quality enhancement to the Yadkin Pee -Dee
River Basin. The surrounding area is dominated by agricultural land with aquatic resources
(forested wetlands, streams and ponds) occur throughout the site. Your letter did not provide a
detailed project description nor site plans.

We offer the following recommendations in the interest of protecting federally threatened and
endangered species, migratory birds, as well as other fish, wildlife, and natural resources.

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
In accordance with section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and 50 CFR Part 402.01,
before any federal authorization/permits or funding can be issued for this project, it is the
responsibility of the appropriate federal regulatory/permitting and/or funding agency(ies) to
determine whether the project may affect any federally endangered or threatened species (listed
species) o r designated critical habitat. A species list for counties in North Carolina can be found
online here: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html. If it is determined
that this project may affect any listed species or designated critical habitat, you must initiate
section 7 consultation with this office. Please note that federal species of concern are not legally

2

protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened.

Suit able summer roosting habitat may be present in the project area for the federally threatened
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). However, the final 4(d) rule (effective as of
February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long -eared bat associated with activities
that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from
a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June 1 – July 31). Based on the
information provided, the project would occur at a location where any incidental take that may
result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule. Although not required, we
encourage you to conduct any associated tree clearing activities outside the pup season
(June 1 to July 31) and/or active season (April 1 to October 31) to reduce the chance of
impacting unidentified maternity roosts.

Service records show known occurrences of the federally endangered Schweinitz’s sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) in the vicinity of the project area. This species is known to occur in
clearings, forest edges, roadsides, utility rights of way, old pastures, and woodland openings.
The information provided indicates that suitable habitat for this species may occur wit hin the
project impact area. To ensure that this plant is not inadvertently lost, targeted surveys should be
conducted by a qualified botanist where the proposed work would alter its suitable habitats.
Surveys are not required where suitable habitats for this species do not occur. The survey
window for this species is late August – October. We request that the Applicant provide our
office with survey results and/or an evaluation to complete our review and inform a prudent
effect determination.

Migratory Birds
The MBTA (16 §U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the intentional taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when
specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. To avoid impacts to migratory birds,
we recommend conducting a visual inspection of any migratory bird nesting habitat within the
project area during the migratory bird nesting season of March through September and avoiding
impacting the nests during the migratory bird nesting season. If birds are discovered nesting near
the project area during years prior to the proposed construction date, we recommend that you and
the NCDOT, in consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service, develop measures to discourage
birds from establishing nests within the project area by means that will not result in the take of
birds or eggs; or avoid construction activities during the nesting period.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Construction activities near streams, rivers, and lakes have the potential to cause water pollution
and stream degradation if measures to control site runoff are not prop erly installed and
maintained. In order to effectively reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts, best management
practices specific to the extent and type of construction should be designed and installed during
land-disturbing activities and should be maintained until the project is complete and appropriate
stormwater conveyances and vegetation are reestablished on the site.

3

A complete design manual, which provides extens ive details and procedures for developing
site-specific plans to control erosion and sediment and is consistent with the requirements of the
North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, is available
at:

http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/lr/publications

For maximum benefits to water quality and bank stabilization, riparian areas should be forested;
however, if the areas are maintained in grass, they should not be mowed. We recommend
planting disturbed areas with native riparian species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can
provide information on potential sources of plant material upon request.

Stream Buffers
Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems. They
accomplish the following:

1. catch and filter runoff, thereby helping to prevent nonpoint -source pollutants from
reaching streams;
2. enhance the in-stream processing of both point - and nonpoint-source pollutants;
3. act as “sponges” by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of floods) and by
allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which maintains stream
flows during dry periods);
4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and creating
logjams;
5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology;
6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved organic
carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and
7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream.

Forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide
along perennial streams [or the full extent of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater])
should be created and/or maint ained along all aquatic areas. Within the watersheds of streams
supporting endangered aquatic species, we recommend undisturbed, forested buffers that are
naturally vegetated with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation and extend a minimum of
200 feet from the banks of all perennial streams and a minimum of 100 feet from the banks of all
intermittent streams, or the full extent of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater.)
Impervious surfaces, ditches, pipes, roads, utility lines (sewer, water, gas, transmission, etc.), and
other infrastructures that require maintained, cleared rights-of-way and/or compromise the
functions and values of the forested buffers should not occur within these rip arian areas.

If you have questions about these comments ple ase contact Ms. Claire Ellwanger of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 42235. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Number 20-276.

Sincerely,

4

-- original signed –

Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

1
Jason Steele
From:Quast, Karla L <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, January 22, 2021 15:38
To:Jason Steele
Cc:Youngman, Holland J
Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: 20-276 Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site; Anson Co
Attachments:Middendorf Mitigation Site Sunflower Survey.pdf
This is an email from an EXTERNAL source. DO NOT click links or open attachments without positive sender verification of 
purpose. Never enter USERNAME, PASSWORD or sensitive information on linked pages from this email. 
Hello Jason,
Thank you for providing the survey results to our office. Claire Ellwanger has found a new position
with Forest Services however, Ms. Holland Youngman is now our new DOT biologist and cc'd on this
email.
Service records show known occurrences of the federally endangered Schweinitz’s sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) in the vicinity of the project and suitable habitat occurs onsite. Targeted
surveys for this species was conducted, September 28, 2020 during the respective optimal survey
window. No evidence for this plant was detected at that time.
Based on the information provided, we have no concerns for any other federally protected species
and we require no further action at this time. Please be aware that obligations under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
Please feel free to reach out with any quesions.
Thank you,
Karla Quast 
Administrative Assistant 
Asheville Field Office 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, South Atlantic/Gulf Region 
160 Zillicoa St. Suite B 
Asheville, NC 28801 
[e-mail] 
office 828/258-3939, ext. 42232 
cell 828/230-7836 
From: Jason Steele <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 4:14 PM 
2
To: Quast, Karla L <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Ellwanger, Claire F <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 20‐276 Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site; Anson Co  

 This email has been received from outside of DOI ‐ Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or 
responding.   

Hi Karla, 

Please find the Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) habitat assessment and survey for Middendorf Springs 
Mitigation Site, Anson County, attached for your review. If you require hard copies, or have any questions, please let me 
know. 

Best Regards, 

Jason Steele, PhD, PWS 
Environmental Scientist 

Freese and Nichols, Inc. 
531 N. Liberty St. 
Winston‐Salem, NC 27101 
(540) 449‐2837 (mobile) 
www.freese.com 

From: Quast, Karla L <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:29 PM 
To: Jason Steele <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Ellwanger, Claire F <[e-mail]> 
Subject: 20‐276 Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site; Anson Co 

External Email. Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. 
Hello Mr. Steele, 

Please find the attached document regarding Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site. Feel free to reach
out with any questions you may have.  

Karla Quast 
Administrative Assistant 
Asheville Field Office 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, South Atlantic/Gulf Region 
160 Zillicoa St. 
Asheville, NC 28801 
3
[e-mail] 
office 828/258-3939, ext. 42232 

This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, 
together with any attachment, may contain the sender's organization's confidential and privileged information. The 
recipient is hereby notified to treat the information as confidential and privileged and to not disclose or use the 
information except as authorized by sender's organization. Any unauthorized review, printing, retention, copying, 
disclosure, distribution, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this message in error, 
please immediately contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of the material from any computer. Thank 
you for your cooperation.  
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Categorical
Exclusion
FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT
DOCUMENTATION
531 North Liberty Street  Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101  336-790-6744 www.freese.com
April 24, 2020
Milton Cortes
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Via email: [e-mail]
Subject: Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Cortes,
Freese and Nichols, Inc. requests review and a completed AD-1006 form for a NC Department of Mitigation
Services stream and wetland restoration project (Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site) located in Anson
County, NC. A zipped shapefile of the project boundary is attached for your review.
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel and wetland impacts in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin. This project will include stream
restoration to unnamed tributaries of South Fork Jones Creek and restoration and rehabilitation of
degraded riparian wetlands located adjacent to the unnamed tributaries. The site has been disturbed due
to agricultural row crop use. Historically the site has been in agricultural production (crops and timber)
for the last 70 years.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concernting the project.
Sincerely,
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Jason Steele, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures:
1)Project Boundary shapefile (.shp)
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County and State
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)Date Request Received By
NRCS
Person Completing Form:
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: %
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Name of Land Evaluation System Used Name of State or Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
Alternative Site Rating PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
(Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106)
Maximum
Points Site A Site B Site C Site D
1. Area In Non-urban Use
(15)
2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use
(10)
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
(20)
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government
(20)
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area
(15)
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
(15)
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
(10)
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland
(10)
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
(5)
10. On-Farm Investments
(20)
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
(10)
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
(10)
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment)160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
Site Selected: Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES NO
Reason For Selection:
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion
FISH & WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT
NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
CORRESPONDENCE
531 North Liberty Street  Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101  336-790-6744 www.freese.com
April 24, 2020
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Coordionator
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Rogers Lake Depot
1718 NC Hwy 56 W
Creedmor, NC 27522
Via email: [e-mail]
Subject: Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Munzer,
Freese and Nichols, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that may emerge with
respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site. A Site Map,
Topographic Map and Aerial Photograph showing the approximate project area are enclosed.
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel and wetland impacts in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin. This project will include stream
restoration to unnamed tributaries of South Fork Jones Creek and restoration and rehabilitation of
degraded riparian wetlands located adjacent to the unnamed tributaries. The site has been disturbed due
to agricultural row crop use. Historically the site has been in agricultural production (crops and timber)
for the last 70 years.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concernting the project.
Sincerely,
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Jason Steele, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures:
1)Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
2)Figure 2 – Topographic Map
3)Figure 3 – Aerial Photograph
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
18 May 2020
Mr. Jason Steele
Freese & Nichols, Inc.
531 North Liberty Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
SUBJECT: Environmental Review of the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site in Anson County,
North Carolina.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your request to
review and comment on any possible concerns regarding the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site.
Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site is located south of State Road 1120 and west of NC 742 in
Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina. The site has been used for agriculture and timber purposes
for the last 70 years. The proposed project would restore and/or rehabilitate unnamed tributaries and
associated riparian wetlands of the South Fork Jones Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
NCWRC does not have any known records of federal or state-listed rare, threatened, or endangered
species near the site. However, the lack of records from the site does not imply or confirm the absence of
federal or state rare, threatened, or endangered species.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Based upon the information provided to NCWRC, it is
unlikely that stream and wetland mitigation will adversely affect any federal or state-listed species.
However, we offer the following preliminary recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources:
1.We recommend riparian buffers are as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner
needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to
maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland
runoff, and wildlife habitat.
2.We recommend minimizing or avoiding green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) in the planting list
due to the presence of the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) in North Carolina. Please see
the following link for a recommended list of riparian tree, herbaceous, and grass species for NC
Page 2
18 May 2020
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County
stream restoration site in the Piedmont (https://www.bae.ncsu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/piedmont_riparian_species.pdf).
3.Due to the decline in bat populations, we recommend leaving snags and mature trees, or if
necessary, remove tees outside the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 – August 15).
4.The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose-weave netting
that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal
twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it
impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have
detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of
eggs, and clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Any additional comments regarding the project will
be made after the site visit. If I can be of additional assistance, please call [phone] or email
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
FIGURES
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1
531 N. Liberty St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
336-790-6744
0 31.5
Miles
¥
Project Area
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
PROJECT LOCATION
AND TOPOGRAPHY
FIGURE 2
531 N. Liberty St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
336-790-6744
0 4,0002,000
Feet
¥
Legend
Project Area
1:24,000 Quadrangle: Morven West
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
Anson County, NC
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE 3
531 N. Liberty St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
336-790-6744
0 2,0001,000
Feet
¥
Legend
Project Area

Appendix G

Design Data and Plan Sheets
© 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS
© 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
MITIGATION
PLAN
SUBMITTAL
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
VICINITY MAP
1"=27,000'
531 N. Liberty Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
Phone - [phone]
Web - www.freese.com
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Middendorf Springs Mitigation Site
ANSON COUNTY
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2023
PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DATA TABLE
RIVER BASIN YADKIN
8-DIGIT HUC 03040201
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 57.6 Acres
DMS PROJECT ID NO.100151
FULL DELIVERY CONTRACT NO.8012-01
USACE ACTION ID NO.2021-01973
DWR PROJECT NO.
RFP NO.16-008012
COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD83 NORTH CAROLINA STATE
PLANE, US FOOT
MITIGATION SUMMARY
TRIBUTARY 1A - UPPER (PROTECTED
BUFFER ON EAST BANK)1055 LF
TRIBUTARY 1A - LOWER RESTORED LENGTH 1951 LF
TRIBUTARY 1B RESTORED LENGTH 500 LF
TRIBUTARY 1C RESTORED LENGTH 698 LF
TRIBUTARY 2 RESTORED LENGTH 2525 LF
TRIBUTARY 3 RESTORED LENGTH 2451 LF
TRIBUTARY 4 RESTORED LENGTH 971 LF
TRIBUTARY 5 RESTORED LENGTH 1489 LF
TRIBUTARY 6 RESTORED LENGTH 2875 LF
SOUTH FORK JONES CREEK (PROTECTED
BUFFER ON N.ORTH BANK)8500 LF
RIPARIAN WETLAND A RE-ESTABLISHMENT 4.79 AC
RIPARIAN WETLAND B RE-ESTABLISHMENT 0.46 AC
RIPARIAN WETLAND C REHABILITATION AREA 0.17 AC
RIPARIAN WETLAND D REHABILITATION AREA 0.31 AC
TRIB 5
RIPARIAN WETLAND
TRIB 6
STREAM
RESTORATION
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 57.6 AC
RESTORATION LEVEL TRIBUTARY 1A
- UPPER
TRIBUTARY 1A -
LOWER
TRIBUTARY
1B
TRIBUTARY
1C
TRIBUTARY
2
TRIBUTARY
3
TRIBUTARY
4
TRIBUTARY
5
TRIBUTARY
6
SOUTH FORK
JONES
CREEK
RIPARIAN
WETLAND
A
RIPARIAN
WETLAND
B
RIPARIAN
WETLAND
C
RIPARIAN
WETLAND
D
RESTORATION 1950.858 698.479 2525.745 2451.109 971.458 1489.440 2875.494
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I 500.119
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
(LOW UPLIFT)1055.000
REESTABLISHMENT 4.790 0.460
REHABILITATION 0.170 0.310
TOTALS 1055.000 1950.858 500.119 698.479 2525.745 2451.109 971.458 1489.440 2875.494 4.790 0.460 0.110 0.207
MITIGATION UNITS 0 1950.858 333.412 698.479 2525.745 2451.109 971.458 1489.440 2875.494 4.790 0.460 0.110 0.207
TRIB 1A
UPPER
RIPARIAN
WETLAND
TRIB 1A
LOWER
TRIB 2
TRIB 3
TRIB 4
TRIB 1C
TRIB 1B
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:17 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\G-2 SYMBOLS.dwg
G-
2

S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3

8
:
5
7

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

04
3
2
2
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
G
-
2

S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X

ED
B
FN
I
1
G-2
SY
M
B
O
L
S
EXISTING WETLAND
PROPOSED STREAM ALIGNMENT
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROPOSED WETLAND
PROPOSED TREATMENT MARSH
LEGEND
PLANTING ZONE 1
PLANTING ZONE 2
EXISTING
PROPOSED
MAJOR CONTOUR (5-FT)
MINOR CONTOUR (1-FT)
ANGLED LOG SILL ROLLER
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
PROPOSED DIRT ROAD
EXISTING GROUND
PROFILE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED THALWEG
PLAN
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LODLOD
LODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LODLODLODLOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LODLO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
0
+
0
0
5+
0
0
10+00
1
5
+
0
0
1
9
+
7
6
0+
0
0
5+
0
0
6
+
9
8
0+00
5+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
15+
0
0
20+
0
0
25+
0
025+
2
6
0+00
5
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
15
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
24+51
0
+
0
0
5+
0
0
9+
7
1
0
+
0
0
5+00 1
0
+
0
0
14+89
0
+
0
0
5
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
15+00
2
0
+
0
0
25+
0
0
28+75
EXISTING WETLAND
Proposed Stream
Aligment
LOD Limits of Disturbance
Proposed Easement
Legend
PROPOSED WETLAND
PROPOSED
TREATMENT MARSH
BEGIN TRIBUTARY 1A
END TRIBUTARY 1A
STA 19+76
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 2
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 3
BEGINTRIBUTARY 4
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 6
END TRIBUTARY 2
STA 25+26
END TRIBUTARY 3
STA 24+51
END TRIBUTARY 5
STA 14+89
END TRIBUTARY 6STA 28+75
END TRIBUTARY 4
STA 9+71
BEGIN TRIBUTARY 5
SOUTH FORK JONES CREEK
EXISTING WETLAND, TYP.
END TRIBUTARY 1C
STA 6+98
TRIBUTARY 1B
PROPOSED EASEMENT
BOUNDARY, TYP.
EXISTING
CHANNEL, TYP.
PROPOSED
ALIGNMENT, TYP.
PROPOSED WETLAND A
4.79 AC RE-ESTABLISHMENT
1:1 CREDIT
PROPOSED WETLAND B
0.61 AC RE-ESTABLISHMENT
1:1 CREDITEXISTING WETLAND C
0.17 AC REHABILITATION
4:1 CREDIT
EXISTING WETLAND D
0.31 AC REHABILITATION
4:1 CREDIT
REMOVE EXISTING
DRAIN TILES AND
PLUG EXISTING DITCH
REMOVE EXISTING
DRAIN TILES AND
PLUG EXISTING DITCH
BEGIN TRIBUTARY 1C
PROPOSED ROADREALIGNMENT
PROPOSED
TREATMENT MARSH
SHEET C-2
SHEET C-3
SHEET C-4
SHEET C-5
SHEET C-6
SHEET C-9
SHEET C-8
SHEET C-7
SHEET C-13
SHEET C-10
SHEET C-11
SHEET C-12
SHEET C-14
SHEET C-15
SHEET C-18
SHEET C-17
SHEET C-16
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:17 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-1 SITE OVERVIEW.dwg
C-
1

S
I
T
E

O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3

9
:
0
3

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

04
3
2
2
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
1

S
I
T
E

O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
CI
V
I
L
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E

O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
C-1
1
##
#
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
SCALE IN FEET
0 400'200'
HORIZONTAL
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S

XX
X
1 OF 18
C-1
CI
V
I
L
NORTH
0+00
1+00
2+00
3
7
0
3
7
5
380
380
38
0
385
390
395
400
3
7
0
375
380
380
380
385
385
385
385
385
390
390
390390
390
390
3
9
0
395
3
9
5
3
9
5
395
39
5
400
6+98
0+00
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4+00
5+00
6+00
END STREAM RESTORATION
STA 6+98 - TRIBUTARY 1C
TIE IN TO TRIBUTARY 1A UPPER
BEGIN STREAM RESTORATION
STA 0+00 - TRIBUTARY 1C
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
370
375
380
385
390
395
400
370
375
380
385
390
395
400
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00
STA. = 6+98
END PROPOSED RESTORATION
TIE-IN TO PROPOSED
ENHANCEMENT TRIB. 1A
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
STA. = 0+00
BEGIN PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
N
O
R
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:18 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-01.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
1
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
JU
N
E

2
0
2
2
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
XX
X
2 OF 18
C-2
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

1
C

-

S
T
A

0
+
0
0

T
O

E
N
D
CI
V
I
L
0+00 1+00
2+00 3+00
4+00
5+005+00
1+00
2+0
0
3+0
0
4+00
5+0
0
6+0
0
370
370
375
375
3
8
0
380
380
3
8
5
385
385
385
390
3
9
0
390
39
0
390
39
5
39
5
395
395
37
0
37
0
375
375
380
380
380
385
385
390
390
37
0
375
BEGIN STREAM RESTORATION
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
STA 0+00 - TRIBUTARY 1B
END STREAM RESTORATIONENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
STA 5+00 - TRIBUTARY 1B
TIE IN TO TRIBUTARY 1A-UPPER
(SHEET C-4)
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
RESHAPE CHANNEL PER
TYPICAL SECTION ON
SHEET DT-1
365
370
375
380
385
390
395
365
370
375
380
385
390
395
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00
STA. = 0+00
BEGIN PROPOSED
STREAM ENHANCEMENT
STA. = 5+00.119
END PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
TIE-IN TO PROPOSED
ENHANCEMENT TRIB. 1A
EXISTING GROUND
STA. = 2+96.69
EL. = 371.52
ANGLED LOG SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
STA. = 2+27.01
EL. = 374.79
ANGLED LOG SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
STA. = 3+69.91
EL. = 369.75
ANGLED LOG SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
N
O
R
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/20/2023 2:21 PM Plot By: 02624 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-01.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3

2
:
1
9

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
6
2
4
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
3 OF 18
C-3
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

1
B

-

S
T
A

0
+
0
0

T
O

E
N
D
CI
V
I
L
2
+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4+0
0
5+0
0
5+0
0
8+170+00
1+00 2+00 3+00
4+00
5+00 6+00 7+00
8+00
3
7
0
370
375
3
7
5380380
380
3
8
0
380
38
5
385390
365365
370370
370
37
0
375375375
375
380
380380
380380
380
385385
385
385
390390
390390
360
360
365
370
370
375
37
5
3
8
0
6+986+00
END STREAM RESTORATION
STA 6+98 - TRIBUTARY 1C
TIE IN TO TRIBUTARY 1A UPPER
END STREAM RESTORATION
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
STA 5+00 - TRIBUTARY 1B
TIE IN TO TRIBUTARY 1A-UPPER
(SHEET C-4)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
EXISTING DIRT ROAD
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00
STA. = 0+00
BEGIN PROPOSED
STREAM ENHANCEMENT
TIE-IN TO TRIBUTARY 1C
STA. = 3+38
TIE-IN TO PROPOSED
ENHANCEMENT TRIB. 1B
EXISTING GROUND
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NO
R
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:19 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-01.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
1
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
4 OF 18
C-4
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

1
A

-

S
T
A

0
+
0
0

T
O

E
N
D
CI
V
I
L
NO MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED FOR TRIBUTARY 1A - UPPER
345
350
355
355
355
355355
360
360
365
365
345
3
5
0
350350
3
5
5
355
355
3
6
0
360
360
360
360
365
370
375
3
8
0
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00 4+00
5+00
6+00
7+0
0
8+00
9+00
10+0
0
11+00
BEGIN STREAM RESTORATION
STA 0+25 - TRIBUTARY 1A - LOWER
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
EXISTING 60" RCP TO
REMAIN IN PLACE
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00
STA. = 0+00
BEGIN PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NO
R
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:19 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-01.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
1
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
5 OF 18
C-5
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

1

-

S
T
A

1
0
+
0
0

T
O

S
T
A

2
1
+
0
0
CI
V
I
L
33
0
3
3
0
3
3
5
340
345
345
345
330
330
330
330
335
3
4
0
345
9+00
10+00
11+
0
0
12+00 13+00
14+00
15+0
0
16+00
17
+
0
0
18+0
0
19+00
19+7
6
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
END STREAM RESTORATION
STA 19+76 - TRIBUTARY 1A - LOWER
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
PROPOSED
WETLAND A
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00
STA. = 19+76
END PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NORT
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:19 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-01.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
1
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
6 OF 18
C-6
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

1

-

S
T
A

2
1
+
0
0

T
O

E
N
D
CI
V
I
L
360
360
360
3
6
5
365
3
6
5
365
370
370
3
7
5
375
3
8
0
380380
380
38038
5
385
38
5
385
385
0+0
0
1+00 2+00
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+
0
0
9+00
10+00
11+0
0
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
BEGIN STREAM RESTORATION
STA 0+00 - TRIBUTARY 2
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00
STA. = 0+00
BEGIN PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED THALWEG
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NO
R
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:19 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-01.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
1
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
7 OF 18
C-7
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

2

-

S
T
A

0
+
0
0

T
O

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
CI
V
I
L
330330
33
0
330
330330
330
33
5
340
3
4
0
34
5
345
34
5
34
5
3
4
5345
3
4
5
35
0
350
35
0
350
35
5
355
35
5355
35
5
3
5
5
360
360
360
3
6
0
3
6
5
11+00 12+00 13+00
14+00
15+
0
0
1
6
+
0
0
17+
0
0
18+0
0
19
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
21
+
0
0
22
+
0
0
23+00
24+00
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
PROPOSED
WETLAND B
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
6
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NO
R
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:20 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-01.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
1
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
8 OF 18
C-8
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

2

-

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0

T
O

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
0
CI
V
I
L
3
3
0
3
3
0
330330
3
3
0
3
3
0
33
0
3
3
0
33
0330
19
+
0
0
20
+
0
0
21+00
22+00
2
3
+
0
0
24
+
0
0
25+00 25+26
END STREAM RESTORATION
STA 25+26 - TRIBUTARY 2
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
PROPOSEDWETLAND B
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
MAT
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
6
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00
STA. = 25+26
END PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NORTH
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:20 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-01.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
1
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
1
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
9 OF 18
C-9
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

2

-

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
0

T
O

E
N
D
CI
V
I
L
35
0
350
350
355
355
355
355
360
360
360
360
3
6
5
365
365
365
365370370
3
7
0
370
3
7
0
370
37
0
5
+
0
0
6+00 7+00
8+00
9+
0
0
9+
7
1
0+0
0
1+0
0
2+00 3+00 4+00
5+00 6+00
7+
0
0
8+00
9+00
10+00
11+00
BEGIN STREAM RESTORATION
STA 0+00 - TRIBUTARY 3
END STREAM RESTORATION
STA 9+71 - TRIBUTARY 4
TIE-IN TO TRIBUTARY 3
(SHEET C-10)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
345
3
5
0
350
350
350
3
5
5
3
5
5
355
355
3
6
0
3
6
0
360
360360
360
36
0
36
0
365365
3
6
5
3
6
5
3
6
5
3
6
5
365 365
365
37
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
340
345
350
355
360
365
370
340
345
350
355
360
365
370
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
STA. = 0+00
BEGIN PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
STA. = 5+23
TIE-IN TO PROPOSED
RESTORATION TRIB. 4
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NOR
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:21 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-02.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
4
2

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
10 OF 18
C-10
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

3

-

S
T
A

0
+
0
0

T
O

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
CI
V
I
L
3
2
5
3
2
5
3
2
5
3
2
5
325
3
3
0
3
3
0
33
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
335
335
34
0
340
345
345
35
0
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
11+0
0
12+0
0
13+
0
0
14+00
15
+
0
0
16
+
0
0
17+00
18+
0
0
1
9
+
0
0
20+00
21+
0
0
22
+
0
0
23+00
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
32
5
32
5
3
2
5
33
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
0335
33
5
34
0
34
0
3
4
5
345
3
5
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
MAT
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
0
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NOR
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:21 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-02.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
4
2

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
11 OF 18
C-11
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

3

-

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0

T
O

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
0
CI
V
I
L
320320
320
32
5
32
5
32
5
325
32
5
32
5
3
2
5
325
32
5
3
2
5
33
0
330
3
3
0
33
0
3
3
0
17
+
0
0
18+00
1
9
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
21+00
2
2
+
0
0
23+00
24+00
24+51
END STREAM RESTORATION
STA 24+51 - TRIBUTARY 3
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
320
320
325
3
2
5
325325
32
5
325
325
3
3
0
MATCH LIN
E

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
0
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
STA. = 24+51
END PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NORTH
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:21 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-02.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
4
2

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
12 OF 18
C-12
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

3

-

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
0

T
O

E
N
D
CI
V
I
L
355
360
365
36
5
36
5
365 365
370
370
3
7
0
370 370
370
375
3
7
5
375
375
3
7
5
375
38
0
3
8
0
380 380
380
380
38
0
380
3
8
0
380
3
8
0
385
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
REMOVE EXISTING
CULVERT AND ROAD
CROSSING AND CONSTRUCT
POCKET WETLAND (DT-10)
0+00 1+00
2+00
3+00 4+00
5+0
0
6+00
7+0
0
8+00 9+00
9+71
1+
0
0
2+00
3+00
4+0
0
5+00
6+00
BEGIN STREAM RESTORATION
STA 0+00 - TRIBUTARY 4
END STREAM RESTORATION
STA 9+71 - TRIBUTARY 4
TIE-IN TO TRIBUTARY 3
(SHEET C-10)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
PROPOSED POCKET
WETLAND (TYP.)
EXISTING
DIRT ROAD
PROPOSED DIRT ROAD
REALIGNMENT
355
36
0
360
360360 360
365
365
36
5
36537
0
375
REMOVE EXISTING
24" RCP
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00
EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
STA. = 0+00
BEGIN PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION STA. = 9+71
END PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
TIE-IN TO PROPOSED
RESTORATION TRIB. 3
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NO
R
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:21 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-02.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
4
2

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
13 OF 18
C-13
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

4

-

S
T
A

0
+
0
0

T
O

E
N
D
CI
V
I
L
3
2
0
325
32
5
32
5
325
330
330
3
3
5
335
340
34034
0
34
0
340
0
+
0
0
1
+
0
0
2
+
0
0
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+0
0
9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00BEGIN STREAM RESTORATION
STA 0+00 - TRIBUTARY 5
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
320
32
5
330
335
340
34
5
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
STA. = 0+00
BEGIN PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NORTH
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:22 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-02.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
4
2

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
14 OF 18
C-14
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

5

-

S
T
A

0
+
0
0

T
O

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
CI
V
I
L
320
3
2
0
320
3
2
0
320
320
32
0
3
2
0
3
2
0
3
2
0
3
2
0
32
0
3
2
0
320
320
3
2
5
325
325
14+89
7+00
8+00
9
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
11+0
0
12+00
13+00
14+0
0 END STREAM RESTORATION
STA 14+89 - TRIBUTARY 5
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
3
1
5315 31531532
0
3
2
0
320
32
0
32
0
3
2
0
320320
320
320
320
320320
320
325
325
330
335
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
STA. = 14+89
END PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NORTH
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:22 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-02.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
4
2

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
15 OF 18
C-15
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

5

-

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0

T
O

E
N
D
CI
V
I
L
350
350
355
3
5
5
35
5
355
35
5
355
360
36
0
365
36
5
3
6
5
365
365
365
3
7
0370
3
7
0
370 370370
37
0370
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
REMOVE EXISTING
CULVERT AND ROAD
CROSSING
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00 5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00
9+00 10+
0
0
11+00
BEGIN STREAM RESTORATION
STA 0+00 - TRIBUTARY 6
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
345
345
345 345
350
350
350350
350
350
350
350
355
355
355
355
355
35
5
360
360
360
360
360
360
360360
360
3
6
0
3
6
5
365
3
6
5
365
365
365
365
36
5
365
3
6
5
370370370370
370
375
3
7
5
375 37
5
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
335
340
345
350
355
360
365
335
340
345
350
355
360
365
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00
EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
STA. = 0+00
BEGIN PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NOR
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:22 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-02.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
4
2

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
16 OF 18
C-16
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

6

-

S
T
A

0
+
0
0

T
O

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
CI
V
I
L
3
2
0
3
2
0
3
2
0
3
2
0
3
2
5
325
325
3
2
5
330
330
3
3
0
3
3
0
33
5
3
3
5
33
5
3
3
5
3
4
0340
34
0
34
5
3
5
0
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
11
+
0
0
12+00
13+00 14+00
15+00 16+00 17+
0
0
18+00
19+0
0
20+
0
0
21+00
22+00
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
3
2
0
320
320
3
2
0
325
3253
3
0
330
335
3
3
5
340
340
34
5
345
345
3
5
0
3
5
0
350 350
3
2
0
32
0
MAT
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
0
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NORT
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:23 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-02.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
4
2

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
17 OF 18
C-17
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

6

-

S
T
A

1
1
+
0
0

T
O

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
0
CI
V
I
L
315
32
0
320
320
3
2
0
32
0
320
320
32
0
325 325
325
32
5325325
19+0
0
20
+
0
0
21+
0
0
2
2
+
0
0
23+00
24+
0
0
25+00
26+00
27+00
28+00
28+75
14+89
14+00
END STREAM RESTORATION
STA 28+75 - TRIBUTARY 6
EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
EXISTING
WETLAND (TYP.)
PROPOSED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (TYP.)
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE (TYP.)
ANGLED LOG
SILL ROLLER (TYP.)
3
1
5315
315315
315
315
320
3
2
0
320
320
320
320
3
2
5
325
325
330
330
335
335
340
340
345
345
MATCH
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
0
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED THALWEGPROPOSED BANKFULL
STA. = 28+75
END PROPOSED
STREAM PROFILE RESTORATION
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING
OF CONSTRUCTION.
NOR
T
H
SCALE IN FEET
0 80'40'
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
0 20'10'
VERTICAL
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
N
O
.
VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:23 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\C-PP-STREAM-02.dwg
C-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
4
2

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

0
2
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N
:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
C
-
P
P
-
S
T
R
E
A
M
-
0
2
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

2
4
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
18 OF 18
C-18
PL
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
TR
I
B
U
T
A
R
Y

6

-

S
T
A

2
2
+
0
0

T
O

E
N
D
CI
V
I
L
4H:1V 4H:1V
4H:1V
2H:1V
7.0'
BANKFULL STAGE
0.
5
'
0.
3
'
2'2'
BANKFULL STAGE
1.
0
'
6.0'
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT/THALWEG
TYPICAL SECTION NOTES (APPLIES TO ALL DETAILED SECTIONS):
1. POOL TYPICAL FOR RIGHT MEANDER SHOWN.
MIRROR SECTION FOR LEFT MEANDERS.
2. RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION TYPICALLY OCCURS AT
MID-RIFFLE AND POOL CROSS-SECTION AT THE
MID-POOL. CHANNEL DEPTH AND SIDE SLOPES WILL
VARY ALONG TRANSITION FROM POOL
CROSS-SECTION TO RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION.
REFER TO PROPOSED PROFILE FOR DEPTHS FROM
BANKFULL ELEVATION TO THALWEG ELEVATION.
4.0'
14'
6H:1V
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT
1.
0
'
4.0'
3. SEE DETAILED CROSS-SECTION SHEETS FOR
VARIATION IN SLOPES AND WIDTHS.
1.5'1.5'
TRIBUTARY 1A - STA 0+00 TO STA 11+66RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
1
DT-1
TRIBUTARY 1A POOL CROSS SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
3
DT-1
5H:1V 5H:1V
2.
0
'
2.5H:1V
2.5H:1V
8.0'
BANKFULL STAGE
0.
8
'
0.
5
'
2.0'2.0'
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT/THALWEG
2.0'2.0'
TRIBUTARY 1A - STA 11+66 TO ENDRIFFLE CROSS SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
2
DT-1
4H:1V 4H:1V
PROPOSED RIPARIAN
WETLAND
PROPOSED RIPARIAN
WETLANDPROPOSED RIPARIAN
WETLAND
PROPOSED RIPARIAN
WETLAND
PROPOSED RIPARIAN
WETLAND
PROPOSED RIPARIAN
WETLAND
2H:1V 2H:1V
4H:1V
2H:1V
4.0'
BANKFULL STAGE
0.
5
'
0.
3
'
1.0'1.0'
BANKFULL STAGE
1.
0
'
4.0'
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT/THALWEG
3.2'
11.2'
6.6H:1V
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT
0.
6
'
4.0'
1.0'1.0'
TRIBUTARY 1B, 1C, 2 - 6RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
4
DT-1
TRIBUTARY 1B, 1C, 2 - 6 POOL CROSS SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
5
DT-1
3.3H:1V 3.3H:1V
1.
6
'PROPOSED
RIPARIAN
WETLAND
PROPOSED
RIPARIAN
WETLAND
PROPOSED
RIPARIAN
WETLAND
PROPOSED
RIPARIAN
WETLAND
TRIBUTARY 1 A - TYPICAL CHANNEL DIMENSIONS
TRIBUTARY 1B, 1C, 2,3,4,5,6 - TYPICAL CHANNEL DIMENSIONS
TIE IN TO EXISTING
GROUND
(TRIB 1B ONLY)
TIE IN TO EXISTING
GROUND
(TRIB 1B ONLY)
TIE IN TO EXISTING
GROUND
(TRIB 1B ONLY)
TIE IN TO EXISTING
SIDESLOPES
(TRIB 1B ONLY)
5' BENCH
(TRIB 1B)
5' BENCH
(TRIB 1B)
3H:1
V
3H
:
1
V
5' BENCH
(TRIB 1B)3H
:
1
V
5' BENCH
(TRIB 1B)3H:1
V
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:23 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Base\DETAILS.dwg
DE
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
0
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

02
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
B
a
s
e
\
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
SCALE IN FEET
0 10'5'
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
Au
g
u
s
t

2
2
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
IC
J
AC
E
ED
B
FN
I
1 OF 10
DT-1
PR
O
J
E
C
T

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
TY
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
CI
V
I
L
POOL
RIFF
L
E
RIFF
L
E
M
A
X
.

P
O
O
L
RIFFL
E
RIFFL
E FL
O
W
T
O
P

O
F

B
A
N
K
POOL
RIF
F
L
E
M
A
X
.

P
O
O
L
RIF
F
L
E
FLO
W
T R A N SI
T
I
O
N
T R A N S I T I
O N
T
RAN S I T I O NT
R
A
NS I T I O N
TR A N S
I T I O N
T R A N S I T I O N T R A N S I T I ON
T R A N S I T I
O
N
TOP

O
F

B
A
N
K
NOTES:
1. AREAS IN BETWEEN LABELED FEATURES ARE TRANSITION
AREAS.
2. SEE DETAILED CROSS-SECTIONS
STREAM BOTTOM
CROSS SECTION TRANSITION LOCATIONS
SCALE: NTS
TOE OF BANK
PLAN VIEW
STAKE DETAIL
FLOW
SECTION A-A'
A
A'
PROFILE VIEW
VA
R
I
E
S
OVERLAP UPSTREAM FABRIC
OVER DOWNSTREAM FABRIC
AT SEAMS
COIR MATTING
OVERLAPS 5'
TOE OF BANK
TRENCH
TOP OF
STREAM BANK
HARDWOOD STAKES
TYPICAL2.
5
'
2.5'
2.5'2.5'
12
"
2"
2"1"
5' MIN.
6"

M
I
N
.
1" x 2" (NOMINAL)
WOODEN STAKE
NOTES:
1. MAXIMUM SINGLE LENGTH OF MATTING/MESH IS 100'.
2. TOP AND BOTTOM EDGES OF MATTING/MESH SHALL BE KEYED IN.
3. COIR MATTING DETAIL SHOWN IS FOR PERMANENT INSTALLATION.
TEMPORARY INSTALLATION FOR EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION
AS STIPULATED SHALL BE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROJECT
SITE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL DURING NON-WORKING HOURS.
6"

M
I
N
.
6"

M
I
N
.
COIR MATTING
KEYED IN COIR
FABRIC (TYP.)
AT TOE OF SLOPE
2'
HARDWOOD STAKE
TRENCH
CHANNEL BOTTOM
EXISTING OR
FINISHED GROUND
FLOODPLAIN
LIVE STAKES
45° TAPER
BUTT END
BRANCH COLLAR
SIDE BRANCH REMOVED
AT SLIGHT ANGLE
BARK RIDGE
LATERAL BUD
TERMINAL BUD
SCAR
FLAT TOP END
CHANNEL BANK
NOTES:
1. ALL LATERAL BRANCHES SHALL BE TRIMMED TO AVOID
DAMAGE TO THE BARK RIDGE AND BRANCH COLLAR.
2. A MINIMUM OF TWO BUDS (ONE LATERAL PLUS ONE
TERMINAL OR TWO TERMINAL) SHALL BE ABOVE THE
PLANTING DEPTH.
D
=

1
/
2
L
L
=

2
'

t
o

3
'
1/2" TO 1-1/2"
1/
2

B
A
N
K
F
U
L
L

D
E
P
T
H
LIVE STAKES
NOT TO SCALE
1
DT-2
COIR MATTING
NOT TO SCALE
2
DT-2
CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
THALWEG
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:23 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Base\DETAILS.dwg
DE
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
0
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

02
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
B
a
s
e
\
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
SCALE IN FEET
0 10'5'
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
Au
g
u
s
t

2
2
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
IC
J

ED
B
FN
I
2 OF 10
DT-2
PR
O
J
E
C
T

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
DE
T
A
I
L
S
CI
V
I
L
F
L
O
W
F
L
O
W
FLOW
FLOW
A A'
PLAN VIEW
LOG SECTION A - A' LOOKING UPSTREAM
CHANNEL PROFILE
POOL
POOL
POOL
POOL
TANGENT LINE
TOP OF BANK
TIE-IN TO STREAM BED
6' MIN.
FOOTER LOG
ANGLED LOG
ANCHOR WITH BOULDERS
HEADER LOG
THALWEG
BANKFULL ELEVATION
POOL DEPTH 1' MAX
FOOTER LOG
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
PROPOSED RIFFLE
TYPICAL SECTION
TOP OF BANK
6' MIN.
BOULDER
10°-15°
ALTERNATING NOTCHES IN
SILL LOGS MIN. 3' WIDE
NOTCH LOCATED AT 1/3 BANKFULL WIDTH.
NOTCHED HEADER LOG
DRAINAGE GEOTEXTILE TO
EXTEND 0.5' BELOW
BOTTOM OF LOG
1' MIN.
REBAR (SEE NOTE 2)
STAPLE OR NAIL 1' MIN.
REBAR (SEE NOTE 2)
NOTCH AT
CHANNEL BED
3'
6"

M
I
N
.
SLOPE LOGS 1-2%
FIRST SILL BEGINS AT
HEAD OF RIFFLE
DRAINAGE GEOTEXTILE
ENDS OF LOGS
BURIED IN BANK
AT LEAST 6'
BEDDING MATERIAL
#57 STONE
NOTE:
1. ALTERNATE SILL DIRECTION AND SLOPE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS.
2. DRILL 1-1/8" DIAMETER HOLE IN LOGS AND DRIVE #8
REBAR THROUGH. BEND AT TOP.
3. NOTCH LOCATED AT 1/3 BANKFULL, ALTERNATING
IN RIFFLE, OR LOCATED AT MIDDLE FOR THE HEAD
OF POOL.
4. LOG SHALL BE EMBEDDED IN BANK A MINIMUM OF
6'.
5. ROCK SILL SHALL BE USED IN PLACE OF LOG SILL IN
THE STEP POOL AT THE DIRECTION OF THE
ENGINEER.
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 STREAM CHANNEL ZONE 2
FLOODPLAIN
COMMUNITY
STREAMBANK
VEGETATION STREAMBANK
VEGETATION
BANKFULL STAGE
BARE ROOT
TREE (TYP.)
COIR MATTING
ZONE 1
FLOODPLAIN
COMMUNITY
LIVE STAKE
(TYP.)
TYPICAL BASEFLOW ELEVATION
COIR MATTING
KEYED-IN AND SECURELY STAKED
TO CHANNEL TOE (TYP.)
APPLY PERMANENT SEED MIX APPLY PERMANENT SEED MIX
RIP COMPACTED SOILS
BEFORE PLANTING (TYP.)
6'
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR
6'
COIR
MATTING
(TYP.)
NOTES:
1. THIS IS A TYPICAL SECTION; DIMENSIONS WILL VARY
BASED ON STREAM REACH LOCATION AND EXISTING TIE-IN
CONDITIONS.
3. RIP COMPACTED SOILS BEFORE PLANTING.
4. PLANT BARE ROOT SEEDLINGS ON 6X6 SPACING,
STAGGER BETWEEN ROWS.
5. SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR CHANNEL PLANTING ZONE
LOCATIONS AND LIST OF SPECIES TO BE APPLIED IN
CHANNEL.EXISTING
GROUND
COIR MATTING
EXISTING
GROUND
REVEGETATION SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
1
DT-3
ANGLED LOG SILL ROLLER
NOT TO SCALE
1
DT-3
6. MAXIMUM DROP BETWEEN HEADERS SHALL BE 1 FOOT.
7. LOGS SHALL BE A MIN. 10" DIAMETER HARDWOOD.
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:23 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Base\DETAILS.dwg
DE
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
0
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

02
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
B
a
s
e
\
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
SCALE IN FEET
0 10'5'
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
Au
g
u
s
t

2
2
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
IC
J

ED
B
FN
I
3 OF 10
DT-3
PR
O
J
E
C
T

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
DE
T
A
I
L
S
CI
V
I
L
PROPOSED TYPICAL
CROSS SECTION
PROPOSED RAISED
CHANNEL BED
COIR MATTING TO BE
KEYED IN WITH BED
MATERIAL AT HALF BANKFULL
(SEE COIR MATTING DETAIL).
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
SCALE: NTS
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE IN FILL (SECTION VIEW)
PROPOSED RAISED
CHANNEL BED
POOL
PROPOSED BANKFULL
ELEV.
NCDOT CLASS A
RIPRAP
GLIDE
NATIVE BACKFILL
OR COMMON BACKFILLEXISTING CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION
RIFFLE
RUN
NTS
PROFILE VIEW
NTS
NCDOT CLASS A
RIPRAP
1.
5
'
VA
R
I
E
S
1.
5
'
PROPOSED TYPICAL
CROSS SECTION
PROPOSED CUT
CHANNEL BED
PROPOSED CHANNEL
BANKFULL ELEV.
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE IN CUT (SECTION VIEW)
EXISTING GROUND
NTS
NCDOT CLASS A
RIPRAP
1.
5
'
PLACE BED MATERIAL TO 1/2
BANKFULL ELEV.
PLACE BED MATERIAL TO 1/2
BANKFULL ELEV.
BED MATERIAL KEYED-IN
SO THAT NO ROCK PROTRUDES
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
BED MATERIAL TO BE EXTENDED
UP BANK AT DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
IF MUCKY SOILS ENCOUNTERED
PROPOSED CHANNEL
BANKFULL ELEV.
COIR MATTING TO BE
KEYED IN WITH BED
MATERIAL AT HALF BANKFULL.
(SEE COIR MATTING DETAIL)
BED MATERIAL KEYED-IN
SO THAT NO ROCK PROTRUDES
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
BED MATERIAL TO BE EXTENDED
UP BANK AT DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
IF MUCKY SOILS ENCOUNTERED
NOTE:
1. APPLY THIS DETAIL IN AREAS WHERE PROPOSED
RIFFLE FEATURES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED FROM
FILL MATERIAL.
2. ON POOL SECTIONS, BED MATERIAL TO BE PLACED
TO HALF BANKFULL ON OUTER MEANDER ONLY.
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:23 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Base\DETAILS.dwg
DE
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
0
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

02
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
B
a
s
e
\
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
SCALE IN FEET
0 10'5'
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
Au
g
u
s
t

2
2
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
IC
J

ED
B
FN
I
4 OF 10
DT-4
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
DE
T
A
I
L
S
CI
V
I
L
GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
NOT TO SCALE
1
DT-6
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS:1. GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES MUST BE
MAINTAINED PER THE NCDOT EROSION AND SEDIMENTCONTROL MANUAL.
2. GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES MUST BE
MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT TRACKINGOR DIRECT FLOW OF SEDIMENT ONTO ADJACENT
ROADWAYS.
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
NOT TO SCALE
2
DT-6
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS:1. TEMPORARY SILT FENCE MUST BE MAINTAINED PER THE NCDOT
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MANUAL.
2. AT A MINIMUM, REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL SILT
ACCUMULATION WHEN THE DEPTH REACHES 12 OF THE HEIGHTOF THEMATC GEOTEXTILE. DO NOT UNDERMINE DURING
CLEANOUT.
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNELBOTTOM.
4. LINE STREAMBANK AND ACCESS RAMP AREA WITH NON-WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
5. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTEREXISTING CHANNEL BY INSTALLING SILT FENCE ON ALL FOUR CORNERS ADJACENT TO THESTREAM. SEE SILT FENCE DETAIL.
7. STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE MUD MAT.
8. THE LOG MAT SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND WIDTH TO SUPPORT THE LARGESTVEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TOEQUIPMENT UTILIZED, RECOMMENDED AT A 5:1 SLOPE.
MINIMUM WIDTHSEE NOTE 8
DITCH OR STREAM CHANNEL
LOG MAT
NCDOT CLASS B STONE RAMP
SLOPE VARIES
LOG MAT NCDOT CLASS B STONE
LOG MAT CROSS SECTION LOG MAT PLAN VIEW
LOG MAT - TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
NOT TO SCALE
3
DT-6
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:23 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Base\DETAILS.dwg
DE
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
0
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

02
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
B
a
s
e
\
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
SCALE IN FEET
0 10'5'
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
Au
g
u
s
t

2
2
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
IC
J

ED
B
FN
I
5 OF 10
DT-5
PR
O
J
E
C
T

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
DE
T
A
I
L
S
CI
V
I
L
2:1
A'A
B
B'
2:1
SECTION A-A'
SECTION B-B'
PLAN VIEW OF EXISTING CHANNEL WITH CHANNEL PLUG
EXISTING
CHANNEL/
DITCH
IMPERVIOUS SELECT
MATERIAL (SEE SPEC.)
COIR MATTING
ON TOP OF
STRIPPED TOPSOIL
6" MIN.OF STRIPPED
TOPSOIL
MATCH PROPOSED
CHANNEL CROSS-
SECTION
PROPOSED
CHANNEL
BOTTOM
MATCH PROPOSED
CHANNEL CROSS-
SECTION DIMENSIONS
IMPERVIOUS SELECT
MATERIAL
EXISTING CHANNEL/
DITCH IMPERVIOUS SELECT
MATERIAL (SEE SPEC.)
LENGTH VARIES (MIN 15') - SEE TABLE
EXISTING CHANNEL WIDTH VARIES
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF
BANK
FL
O
W
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
VA
R
I
E
S
EXISTING CHANNEL / DITCH(BACKFILLED IN SOMELOCATIONS)
PROPOSEDCHANNEL
NOTES:
1. 90% COMPACTION RATE IS REQUIRED ON CHANNEL PLUG
OR AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
2. IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL TO BE ON SITE FILL
COMPACTED IN 6" LIFTS
3. SIDE SLOPE THAT IS ADJACENT TO PROPOSED STREAM
NEEDS TO MATCH PROPOSED CROSS SECTION IN THAT
REGION.
4. CHANNEL PLUG LENGTH IS 15' UNLESS SPECIFIED TO BE
LONGER BY DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
WETLAND/ EXISTING CHANNEL(BACKFILLED INSOME LOCATIONS)
CHANNEL/DITCH PLUG - FOR DITCHES AND ABANDONED CHANNELS
NOT TO SCALE
1
DT-6
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:23 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Base\DETAILS.dwg
DE
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
0
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

02
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
B
a
s
e
\
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
SCALE IN FEET
0 10'5'
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
Au
g
u
s
t

2
2
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
IC
J

ED
B
FN
I
7 OF 10
DT-6
CH
A
N
N
E
L

P
L
U
G

D
E
T
A
I
L
DE
T
A
I
L
S
CI
V
I
L
250' MAX.
FLOW
CONSTRUCTION AREA (250' MAX)
CL
STR
E
A
M
(LOCATION VARIES WITHIN THE PUMP AROUND AREA)
VARIES
PIPE DIVERSION CROSS SECTION PIPE DIVERSION PROFILE
21
21
2' MIN.
3' MIN.
FL
O
W
1'
2' MIN.
3' MIN.FLOW
SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS
DIKE PROFILE
SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKE
CROSS SECTION
STONE IMPERVIOUS DIKE
CROSS SECTION
STONE IMPERVIOUS DIKE
PLAN VIEW
STONE IMPERVIOUS DIKE
PROFILE
3' MIN.
3' MIN.
#57 STONE
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FILTER FABRIC
SANDBAGS
CHANNEL BOTTOM
SECURE NON-WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FILTER
FABRIC UNDER TOP
LAYER OF SANDBAGS
1' MIN.
NC DOT CLASS 1 RIP RAP
NON-WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
FILTER FABRIC
TOP OF BANK
STREAM BED
TOP OF BANK
#57 STONE
NC DOT CLASS 1 RIP RAP
1' MIN
SANDBAGS
CHANNEL
IMPERVIOUS DIKE (SAND BAG TYPE SHOWN)
PROPOSED 24" CPP
EXISTING
CHANNEL
PROPOSED CHANNEL CHANNEL
BOTTOM
PROPOSED 24" CPP
IMPERVIOUS DIKEIMPERVIOUS DIKE
SEE DETAIL
MAIN PUMP
(BASEFLOW)
SEDIMENT PUMP
AS REQUIRED
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET
OUTFALL ONTO NCDOT RIPRAP TYPE A
BASE OF
STREAM
EXISTING GROUND
PUMP HOSE FLOOD PLAIN
STREAM
DRAINAGE GEOTEXTILE
15' MINIMUM
FLOW FLOW
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
SCALE: NTS
NOTE:
1. THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE USED FOR
DIVERTING AND PUMPING ONLY. THE
STRUCTURE SHALL BE RELOCATED OR
REMOVED ONCE PUMPING/DIVERTING IS
COMPLETE.
2. EITHER TYPE OF IMPERVIOUS DIKE (SANDBAG
OR STONE) MAY BE USED.
NOTE:
1. CHANNEL SHALL BE MATTED WITH COIR
FIBER MATTING PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF
EACH WORK DAY.
2. IF FINAL CHANNEL GRADING HAS NOT BEEN
PERFORMED, TEMPORARILY SECURE COIR
MATTING WITH STAKES OR ROCK
NOTE:
1. PIPE MUST HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE WHEN
USING DIVERSION (0.3% TO 2.0% PIPE SLOPE
IS RECOMMENDED)
PUMP-AROUND DIVERSION PLANVIEW
8" OF #57 STONE
#57 STONE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
NOT TO SCALE
1
DT-7
PUMP AROUND DIVERSION
NOT TO SCALE
2
DT-7
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:23 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Base\DETAILS.dwg
DE
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
0
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

02
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
B
a
s
e
\
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
SCALE IN FEET
0 10'5'
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
Au
g
u
s
t

2
2
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
IC
J

ED
B
FN
I
8 OF 10
DT-7
PR
O
J
E
C
T

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
DE
T
A
I
L
S
CI
V
I
L
RIPARIAN WETLANDPLANT LIST
NOT TO SCALE
1
DT-5
ZONE 2 RIPARIAN AREAPLANT LIST
NOT TO SCALE
2
DT-5
LIVE STAKEPLANT LIST
NOT TO SCALE
3
DT-5
HERBACEOUSPLANT LIST
NOT TO SCALE
4
DT-5
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:24 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Base\DETAILS.dwg
DE
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
0
0

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

02
4
1
8
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
B
a
s
e
\
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
SCALE IN FEET
0 10'5'
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
Au
g
u
s
t

2
2
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
IC
J

ED
B
FN
I
9 OF 10
DT-8
PR
O
J
E
C
T

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
CI
V
I
L
PROPOSED
EMBANKMENTEXISTING STREAM
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING STREAM
(TO BE FILLED)
TREATMENT
MARSH
SPILLWAY
4' FROM INVERT TO
TOP OF
EMBANKMENT
PROPOSED
EMBANKMENT LOG OUTLET WITH 6" NOTCH
(MIN. 10" DIA. HARDWOOD LOG)
INFLOW
TREATMENT MARSHPROFILE VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
2
DT-9
TREATMENT MARSHPLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
1
DT-9
LOG WITH 2'X6" NOTCH
END EMBEDDED IN
IN-SITU GROUND
MIN. 2'
NCDOT CLASS A RIRAP
STABILIZED OUTFALL
MIN. 1' THICK
CL
STRE
A
M
BEGIN
RESTORED
STREAM
EMBANKMENT
MEETS
IN-SITU
GROUND
2'
MARSH POOL
STABILIZED
OUTFALL
PREFORMED
SCOUR HOLE
NCDOT
CLASS A RIRAP
MIN. 1' THICK
NONWOVEN
FILTER
FABRIC
EXISTING STREAM
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING STREAM
THALWEG
3:1

H
:
V
3
:
1

H
:
V
4:1 H:
V
EDGE OF
MARSH POOL
OUTFLOW
FL
O
W
6'
PROPOSED
TOP OF BANK
2'
2'
2:
1

H
:
V
10
'
2'
PREFORMED
SCOUR HOLE
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/20/2023 5:48 PM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Base\DETAILS.dwg
DE
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3

5
:
4
7

P
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

04
3
2
2
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
B
a
s
e
\
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
SCALE IN FEET
0 10'5'
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
Au
g
u
s
t

2
2
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
IC
J

ED
B
FN
I
10 OF 10
DT-9
PR
O
J
E
C
T

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
TR
E
A
T
M
E
N
T

M
A
R
S
H
CI
V
I
L
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LODLOD
LODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LODLODLODLOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LODLO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
BEGIN TRIBUTARY 1A
END TRIBUTARY 1A
STA 19+76
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 2
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 3
BEGINTRIBUTARY 4
BEGIN
TRIBUTARY 6
END TRIBUTARY 2
STA 25+26
END TRIBUTARY 3
STA 24+51
END TRIBUTARY 5
STA 14+89
END TRIBUTARY 6
STA 28+75
END TRIBUTARY 4
STA 9+71
BEGIN TRIBUTARY 5
SOUTH FORK JONES CREEK
EX. WETLAND, TYP.
END TRIBUTARY 1C
STA 6+98
TRIBUTARY 1B
PROPOSED EASEMENT
BOUNDARY, TYP.
EXISTINGCHANNEL, TYP.
PROPOSED
ALIGNMENT, TYP.
0
+
0
0
5+
0
0
10+00
1
5
+
0
0
1
9
+
7
6
0+
0
0
5+
0
0
6
+
9
8
0+00
5+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
15+
0
0
20+
0
0
25+
0
025+
2
6
0+00
5
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
15
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
24+51
0
+
0
0
5+
0
0
9+
7
1
0
+
0
0
5+00 1
0
+
0
0
14+89
0
+
0
0
5
+
0
0
1
0
+
0
0
15+00
2
0
+
0
0
25+
0
0
28+75
EXISTING WETLAND
Proposed Stream
Aligment
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LODLOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
LOD
LODLODLOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD
LO
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LOD Limits of Disturbance
Proposed Easement
PROPOSED WETLAND A
4.79 AC RE-ESTABLISHMENT
1:1 CREDIT PROPOSED WETLAND B
0.46 AC RE-ESTABLISHMENT
1:1 CREDIT
EXISTING WETLAND C
0.17 AC REHABILITATION
1.5:1 CREDIT
EXISTING WETLAND D
0.31 AC REHABILITATION
1.5:1 CREDIT
REMOVE EXISTING
DRAIN TILES AND
PLUG EXISTING DITCH
REMOVE EXISTING
DRAIN TILES AND
PLUG EXISTING DITCH
BEGIN TRIBUTARY 1C
PROPOSED ROADREALIGNMENT
PROPOSED
TREATMENT MARSH
RIPARIAN WETLANDPLANTING ZONE
PROPOSED TREATMENT
MARSH
PROPOSED WETLAND B
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
0.15 AC
NO CREDIT, WITHIN STREAM BUFFER
0+0
0
1+0
0
2+0
0
3+0
0
4+
0
0
5+
0
0
5+
0
0
0
+
0
0
1
+
0
0
2
+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4
+
0
0
5
+
0
0
6
+
0
0
7
+
0
0
8
+
0
0
8
+
1
7
LEGEND
PLANTING ZONE 1
PLANTING ZONE 2
SHEET
SEQ.
th
i
s

s
h
e
e
t
,

a
d
j
u
s
t

s
c
a
l
e
.
dr
a
w
i
n
g
.

I
f

n
o
t

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

Ba
r

i
s

o
n
e

i
n
c
h

o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

IS
S
U
E
NO
.VE
R
I
F
Y

S
C
A
L
E
0
1
DA
T
E
BY
F&
N

J
O
B

N
O
.
FI
L
E

N
A
M
E
CH
E
C
K
E
D
RE
V
I
S
E
D
DR
A
W
N
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
DA
T
E
Plot Date: 2/17/2023 9:24 AM Plot By: 04322 Filename: N:\SW\Drawings\P-1 PLANTING PLAN.dwg
P-
1

P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
.
d
w
g
La
s
t

S
a
v
e
d
:

2/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3

9
:
1
6

A
M

S
a
v
e
d

B
y
:

04
3
2
2
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:

N:
\
S
W
\
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
P
-
1

P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
.
d
w
g
AC
A
D

R
e
l
:

24
.
2
s

(
L
M
S

T
e
c
h
)
MITIGATION PLAN
Fr
e
e
s
e

a
n
d

N
i
c
h
o
l
s
,

I
n
c
.
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

F
i
r
m

C
-
3
9
1
6
53
1

N
.

L
i
b
e
r
t
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

N
C

2
7
1
0
1
Ph
o
n
e

-

(
3
3
6
)

7
9
0
-
6
7
4
4
We
b

-

w
w
w
.
f
r
e
e
s
e
.
c
o
m
ON

D
A
T
E
:

J
A
N

2
0
2
2
NO
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A

N
O
:

0
3
5
7
2
4
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y

O
F

B
R
Y
A
N

M
.

D
I
C
K
PU
R
P
O
S
E

O
F

I
N
T
E
R
I
M

R
E
V
I
E
W

U
N
D
E
R

T
H
E
TH
I
S

D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T

I
S

R
E
L
E
A
S
E
D

F
O
R

T
H
E
IT

I
S

N
O
T

T
O

B
E

U
S
E
D

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
BI
D
D
I
N
G

O
R

P
E
R
M
I
T

P
U
R
P
O
S
E
S
.
##
#
#
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
V
I
E
W
1
##
#
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
SCALE IN FEET
0 400'200'
HORIZONTAL
DR
A
F
T

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

P
L
A
N
MI
D
D
E
N
D
O
R
F

S
P
R
I
N
G
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
I
T
E
NC
M
2
0
3
0
6
FE
B

2
0
2
3
NC

D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
XX
X

ED
B
FN
I
1
P-1
CI
V
I
L
NORTH

Appendix H

Invasive Species Control Plan
Invasive Species Plan

Invasive species identified at the Site prior to construction included Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) along the stream corridors. During construction, the
existing vegetation will be controlled using mechanical methods.
During the monitoring period, the Site will be reviewed annually to locate and quantify any residual
invasive species vegetation. If invasive species are identified at the Site during the monitoring period, their
location and extent will be shown on the current condition plan view (CCPV). A corresponding discussion
will be included in the annual monitoring report outlining the proposed management plan. Invasive
species vegetation will be managed and reviewed on an annual basis to minimize its long term impact on
the planted native species. Any vegetation control requiring chemical control (i.e., herbicide application)
will be performed in accordance with the NC Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.
Parts of the conservation easement areas along South Fork Jones Creek that lie outside the riparian zones
of the restored tributaries and riparian wetlands will have invasives clearing and treatment during one
growing season and not in following monitoring years. These areas are being put into conservation
easement to mitigate for unauthorized activities on the site, and not to produce mitigation credits. They
are depicted on “Proposed Mitigation Plan” figure in the Middendorf Springs Mitigation Plan.
Invasive species will be managed and controlled using a combination of chemical and mechanical control
methods to ensure that these species comprise less than 1% of the total easement acreage. Management
and control will continue throughout the project until this control is achieved.

Appendix I

Maintenance Plan
Maintenance Plan
The Site shall be visited semi-annually, and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once a year throughout the post-construction 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 measures:
Component/Feature Maintenance through project closeout
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking
of in-stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting,
and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation
along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank
failures and head-cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports. Stream
maintenance will continue through the monitoring period.
Wetland Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include
supplemental installations of target vegetation within the wetland.
Areas where storm water and floodplain flows intercept the wetland
may also require maintenance to prevent scour that adversely and
persistently threatens wetland habitat or function.
Vegetation 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 invasive plant species shall be treated by mechanical
and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation requiring herbicide
application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Vegetation maintenance
activities will be documented and reported in annual monitoring reports.
Vegetation maintenance will continue through the monitoring period.
Beavers Beaver and associated dams are to be removed as they colonize and
until the project is closed.
Site Boundary Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be
marked with signs identifying the property as a mitigation site and will
include the name of the long-term steward and a contact number.
Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree-
blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or
destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as-needed basis.
Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance will continue in
perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Farm Road Crossing Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
conservation easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of
way, or corridor agreements. Crossings in easement breaks are the
responsibility of the landowner to maintain.

Appendix J

Credit Release Schedule
Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as-built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the 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 standards. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described
as follows:

Table D1. Stream Credit Release Schedule

Monitoring
Year
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Release
0 Initial allocation – see requirements below 30% 30%
1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
10% 40%
2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
10% 50%
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
10% 60%
4* Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
5% 65%
(75%)**
5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
10% 75%
(85%)**
6* Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met.
5% 80%
(90%)**
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met and the project has received closeout
approval.
10% 90%
(100%)**
* Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these
monitoring years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
** 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.

Table D2. Wetland Credit Release Schedule

Monitoring
Year
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Release
0 Initial allocation – see requirements below 30% 30%
1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met.
10% 40%
2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met.
10% 50%
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met.
10% 60%
Monitoring
Year
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Release
4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met.
10% 70%
5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met. Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT
may allow the DMS to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after the fifth
year, but vegetation monitoring must continue for an additional two
years after the fifth year for a total of seven years.
10% 80%
6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met.
10% 90%
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards
are being met and the project has received closeout approval.
10% 100%

Initial Allocation of Released Credits

The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan, can be released by DMS
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan.
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
3) Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the DMS 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.
4) Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit
issuance is not required.

Subsequent Credit Releases

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 10% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred, in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event
that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, DMS
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.

Appendix K

Financial Assurance
Financial Assurances

Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Services' In-Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality has provided the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy
mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.

Appendix L

Project Photolog

Photo 1. Tributary 1C
Direction of View: Southwest

Photo 2. Tributary 1B
Direction of View: Southwest

Photo 3. Tributary 1A Upper
Direction of View: South

Photo 4. Tributary 1A Lower
Direction of View: Southeast

Photo 5. Tributary 2
Direction of View: South

Photo 6. Tributary 3 – Top section
above confluence of Tributary 3 and 4.
Direction of View: Southeast

Photo 7. Tributary 3 – Middle section
Direction of View: Northwest

Photo 8. Tributary 3 – Lower section
Direction of View: Northwest

Photo 9. Tributary 4
Direction of View: Southeast

Photo 10. Tributary 5
Direction of View: North

Photo 11. Tributary 6 – Top section
Direction of View: East

Photo 12. Tributary 6 – Middle section
Direction of View: Southeast

Photo 13. Tributary 6 – Lower section
Direction of View: Southeast

Photo 14. Existing drainage tiles
coming into South Fork Jones Creek
adjacent to Wetland A.

Photo 15. Existing drainage tiles
coming into South Fork Jones Creek
adjacent to Wetland A.

Photo 16. Existing drainage tiles
coming into South Fork Jones Creek
adjacent to Wetland A.

Photo 17. Existing drainage tiles and
ditch coming into South Fork Jones
Creek adjacent to Wetland B.

Photo 18. Iron-oxidizing bacteria at
outlet of drain tile adjacent to Wetland
B.