20231113 Ver 1_DRAFT_Mitigation_Plan_Doc_Figs_only

-1- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
TURKEY MITIGATION SITE
DETAILED MITIGATION PLAN
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared for:

RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
A DAVEY COMPANY
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604

Prepared by:

CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
3701 ARCO CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 400
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28273

USACE NO.: SAW-2023-00121
NCDWR PROJECT NO. 20231113 v1
CEC Project 324-404

SEPTEMBER 2023

Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Directions to Site .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Contact Information ...................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 GOALS & OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................ 3
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT............................................................................................. 4
4.0 SITE SELECTION .......................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Watershed Approach .................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 7
5.1 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWR River Basin Designation......................................... 7
5.2 Physiography and Land Use ......................................................................................................... 7
5.3 Hydrological Characterization ...................................................................................................... 8
5.4 Soil Characterization .................................................................................................................... 8
5.5 Natural Resources & Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 10
5.6 Nutrient Model ........................................................................................................................... 11
5.7 Project Site Resources ................................................................................................................ 12
5.8 Baseline Stream and Wetland Assessment ................................................................................. 13
5.9 Existing Conditions Survey ........................................................................................................ 14
5.10 Channel Classification and Morphology .................................................................................... 14
5.11 Channel Evolution ...................................................................................................................... 15
5.12 Hydrology and Hydraulics .......................................................................................................... 15
5.12.1 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 15
5.12.2 Hydraulics ...................................................................................................................... 16
5.12.3 Existing Conditions Model ............................................................................................ 16
5.12.4 Proposed Conditions Model .......................................................................................... 17
5.13 Channel Stability Assessment..................................................................................................... 17
5.14 Bankfull Verification .................................................................................................................. 18
6.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ....................................................................................................... 19
6.1 General Work Plan Considerations ............................................................................................ 19
6.1.1 Soil Compaction ............................................................................................................ 19
6.1.2 Soil Suitability ........................................................................................................... 20
6.1.3 Land Disturbance ........................................................................................................... 20
6.2 Mitigation Approach ................................................................................................................... 20
6.2.1 Stream Restoration ........................................................................................................ 20
6.2.2 Stream Restoration – Headwaters .................................................................................. 21
6.2.3 Stream Enhancement Level 1 ........................................................................................ 22
6.2.4 Stream Enhancement Level II ....................................................................................... 22
6.2.5 Wetland Reestablishment & Rehabilitation ................................................................... 22
6.2.6 Wetland Enhancement ................................................................................................... 23
6.2.7 Wetland Establishment .................................................................................................. 23
6.2.8 Marsh Treatment Features ............................................................................................. 23
6.2.9 Channel Crossings ......................................................................................................... 24
6.2.10 Fence / Easement Markings ........................................................................................... 24
7.0 RIPARIAN BUFFER & WETLAND VEGETATION RESTORATION ..................................... 24
8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MONITORING ........................................................... 28
Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
8.1 Vegetation Planting and Monitoring Requirements ................................................................... 29
8.2 Planted Vegetation Performance Standards ................................................................................ 30
8.3 Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology Monitoring .................................................... 31
8.4 Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology Performance Standards ................................. 31
8.5 Wetland Hydrology Performance Standards .............................................................................. 32
8.6 Reporting .................................................................................................................................... 33
9.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN ............................................................................................................... 34
10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................... 34
11.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................... 35
12.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ....................................................................................................... 36
13.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 37
14.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 39
TABLES
Table 1 – Goals and Actions ......................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2 – RBRP Goals ................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 3 – Current Soils ................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 4 – Wetlands Identified within the Study Area ................................................................................. 12
Table 5 – Streams Identified within the Study area .................................................................................... 13
Table 6 – Precipitation Depths for the 2- and 10-Year Storm Events......................................................... 15
Table 7 – Peak Flow Rates Determined from the Hydrologic Analysis ..................................................... 16
Table 8 – Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) & Near Bank Stress (NBS) Erosion Potential .................. 18
Table 9 – Temporary Seed Mix .................................................................................................................. 25
Table 10 – Permanent Seed Mix ................................................................................................................. 25
Table 11 – Proposed Planting Plan ............................................................................................................. 27
Table 12 – Proposed Monitoring Schedule ................................................................................................. 28
Table 13 – Proposed Maintenance Schedule .............................................................................................. 34
Table 14 – Stream Mitigation Summary ..................................................................................................... 37
Table 15 – Wetland Mitigation Summary ................................................................................................... 38
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Soils
Figure 5. Existing LiDAR Photograph
Figure 6. Existing LiDAR Elevation Map
Figure 7. Baseline Stream Assessments
Figure 8. Planting Plan
Figure 9. Restoration & Monitoring Plan

Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Photographs

Appendix B – Existing Stream and Wetland Data
NC SAM Results
NC WAM Results
RiverMorph Cross sections and Pebble counts
BEHI and NBS Forms

Appendix C – Agency Site Visit Notes & Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination

Appendix D – Project Scoping Documents
USFWS – IPaC
USFWS – Biological Analysis
NC Natural Heritage Program Report
NC Wildlife Resources Commission Coordination
NC State Historic Preservation Office Coordination
Environmental Data Resources Report

Appendix E – Soil & Precipitation Data
NRCS Current Soils Map
NRCS Published Soils Map
Soil Profile Descriptions
Precipitation Frequency Data
APT Data

Appendix F – Supporting Design Information

Appendix G – H&H Results

Appendix H – Design Plan Sheets

Appendix I – Site Protection Document
Draft Conservation Easement Plat
Draft Conservation Easement (USACE Wilmington Dist.)

Appendix J - Financial Assurances / Long-Term Management
Broad Water Innovations (BWI) Brochure
BWI Letter of Commitment
BWI Endowment Calculation
Performance Bond, Calculations & Draft Bond
Monitoring Bond, Calculations & Draft Bond
-1- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan) and Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) have retained Civil &
Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to complete permitting and design tasks associated with the
Rockingham Quarry development and expansion site owned and operated by Vulcan. Vulcan is proposing
to open a new mine pit and expand the overburden storage capabilities within the Rockingham Quarry
(herein referred to as ‘the Project’). Vulcan has identified the 210-acre TIAA Property
(PIN#754304723177) (SAW-2020-00807), commonly referred to as “Pit 2” north of the powerlines,
located at 353 Galestown Road near Rockingham, North Carolina (NC), as a suitable location for the new
mine pit and overburden storage (Figure 1).
After avoidance and minimization efforts (see Alternative Analysis within the Individual Permit, SAW-
2020-00807; CEC, 2023), proposed permanent impacts to Waters of the United States (WOTUS) are
anticipated. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Department Division of Water
Resources (NC DEQ-DWR) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will require
Individual Section 401 and Section 404 permits of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as compensatory
mitigation through a USACE Nationwide Permit 27 to demonstrate a no net loss of aquatic resources.
Because the Project’s proposed action will impact WOTUS, compensatory mitigation will be required.
Currently the Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System shows no existing mitigation
banks or in-lieu fee sites with existing or advance credits in the Project’s primary service area. As such,
CEC seeks concurrence from the USACE to allow Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) as the preferred
method and acceptable mitigation option. The proposed PRM Site (SAW-2023-00121) will restore and
enhance a historically degraded stream and wetland system within the Pee-Dee River watershed, United
States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 3040201 (Figure 1 & 2), providing ecological uplift to
existing NCSAM LOW scoring streams, NCWAM LOW scoring wetlands, and the adjacent riparian
buffers (Figure 6; Appendix B).
This Detailed Mitigation Plan (hereafter referred to as, “the Plan”) provides an off-site, in-kind approach to
compensate for anticipated impacts to WOTUS, where on-site mitigation is not possible. The Plan presents
technical design information for stream and wetland mitigation activities, utilizing the nearest possible
location to the Project to achieve the necessary offset to compensate for WOTUS impacts. The Plan for the
PRM Site is in accordance with USACE Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 332 using
restoration definitions in the 40 C.F.R. § 230.92 and developed using Wilmington District Stream and
-2- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (USACE, 2016). The purpose of the Plan is to review and offset
permanent impacts to streams and wetlands associated with the Project.
On March 9, 2023, RS held an on-site meeting with regulatory agencies to discuss the PRM Site proposed
to offset impacts at the Project. Representatives from the USACE, NC DEQ-DWR, NC Wildlife Resource,
RS, and CEC were present. Agency site notes and summary information is provided in Appendix C. Please
note information in Appendix C is outdated and should be superseded by information in this Detailed
Mitigation Plan.
After final design the total mitigation provided in this Detailed Mitigation Plan includes a total of 8,597
linear feet of stream and 5.48 acres of wetland to offset impacts at the Project site. Impacts at the Project
site include a total of 4,168 linear feet and 0.12 acres. At a required mitigation ratio of 2:1, the total
mitigation requirement is 8,191 linear feet and 0.2 acres (see Vulcan’s Individual Permit, SAW-2020-00807
and Alternative Analysis, CEC 2023a). This Detailed Mitigation Plan more than complies with the
mitigation requirement to offset impacts in compliance with the Clean Water Act, Section 404 and
Wilmington USACE District.
1.1 Directions to Site
The fee-simple parcel associated with the PRM Site is approximately 155 acres and is located near
Wadesboro in Anson County, NC (34.896817, -80.143155, Figure 1).
Directions to the Site from Wake Forest, North Carolina, are as follows:
x I-540 West from NC-98 W/Durham Road, Old Falls of Neuse Road and Neuse Road (17 minutes,
9.4 miles)
x US-1 South and US-15 South/US-501 S to NC-73 West in Moore County (1 hour 11 minutes, 75.9
miles)
x I-74 to US-220 South and US-74 West to East Wade Street in Wadesboro (30 minutes, 30.5 miles)
x NC-109 South to State Road 1119 (12 minutes, 7.4 miles)
1.2 Contact Information
Applicant: Vulcan Materials Company (Rockingham Quarry)
Contact: Tony Johnson
[e-mail], # [phone] (office)
-3- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
PRM Site Sponsor: Restoration Systems, LLC
Contact: Raymond Holz
[e-mail], # [phone] (office)
Agent: Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Contact: Christy Mower, CERP
[e-mail], # [phone] (office)
2.0 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Project goals include minimizing downstream flooding, increasing stream stability, removing direct
nutrient and pollutant inputs, and improving instream and stream-side habitat. These goals will be
accomplished by project objectives, which aim to improve unnamed tributaries to Middle Fork Jones
Creek’s stream function-based parameters including geomorphology, bedform diversity, floodplain
connectivity, and riparian vegetation. Proposed activities that will be implemented to achieve project
objectives include:
x Relocate and build a dynamically stable channel using predominately Priority 1 restoration
approaches, transitioning into Priority 2 stream restoration practices to improve geomorphology
parameters.
x Establish a native riparian buffer by controlling invasive species and planting the project area to
increase stream bank stability, nutrient filtration, promote wetland establishment, and provide
shade and habitat for wildlife by decreasing air and soil temperatures.
x Remove agricultural livestock and reduce agricultural land inputs.
x Protect streams, wetlands, and riparian zones with a permanent Conservation Easement.
Table 1. Goals and Actions
Site Component Goals Actions
Unnamed
Tributaries
Improve floodplain connectivity
Implement Priority 1 and Priority 2 Restoration. Bank
Height Ratio (BHR) will not exceed 1.2 at any measured
riffle cross section over the monitoring period.
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) will not be less than 1.4 for
channels at any measured riffle cross section to ensure the
long-term stability of the design reach.
Improve bedform diversity Install habitat structures to increase riffle length and
restore natural pool-to-pool spacing and pool depth ratio.
-4- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Table 1. Goals and Actions
Site Component Goals Actions
Improve lateral stability Restore dimension, pattern, and profile stabilizing banks
with near bank and riparian zone vegetation plantings.
Improve riparian vegetation
buffer
Plant tree and shrub species throughout the riparian
buffers with native vegetation.
Establish long-term protection Protect the PRM Site with a permanent Conservation
Easement.
Wetlands
Restoration (Reestablishment
and Rehabilitation),
Enhancement, and
Establishment (Creation)
Reconnecting stream channels to floodplain and wetland
areas, utilizing abandoned channel areas for wetland
establishment, planting native wetland plant species, and
implementing surface water storage depressions.
Establish long-term protection Protect the PRM Site with a permanent Conservation
Easement.
3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
To protect stream functionality and the success of the aquatic resources over time, a permanent conservation
easement will be established over the PRM Site. The easement will include a minimum 50-foot-wide buffer
along the restored stream alignment measured from the top of bank and will encompass wetland assets
throughout the project area. Areas of the easement, however, extend from 50 feet up to 360 feet including
adjacent floodplain wetland areas, vernal pools, and upland habitat features (see Appendix C, Agency
Meeting Notes – Figure 2; March 27, 2023). Additionally, flood areas within the 10-year return interval as
modeled by hydrology and hydraulic modeling were used to assist in defining the final protection buffer as
part of the site protection document (Appendix G).
The current fee-simple property owner is Anson County Farms, LLC (Parcel ID number 645200705506).
RS has an Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of a Conservation Easement. Upon USACE review, RS
will exercise its rights provided under the above-referenced agreement. The PRM Site will be protected
under the terms outlined in the Deed of Conservation Easement (Appendix I). The conservation easement
will prohibit incompatible uses that might jeopardize the PRM Site’s objectives. Broad Water Innovations
(BWI) will be the conservation easement holder, while RS will remain responsible for project
implementation, achievement of success criteria, and management actions. A long-term management plan
that generally includes protecting the PRM Site from encroachment, trespass, clearing, and other violations
that interfere with conservation purposes is provided in Section 11, Long-Term Management Plan.
-5- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
4.0 SITE SELECTION
Site selection considerations for the PRM Site included proximity to the Project property (the proposed
impact site is located approximately 12 miles northeast of the PRM Site), and the potential for addressing
watershed goals outlined in the Lower Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report
(NCEEP 2009). In addition, site selection was determined through a detailed assessment of available lands
and aquatic systems within the same 8-digit HUC boundary (Yadkin 03040201) as the Project property
(Figure 2), and in consideration of North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) watershed
prioritized targeted resource areas (TRA). The PRM Site is located within the 14-Digit HUC,
03040201020030, a NCDMS identified TRA for Hydrology and Habitat stressors.
CEC worked with Vulcan to determine the most appropriate mitigation solution by soliciting mitigation
bankers across the region to locate the in-kind and off-site mitigation to provide a PRM solution. After
venting three options, it became clear that the proposed PRM site was the best alternative due to the
proximity to the impacts, physiographic region, being in the headwaters of the 8-digit HUC and its
immediate sub-watershed, and the extents of ecological uplift potential.
On February 27, 2023, CEC held a virtual pre-application meeting with the USACE, NC DENR, NC WRC,
NC DEQ, and RS reviewing the Project and the proposed PRM site. Meeting notes are in Appendix C.
After CEC conducted field delineation surveys (CEC, 2003b), an on-site meeting with the same regulatory
agencies was held on March 27, 2023, reviewing the PRM site. Meeting notes are in Appendix C.
4.1 Watershed Approach
As part of the site selection process, having a watershed approach was critical in prioritizing the PRM Site.
Mitigation opportunity of the selected PRM Site begins from the headwaters of an unnamed tributary in the
Middle Fork Jones Creek watershed and extends to the most downstream end of the property (Figure 1-3).
A combined approach of mitigation techniques will add value to the PRM Site by addressing documented
goals outlined in the Lower Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP report as well as Hydrology and Habitat TRA stressors
identified by NCDMS, protecting the proposed mitigation, and allow for future opportunities downstream.

-6- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Table 2. RBRP Goals

RBRP Goal Site Objectives Addressing RBRP Goals
Continue watershed improvement efforts
already ongoing.
Conserving headwater streams and wetlands in a
watershed identified as having stressors for hydrology and
habitat.
Protection of valuable natural resources. Conserving ~34.5 acres of wetland, stream, and riparian
buffer in the headwaters of Middle Fork Jones Creek.
Development of local partnerships to
implement management strategies for
stormwater impacts.
Installing 4 marsh treatment areas, fencing livestock from
streams and wetlands and upgrading perched culverts.
Restoration of water quality to impaired
streams.
Restoring or enhancing 8,597 linear feet of streams that are
degraded by livestock grazing and or application of
agriculture pollutants.
Targeted Resource Area Stressor Site Objectives Addressing TRA Stressor
Hydrological modifications
x Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows
x Restore riparian wetlands by reconnecting streams to floodplain
x Plant woody riparian buffer
x Deep rip floodplain soils as needed to reduce compaction and
increase soil surface roughness
x Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
x Construct stable channels with appropriate gravel/cobble
substrate
x Stabilize stream banks
Habitat modifications
x Construct stable channels with appropriate cobble/gravel
substrate
x Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
x Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
x Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
x Stabilize stream banks
x ,QVWDOOLQဨVWUHDPVWUXFWXUHV

The following factors were considered when determining whether the PRM Site was suitable for potential
PRM purposes:
x The PRM Site addresses Lower Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP goals (NCEEP 2009);
x The PRM Site addresses NCDMS hydrology and habitat TRA stressors;
x The PRM Site is within the same 8-digit HUC as the proposed impact area with existing degraded
aquatic resources;
x The PRM Site is a single and complete, linear/non-fragmented project;
x The PRM Site is in-kind/like for like; and

-7- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
x There will be no decline in other aquatic resource function(s) through restoration activities.

Additionally, NCWAM and NCSAM functions will be addressed by restoring unnamed tributaries located
on the PRM Site which will increase connectivity with the floodplain, provide increased in-channel habitat
for aquatic species, and increase riparian habitat quality and diversity. Restoration will employ
predominately a Priority 1 restoration strategy to engage floodplains, promote wetland development, and
support healthy alluvial processes. The restoration approach will also enhance aquatic passage by removing
undersized culverts and ford crossings and installing perched bridges allowing the passage of the 10-year
storm event, with floodplain culverts incorporated for higher flow events. Streams will then transition from
a Priority 1 approach to a Priority 2 approach to tie-into existing channels that extend off the project area.
Floodplain wetlands, vernal pools, and woody debris habitat will also be incorporated throughout the
reactivated and reconnected floodplain. Enhancement Level I and II will also be employed on minimal and
select reaches at the PRM site (Figure 9).

5.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

5.1 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWR River Basin Designation
The PRM Site is located within Lower Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin and more specifically the USGS 8-
digit HUC 03040201 Lower Pee Dee watershed, the same as the Project. In addition, the PRM Site is within
the 12-digit HUC 030402010200 (Figure 2), which NCDMS has identified as including Hydrology and
Habitat TRA stressors of the Lower Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Middle Fork Jones Creek is not listed on
the final 2022 303(d) list (NCDEQ 2023); however, Middle Fork Jones Creek drains to South Fork Jones
Creek, which is IR Category 5 (Exceeding Criteria) for Fish community (Nar, AL, FW) rated for Fair, Poor,
or Severe Bio-classification in 2020.

5.2 Physiography and Land Use
The PRM Site is near the border of the Piedmont and Western Coastal Plain physiographic region of North
Carolina. The Piedmont Plateau is a hilly region and is the most urbanized and densely populated section
of the state, unlike the PRM Site. Because the PRM Site lies near the Coastal Plain at the fall line, it is in a
transitional state and dominated by finer substrates. The boundary consists of metamorphic/igneous rocks
of the Piedmont and sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain.

-8- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Overall, the dominant land use consists of cattle grazing throughout the entire PRM Site with accessibility
through the streams and wetlands. Cattle impacts are evident by bank trampling, increased erosion and bank
collapse, poor quality wetland habitat, and invasive species dominance. The stream valleys, being
dominated by sand substrates, have minimal grade control and are actively incising and disconnected from
the historic floodplain.

5.3 Hydrological Characterization
The predominate hydrological inputs to the PRM Site are headwater seeps and runoff from rain events.
Evidence of groundwater discharges are seen by the presence of existing headwater wetlands along the toe
of slopes of the surrounding crenulations. These headwater wetlands provide a baseflow to the stream
origins while storm events result in peak flows. Defined stream channels in these areas are characterized
by braided headwater stream flow paths.

Hydrological impairment at the PRM Site is evident by the degree of entrenchment and incision within the
stream channels throughout the watershed. A transition of facultative wetland to more non-hydric
vegetation and drained hydric soils was also observed.

Areas of the PRM Site identified as PFO wetlands periodically receive hydrological inputs from overbank
flooding due to large storm events. The impairment of the stream channels reduces the frequency at which
the PFO wetlands are flooded by requiring larger storm events to overtop the stream banks.

Since August 2019, the historical average rainfall for Anson County is 45.7 inches recorded at the
Wadesboro weather station (Station 318964) maintained by North Carolina State University (NC State
2023). The recorded precipitation from September 2022 to September 2023 was 7.42 inches which is
substantially lower than the annual mean.

5.4 Soil Characterization
Based on the Anson County Soil Survey (USDA 2005) and Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2023), the
PRM Site contains the soil series included in Table 3.

-9- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Table 3. Current Soils

Soil Map
Unit Symbol Soil Map Unit Name Hydric Rating
AeB Ailey (Arenic Kanhapludults), loamy sand, 2-8% slopes Non-Hydric may include
hydric inclusions
CaB Candor (Grossarenic Kandiudults), sand, 1-8% slopes Non-Hydric may include
hydric inclusions
ChA Chewacla loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts), 0-2% slopes,
frequently flooded
Non-Hydric may include
hydric inclusions
MaB Mayodan (Typic Hapludults), fine sandy loam, 2-8% slopes Non-Hydric
TaB Tarrus (Typic Kanhapludults), gravelly silt loam, 2-8% slopes Non-Hydric
VaB Vaucluse (Fragic Kanhapludults), loamy sand, 2-8% slopes Non-Hydric may include
hydric inclusions
VgC Vaucluse (Fragic Kanhapludults), very gravelly loamy sand, 8-15%
slopes Non-Hydric
*WoA Worsham (Typic Endoaquults), loam, 0-3% slopes Hydric
*Soil series is not mapped according to the soil survey but was observed during on-site investigations.

The soil survey data shows a majority of the PRM Site is mapped as the Vaucluse soil series which extends
from the stream floodplains to side slopes and then transitions to the Candor soil series found on the ridges.
In the northeastern portion of the project the Vaucluse soils transition to the Ailey soil series which is
associated with an adjacent ridge. The soil series that comprise the remainder of the PRM Site include
Chewacala, Mayodan, and Tarrus which are mapped along stream floodplains and extend up along the
adjacent side slopes. As indicated in Table 3 several of the soil series have potential for hydric soil
inclusions.

Detailed soil mapping was conducted by a North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist (NCLSS) during the
jurisdictional delineation fieldwork which identified hydric soils associated with existing wetlands. The
hydric soils observed were determined to be inclusions closely associated to the Worsham soil series. Based
on the soil profile descriptions, completed as a part of the wetland data forms, the hydric soils met hydric
soil indicators S7 (Dark Surface) and F3 (Depleted Matrix).

Also, during the soil mapping fieldwork areas of drained hydric soils were observed in the floodplain of
perennial and intermittent streams. These soils exhibit relict hydric indicators, however lacked current

-10- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
wetland hydrology as the result of stream incision and historic/current land management practices. The
primary hydric indicator observed for these drained hydric soils was F3 (Depleted Matrix).

5.5 Natural Resources & Cultural Resources
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC system was accessed to request an Official Species List
under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Appendix D). Current species’ populations and
habitat conditions (status) that “may be present” in the area designated in the IPaC request were considered
within this analysis. On January 13, 2023, results of the IPaC query identified two federally listed species:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (Endangered) and Schweinitz Sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) (Endangered). The IPaC query also identified a species with a status of Proposed Endangered:
Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) and a Candidate species: Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus).

A biological analysis was prepared using the USFWS IPaC system for the PRM Site on May 19, 2023. The
biological analysis provided an assessment of the proposed project including associated construction
activities and post construction results to provide a species effect analysis and effect determination. The
effect determination resulted in a “not likely to adversely affect” determination for both Schweinitz’s
Sunflower and the Tricolored Bat, “no effect” for Red-cockaded woodpecker, and excluded from analysis
for the Monarch butterfly. Overall, the biological analysis concluded the functional uplift and permanent
long-term protection provided by the project will have long-term benefits to these sensitive species
(Appendix D).

A query of the NC Natural Heritage Program (NC NHP) database did not return any natural areas, managed
areas, or Element Occurrences of federally listed species within or near the project area. No federally
designated critical habitats are located within or near the proposed project area. Additionally, no cultural
resources were identified to occur within or near the proposed project area during the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) database query per the SHPO response and reference letter (Appendix
D).

The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) has also reviewed the PRM site for any
concerns and provided comments in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and NC General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.). The
NCWRC has no known records of state or federal rate, threatened, or endangered species at the site
(Appendix D). Per comments from NCWRC, riparian buffers at the PRM site are maximized as wide as

-11- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
possible given the parcel constraints, the planting plan is consistent with the Guide to the Natural
Communities of NC 4th Approximation (Schafale 2012) and species native to Anson County, stream
crossings are minimized (total of 2) and are utilizing bridges to reduce stream impacts, tree clearing will be
avoided during the maternity roosting season for bats from May 15 to August 15, and stringent sediment
and erosion control measures (Appendix H) will be implemented during construction.

5.6 Nutrient Model
Nutrient modeling was conducted using a method developed by NCDMS (NCDMS 2016) to determine
nutrient and fecal coliform reductions from the exclusion of livestock from the buffer.

The equation for nutrient reduction for this model includes the following:

TN reduction (lbs.yr) = 51.04 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
TP reduction (lbs/yr) = 4.23 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)

Where:
TN – total nitrogen;
TP – total phosphorus; and
Area – total area of restored riparian buffers inside of livestock exclusion fences.

The equation for fecal coliform reduction for this model is as follows:

Fecal coliform reduction (col) = 2.2 x 1011 (col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085

Where:
col – quantities of Fecal Coliform bacteria; and
AU – animal unit (1000 lbs of livestock)

Assuming approximately 36.8 acres of the Site will have livestock removed and stocking rates include
approximately 50 cows residing on the farm, the NCDMS analysis calculates approximately 1,878.3 lbs/yr
of nitrogen, 155.7 lbs/yr of phosphorus, and 9.35 x 1011 col of fecal coliform/day will be reduced due to the
exclusion of livestock from the easement area.

-12- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023

5.7 Project Site Resources
CEC reviewed topographic maps, county soil survey and hydric soils lists, available aerial photographs, the
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, the National Hydrography Dataset, and a previous Technical
Proposal provided by RS to identify potential wetlands, streams, and other potentially jurisdictional waters
within the proposed project area (Figures 3 – 4).

After completing the desktop analysis CEC conducted field delineation surveys (CEC, 2003c) for the PRM
Site and submitted a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) request. Following the request an on-
site PJD verification meeting with regulatory agencies was held on March 27, 2023, meeting notes are in
Appendix C. A PJD tear sheet, figures, and WOTUS upload sheet were finalized and approved on August
4, 2023 (Appendix C). Following the distribution of the PJD tear sheet minor edits were made to the final
stream lengths and wetland acreages that are reflected in the figures and WOTUS summary sheet located
in Appendix C.

A total of 4.63 acres of palustrine forested (PFO) wetlands were identified during the delineation at the
PRM Site (Appendix C) (Table 4).

Table 4. Wetlands Identified within the Study Area

Feature
Designation Area (ac) Cowardin Code
Wetland-1 0.65 PFO
Wetland-2 0.60 PFO
Wetland-3 0.05 PFO
Wetland-4 0.15 PFO
Wetland-5 0.76 PFO
Wetland-6 0.01 PFO
Wetland-7 0.02 PFO
Wetland-8 0.03 PFO
Wetland-9 0.15 PFO
Wetland-10 0.41 PFO
Wetland-11 0.60 PFO
Wetland-12 0.48 PFO
Wetland-13 0.18 PFO

-13- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Table 4. Wetlands Identified within the Study Area

Feature
Designation Area (ac) Cowardin Code
Wetland-14 0.19 PFO
Wetland-15 0.03 PFO
Wetland-16 0.03 PFO
Wetland-18 0.01 PFO
Wetland-19 0.01 PFO
Wetland-20 0.27 PFO
TOTAL 4.63 --

A total of 6,269 linear feet of perennial stream and a total of 4,043 linear feet of intermittent stream were
identified during the delineation of the PRM Site (Appendix C) (Table 5).

Table 5. Streams Identified within the Study Area

Feature
Designation Length (linear ft) Cowardin Code Flow Regime
SA1 4,387 R2 Perennial
SA2 – Reach 1 653 R4 Intermittent
SA2 – Reach 2 354 R2 Perennial
SA3 1,528 R2 Perennial
SA4 1,476 R2 Intermittent
SA4a 36 R4 Intermittent
SA4b 39 R4 Intermittent
SA5 508 R4 Intermittent
SA6 77 R4 Intermittent
SA7 339 R4 Intermittent
SA8 67 R4 Intermittent
SA9 339 R4 Intermittent
SA10 92 R4 Intermittent
SA11 417 R4 Intermittent
TOTAL 10,312 -- --
R2 – Riverine, Lower Perennial; R4 – Riverine, Intermittent

5.8 Baseline Stream and Wetland Assessment
Current site conditions have resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient
and sediment retention, and unstable channel characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain

-14- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
pools and an increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities, including re-
establishing buffers, excluding livestock, and restoring stream channels, will restore riffle-pool
morphology, aid in energy dissipation, increase aquatic habitat, stabilize channel banks, and significantly
reduce sediment loss from channel banks.

In October of 2019, Axiom Environmental, Inc, on behalf of Restoration Systems, LLC, conducted
NCSAM and NCWAM along approximately 6,633 linear feet of stream and approximately 3.6-acres of
wetlands. Each NCSAM location scored as LOW-Quality Waters. NCWAM locations scored as LOW and
MEDIUM-Quality Waters (Appendix B). After CEC verified resources and conducted an agency
jurisdictional resource visit on March 10, 2023, additional assessments were conducted, which scored as
LOW-Quality Waters. Results and locations are included in Appendix B and Figure 6.

5.9 Existing Conditions Survey
PRM Site stream dimension, pattern, and profile were measured to characterize existing channel conditions
at select stream assessment reaches (SARs) throughout the project area (CEC, 2023b). SARs were identified
to summarize existing conditions on a representative perspective. Locations of existing stream reaches are
depicted in Figure 6. Stream geometry measurements, including cross-sectional surveys, were taken on
representative riffle and pool facets within the SARs. A summary of the dimension criteria is in Appendix
B, with plan views of the surveys. Profiles and existing plan views of the existing conditions are shown and
included on the design plan sheets in Appendix H.

5.10 Channel Classification and Morphology
Overall, existing channel geometry is unstable throughout the PRM Site, demonstrated by low
entrenchment ratios, having limited, if any, access to the floodplain. Width-to-depth (W/D) ratios were also
unstable – either being too large or too small depending on the stream type. As a result of higher W/D ratios
and low entrenchment, the overall pattern is unstable. In shallow sloped streams, the sinuosity was very
low when it should be higher, losing energy laterally instead of vertically. Most channels classified as an
unstable Rosgen E, G, or F stream type (Rosgen, 1996).

Pebble count data was collected through each of the representative SARs and indicated that sand was the
dominant substrate throughout the PRM site. Overall, substrate had low D50 values, even in higher gradient
tributaries.

-15- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Incision by observation of the low entrenchment ratios and finer, variable substrates are indicative of
agricultural impacts active across the fee-simple parcel. Cattle have full access to the stream channels and
wetlands, causing eroding banks, increased sediment, and nutrient inputs, and poor bedform diversity.

5.11 Channel Evolution
PRM Site streams targeted for restoration have been channelized and are continually eroding and incised.
In accordance with the Rosgen Stream Classification and Evolution or Succession Models, most streams
are in an unstable evolutionary stage, classifying as a Gc or F stream type evolving to a stable C or B stream
type. Restoration of the streams will facilitate the evolutionary process of restoring them to stable stream
types.

5.12 Hydrology and Hydraulics

5.12.1 Hydrology
CEC developed a hydrologic model for the Unnamed Tributaries to Middle Fork Jones Creek to estimate
the peak flow rates for the 2 and 10-year design storms. The hydrologic model was created in the
HydroCAD® software package (HydroCAD, 2022). The model utilized the National Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) curve number and the Technical Release (TR)-20 methods for storage
routing (NRCS, 2021) as described in Chapter 7: Hydrology of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation Drainage Studies Manual (NCDOT, 2022). The precipitation depths for the 2-year – 24-
hour and 10-year – 24-hour storm events were obtained via NOAA Atlas 14 (NOAA, 2022) and are detailed
in Table 6.

Table 6. Precipitation Depths for the 2 and 10-Year Storm Events

Storm Return Interval NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Depths (in)
2-Year – 24-Hour 3.63
10-Year – 24-Hour 5.33

Soil data for the mitigation site was obtained via the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019). The drainage areas for each Unnamed Tributaries to Middle Fork Jones
Creek were determined by analyzing public LiDAR data and LiDAR obtained from CEC (CEC, 2023).
Each drainage area was subdivided based on land use, which was determined using aerial imagery. The
land use information and the soil data were used to calculate a weighted curve number for each drainage

-16- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
area. A Type II 24-hour design storm was used to calculate the peak flow rates. The results of the hydrologic
model for each Unnamed Tributaries to Middle Fork Jones Creek are given in Table 7.

Table 7. Peak Flow Rates Determined from the Hydrologic Analysis

Stream Name Drainage Area
(ac)
2-Year – 24-Hour Peak Flow
Rate (cfs)
10-Year – 24-Hour Peak Flow
Rate (cfs)
SA1 314 220 470
SA2 21 16 36
SA3 185 65 170
SA5 9 15 30
SA6 2 7 13
SA7 11 21 40
SA8 2 5 9
SA9 10 11 25
SA10 4 3 8
SA11 6 8 20

5.12.2 Hydraulics
CEC developed Two-Dimensional (2D) Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-
RAS) models to reflect the existing and proposed conditions of the Unnamed Tributaries to Middle Fork
Jones Creek and to evaluate hydraulics and the potential impacts on the flow depths and shear stresses at
the Project (USACE, 2022).

5.12.3 Existing Conditions Model
The existing conditions 2D hydraulic model was created using the RAS Mapper program and was built on
a terrain surface created from LiDAR data and field survey data collected by CEC on November 14th, 2022,
December 1st, 2022, December 8th, 2022, and January 5th, 2023 (CEC, 2022). The upstream limits of the
model coincide with the delineated start of the tributaries, while the downstream boundaries coincide with
the project boundary and limit of the LiDAR data. A two-dimensional surface mesh was created in RAS
Mapper to capture the elevation data in the terrain. An adaptive mesh of varying grid sizes was selected as
the final two-dimensional geometry of the hydraulic models. The adaptive computational mesh is an
efficient two-dimensional meshing scheme since it generates refined elements in areas where additional
detail is required and larger elements in areas where flow is relatively uniform. The adaptive mesh cell
spacing for this study was set to two feet within the banks of the SA4 stream channel and three feet within
the banks of the SA1 stream channel, where more detail is needed, and to a cell spacing of 30 feet in areas

-17- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
outside of the stream banks. The Manning’s ‘n’ values were selected to be 0.04 for the channel and 0.06
for the floodplain due to the channel being predominantly clean with some pools and the floodplain having
light brush and trees (USACE, 2022).

A boundary condition was selected for the start of each tributary and its outfall. A hydrograph was created
for each tributary which incrementally increased to the peak flow rate, determined in the hydrologic model,
and then remained steady for the remainder of the simulation. The incremental increases allowed the model
to remain stable during the simulations. The downstream boundary conditions were set as normal depths,
with the slope calculated from the existing ground surface at those locations. The existing conditions 2D
hydraulic simulation was run as an unsteady flow analysis. Numerically stable models for all simulations
were obtained using a set computational time step interval of 0.1 seconds. The flow depth and shear stress
results of the existing conditions 2D hydraulic model are shown in Appendix G.

5.12.4 Proposed Conditions Model
The proposed conditions 2D hydraulic model was created as a copy of the existing conditions model but
with some modifications. The existing ground surface elevation terrain data was replaced with the proposed
surface elevation data, which captures the proposed stream design grading. The extents of the adaptive
mesh were altered to better correlate with the proposed stream alignments. The remainder of the 2D
hydraulic model remained the same from the existing model to understand the impact of the proposed
design on flow depths and shear stresses. The flow depth and shear stress results of the proposed conditions
2D hydraulic model are shown in Appendix G.

5.13 Channel Stability Assessment
To evaluate channel stability, both vertical and lateral stability assessments were conducted. Vertical
stability was evaluated by examining representative riffle and pool cross-sections throughout stream
assessment reaches (SARs; Figure 6, Appendix B). A summary of the dimension information is presented
in Appendix B, demonstrating vertically unstable conditions.

Sediment load modeling was performed using methodologies outlined in A Practical Method of Computing
Streambank Erosion Rate (Rosgen 2009) and Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of
Non-point Sources Consequences of Sediment (Rosgen 2011). These models provide a quantitative
prediction of streambank erosions by calculating Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near-Bank Stress

-18- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
(NBS) along representative SARs. The resulting BEHI and NBS values are then compared to streambank
erodibility graphs prepared for NC by the NC Stream Restoration Institute and NC Sea Grant.

Streambank characteristics involve measurements of bank height, angles, materials, presence of layers,
rooting depth, rooting density, and percent of the bank protected by rocks, logs, roots, or vegetation. Site
reaches have been measured for each BEHI and NBS characteristic and predicted lateral erosion rate,
height, and length to calculate a cubic volume or sediment contributed by the reach each year. Data forms
for the analysis are available upon request, and the data output is presented in Appendix B. Results of the
model are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) & Near Bank Stress (NBS) – Erosion Potential Data
Stream-SAR ft3/year Tons/year Tons/yr/ft¹ Erosion Rate
Category
SA1 – SAR1 5719.0 275.4 8.6 High
SA1 – SAR2 4207.5 202.6 6.0 High
SA1 – SAR3 2275.0 109.5 4.7 High
SA4 – SAR4 2303.6 110.9 2.6 High
SA5 – SAR5 829.0 39.9 1.1 High
SA9 – SAR6 808.0 38.9 1.5 High
SA11 – SAR7 1513.0 72.8 2.6 High
¹Low = 0.006 – 0.0099; Moderate = 0.01 – 0.099; High = 0.10 – 0.50; (tons/yr/ft)

5.14 Bankfull Verification
Discharge estimates for the PRM Site utilize an assumed definition of “bankfull” and the return interval
associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the channel
dimensions designed to support the “channel forming” or “dominant” discharge (Gordon et al. 1992).
Current research estimates a bankfull discharge would be expected to occur approximately every 1.3 to 1.5
years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).

Although the PRM Site is in North Carolina, it sits right on the border of North Carolina and South Carolina.
The South Carolina USGS regression equations were selected to determine bankfull cross-sectional area
and discharge due to the study having more sites near the PRM Site included in the regression analysis
when compared to the North Carolina regression analysis. Reference stream cross-sectional area/discharge
was plotted on the Piedmont region (Ecoregion 45) regional curve to verify the use of the regional curve

-19- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
(SCSC, 2021; SDNR, 2019). The addition of the reference reach data added smaller drainage area data and
plotted very closely to the Piedmont (Ecoregion 45) regional curve. Using the Piedmont (Ecoregion 45)
regional curve, the predicted bankfull discharge for SA1 is 16.53 cfs. Based on the above analysis, the
proposed conditions at the PRM Site will be based on the bankfull cross-sectional area predicted by the
Piedmont (Ecoregion 45) regional curves.

6.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
The proposed design features a primarily Priority 1 restoration approach that involves creating a new
bankfull channel adjacent to the existing channel and raising the bankfull elevation to the adjacent valley
floodplain. The design proposes to entail channel excavation, channel stabilization, channel diversion, and
channel backfill as part of the Priority 1 restoration process.

The restored stream will utilize wood structures, constructed riffles, and live stakes. In-stream structures
will include alluvial riffles, log riffles, and log cross-vanes; however, at the discretion of the engineer,
boulder riffles and boulder cross-vanes may be substituted if dictated by field conditions and slopes. These
features will provide grade control, improve bed form diversity, approximate stream geometry relative to
reference reaches, and provide habitat for aquatic organisms. A combination of log vanes, live stakes, and
additional structures deemed necessary at the discretion of the engineer will be used to stabilize outer bends
and provide organic matter, habitat, and biodiversity to the stream. Restored and rehabilitated wetlands will
be designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system along the riparian floodplain corridor. Wetlands
are designed to provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and
compounds, and provide habitat for riparian and local wildlife.

6.1 General Work Plan Considerations

6.1.1 Soil Compaction
The landscape of the proposed relocation reaches matches the existing and surrounding landscape. No soil
compaction issues, or loss of soil fertility is anticipated for the restoration of streams at the PRM Site.
However, if soil compaction is observed it will be addressed by deep ripping/plowing the planting area
prior to planting.

-20- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
6.1.2 Soil Suitability
Soil grading will occur during restoration activities. Topsoil will be stockpiled during construction activities
and spread on the soil surface once the subgrade has been established. The replaced topsoil will serve as a
viable growing medium for community restoration to provide nutrients and aid in the survival of planted
species.

Also, prior to and during construction, areas may be identified for soil testing to assess soil fertility. If
nutrient deficiencies are identified, a nutrient management plan will be developed by a NCLSS and
implemented to help increase the potential success of the new plantings.

6.1.3 Land Disturbance
Prior to the construction phase erosion prevention and sediment controls will be implemented in accordance
with the NC Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (DEMLR) standards to ensure sediment
resulting from project construction will remain onsite. Erosion and sedimental control plan sheets and
details for the PRM site are included in the design plan sheet set (Appendix H).

The contractor will be instructed to disturb only as much ground as necessary to complete the active phase
of work and temporarily reclaim the work area at the end of each workday. A temporary cover of seed mix
and straw mulch will be applied to provide ground cover and stabilize exposed soil. Upon approval(s) from
the USACE and NCDEQ for implementation of the proposed action, applications for a Stormwater
Management Plan (SMP) and applicable land quality and disturbance permits will be coordinated and
obtained from the appropriate regulatory agencies.

6.2 Mitigation Approach

6.2.1 Stream Restoration
The proposed stream restoration project will stabilize the stream channels (bed and banks); reduce bank
erosion and associated sediment load; improve instream habitat; improve floodplain connectivity and
provide native riparian vegetation. The design used information gathered during the geomorphic survey,
existing topographic mapping and aerial photography, field delineation, and other available information
collected from stable reference streams (Rosgen 1996, 2006a; Hey 2006; Doll et al. 2003; Harman and Starr
2011; Keaton et al. 2005, Messinger et al. 2004 & 2009, Miller 2003, Bieger et al. 2015, & CEC unpublished
data) and natural stream restoration design criteria (Rosgen 1996, NRCS 2007; Harman and Starr 2011).

-21- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Key design parameters include appropriate stream type, bankfull dimensions (width, depth, and cross-
sectional area), slope, meander radius, and meander length (pool spacing). These criteria and dimensions
will evaluate existing streams and compare them to those predicted from stable streams using bankfull
dimension-drainage area relationships for reference streams in the eastern United States (Dunn and Leopold
1978).

In addition to utilizing publicly available and published regional curve information to evaluate and
determine bankfull characteristics and indicators, additional local and region-specific information was used
to finalize designer criteria since there is a range of climatic conditions and underlying geology that vary
statewide. For this project and recommended across the industry (SCSC, 2021), we developed site-specific
regional curves representative of the project catchment utilizing a combination of published data and on-
site stable riffle data.

As indicated above, the PRM Site is on the border of NC and SC, and both States’ regional curve
information was evaluated. The SC DNR contracted with Jennings Environmental, PLLC, to collect
reference geomorphic data to develop regional curves tailored to South Carolina and for comparison to
North Carolina’s regional curves. Regression hydraulic geometry regional curve relationships are available
for four South Carolina Ecoregions: 1) Ecoregion 66 (Blue Ridge), 2) Ecoregion 45 (Piedmont), Ecoregion
65 (Southeastern Plains), and Ecoregion 63 (Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain) (Jennings Environmental,
PLLC, 2020).

Based on the physiographic region, landscape, ecoregion, soils, and geology, it was determined that the
Ecoregion 45 (SDNR, 2019) was the most comparable and applicable to the PRM Site. Thus, stable
reference riffle dimension data was collected at the site, where possible, and merged with the Ecoregion 45
regional curve to develop and confirm cross-sectional areas at the PRM Site. The site-specific curve was
also generated based on drainage areas comparable to the PRM Site. Plots of the graphs and reference data
used are included in Appendix F.

6.2.2 Stream Restoration – Headwaters
Headwater restoration will focus on restoring a multi-thread system within existing and drained hydric areas
(SA4, SA10, and SA11). Due to their low slope and small drainage area, it is likely that these portions of
the PRM Site functioned more as braided headwaters historically. Restoration activities include removing
flow-path impediments from historic channel manipulation (SA4) and filling the channelized portions of

-22- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
SA10 and SA11, restoring valley topography. The final topography of the valley will be roughened to
restore the microtopographic variability common in these systems. Shallow flow paths will be graded, wood
debris introduced, and the system will be allowed to form independently as a single or braided channel
headwater stream. This approach will allow for the restoration of historic flow patterns, with very little
disturbance to the existing wetland systems.

6.2.3 Stream Enhancement Level 1
Stream Enhancement Level I activities include raising the stream bed elevation similar to a Priority I
approach to connect the channel with the historic floodplain, while restoring dimension and profile by the
installation of in-stream structures, by doing so, shear stress will be reduced on the channel bottom and on
the stream banks. Additional measures of enhancement will include removal of livestock and planting with
native woody vegetation.

6.2.4 Stream Enhancement Level II
Stream Enhancement Level II activities include small enhancements by installing live stakes in exposed
banks for stabilization and removal of livestock. Supplemental planting, as needed, will also occur
throughout the riparian zone.

6.2.5 Wetland Reestablishment & Rehabilitation
Restoration of drained hydric soils is designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system, providing
surface water storage, nutrient cycling, remove imported elements and compounds, and creating a variety
and abundance of wildlife habitat.

Portions of the PRM Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by stream degradation, vegetative
clearing, live-stock, and other land disturbances associated with historical land use. Wetland
reestablishment will focus on the restoration of vegetative communities, restoration of stream corridors and
historic groundwater tables, and the reestablishment of soil structure and microtopographic variations. In
addition, the construction of (or provisions for) surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools) will
also add an essential component to hydrologic restoration activities.

Wetland rehabilitation will follow similar restoration approaches as reestablishment in currently
jurisdictional wetlands, where groundwater tables, vegetation communities, and land-use activities have
heavily degraded their function.

-23- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023

6.2.6 Wetland Enhancement
Wetland enhancement will focus on the cessation of land management activities, removal of historic
wetland stressors, reconnection of upstream floodplains, and the restoration of vegetative communities.

6.2.7 Wetland Establishment
Wetland establishment will be minimal but will include natural and constructed depressions throughout the
reactivated floodplain. By raising the channel bed elevation to reconnect the groundwater table with the
floodplain, it is anticipated that wetland will establish over the monitoring period, particularly in areas near
existing wetlands or drained hydric soils. Microtopographic grading will occur during construction
throughout the floodplain and in areas where channel has been abandoned for realignment. The goals of
these areas are to establish new wetlands, vernal pool areas, and/or additional floodplain habitat for flora
and fauna.

6.2.8 Marsh Treatment Features
RS has been installing marsh treatment features on all compensatory mitigation projects where adjacent
land use and site conditions allow for their use. This design component provides treatment of concentrated
surface waters prior to entering mitigation projects. Marsh treatment areas are designed in the shape of
small vernal pools and act similarly to forebays found in constructed wetlands. Depths average anywhere
from one to four feet depending on the size of the watershed being treated and are approximately 20-30 feet
in diameter. These features dissipate concentrated runoff from adjacent land via a stone-stabilized inlet, a
series of deep and shallow pools, and a constructed log sill and woody debris which provides a stabilized
outlet (similar to a level spreader). Marsh areas result in treatment and attenuation of initial stormwater
pulses before entering the mitigation project.

These facilities aid in the treatment of nutrient, sediment, and fecal coliform inputs from adjacent off-site
land use. By incorporating marsh treatment features into existing stormwater flow paths, an additional net
functional uplift of the restored riparian buffer is provided. This practice will ultimately ensure project
sustainability and long-term success.

Nine (9) marsh treatments areas will be constructed in the floodplain/and adjacent slopes to intercept surface
waters draining though agricultural areas before entering the PRM Site. Land use constraints will
necessitate that one (1) marsh treatment area be constructed outside of the conservation easement – SA6.

-24- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Marsh treatment areas are shown in Figures 8 and 9, and in further detail on the Design Sheets – Appendix
H.

6.2.9 Channel Crossings
Two bridge crossings will be incorporated into the restoration design to help alleviate landowner constraints
to access property outside the conservation easement. These crossings will result in breaks in the
conservation easement. The breaks will be wide enough to encompass the crossing area and allow for
upstream and downstream maintenance. The crossings will be constructed to pass the 10-year storm event
based on hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and modeling and incorporate floodplain culverts at higher
elevations to handle larger storm events.

6.2.10 Fence / Easement Markings
The entire conservation easement area will be fenced and marked with appropriate signage to designate the
easement boundaries per the USACE requirements. Livestock will be removed entirely from the
conservation easement boundary.

7.0 RIPARIAN BUFFER & WETLAND VEGETATION RESTORATION
Restoration of floodplain forests and upland slopes allows for the development and expansion of native
characteristic vegetation across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to
habitat diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for
mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.

Revegetating floodplains will provide overall system stability, shade, and wildlife habitat. In addition,
viable riparian communities will improve the system’s biogeochemical function by filtering pollutants from
overland and shallow subsurface flows as well as providing organic materials to adjacent stream channels.
Currently, the Site contains fescue in open canopy and pasture areas. Physical removal of fescue is likely
to occur during construction or by controlled burn prior to construction. If physical treatment is required
ahead of planting, a broadcast application of Roundup Custom (Glyphosate) at a rate of 3% and a surfactant
of AgriDex at a rate of 1% mixed with water will be applied. Application of herbicide would be completed
by a NC licensed specialist.

A diverse and native herbaceous seed mix will be planted across the PRM Site. This mix will provide soil
stability, ecological diversity, and favorable growing conditions for the planted woody species. Seeding

-25- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
will consist of a seasonally appropriate temporary nurse crop (e.g., millet or cereal rye), see Table 9. A mix
of wildflowers known to benefit wildlife, including pollinators (e.g., Rudbeckia spp., Echinacea spp.,
Coreopsis spp., Eupatorium coelestinum, Chamaecrista fasciculata), and a blend of low growing grasses
(eg. Agrostis spp.), which will provide long term soil stability and wildlife benefit without unduly
competing with the desired forbs or woody plantings. See Table 10 for permanent seed species.

Table 9. Temporary Seed Mix

Temporary Seed (Erosion and Sediment Control)
Species Application Rate Application Date Notes
Secale cereale (Grain Rye) 130 lbs. per acre Year-round Disturbed or stockpile areas
Secale cereale (Brown Top Millet) 15 lbs. per acre May - September Near stream channels/banks

Table 10. Permanent Seed Mix

Permanent Seed- Sitewide @ 2 lbs /acre
Species % Species % Species %
Achillea millefolium 0.8 Coreopsis tinctoria 4 Juncus tenuis 0.5
Agrostis gigantea 15 Cosmos bipinnatus 1 Lespedeza capitata 0.5
Agrostis hyemalis 5 Consolida ajacis 2 Liatris spicata 0.5
Agrostis perennans 5 Desmodium canadense 1 Monarda fistulosa 0.5
Agrostis stolonifera 2 Echinacea purpurea 5 Panicum anceps 0.5
Baptisia australis 2 Elymus virginicus 5 Panicum
clandestinum 5
Carex vulpinoidea 1 Eupatorium coelestinum 0.5 Penstemon digitalis 1
Chamaecrista fasciculata 1 Eupatorium perfoliatum 0.5 Rudbeckia
amplexicaulis 1
Chamaecrista nictitans 1 Gaillardia perennial 0.5 Rudbeckia hirta 3
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum 4.5 Helianthus angustifolius 0.5 Senna hebecarpa 0.5
Chrysanthemum x superbum 3 Heliopsis helianthoides 0.5 Tridens flavus 18
Coreopsis lanceolata 4 Hibiscus moscheutos 5 Verbena hastata 1
Panicum rigidulum 36 Carex albolutescens 8 Carex lupulina 5
Bidens aristosa 20 Elymus virginicus 6 Carex vulpinoidea 2
Helianthus angustifolius 18 Juncus effusus 5

Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on the topography and hydrologic condition of soils.
Vegetative species composition will be based on Reference Forest Ecosystems (RFEs), site-specific
features, and community descriptions from Guide to the Natural Communities of NC 4th Approximation

-26- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
(Schafale 2012). Community associations to be utilized include 1) Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest, 2) Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and 3) Streamside Assemblage.

Bare-root seedlings within the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory
Forest will be planted at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. In the stream-side
assemblage, planting will occur at a density of approximately 2,720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers.
Planting will be performed between November 15 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the
dormant period and set roots during the spring season. Potential species planted within the PRM Site are
detailed in Table 11 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation
association (Figure 9).

Space Purposefully Left Blank

-27- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Table 11. Proposed Planting Plan

Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial
Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory
Forest*
Stream-side
Assemblage** TOTAL Potential substitute species or species for
adaptive management planting
Area (acres) 8.4 21.1 5 34.5
Species Indicator
Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total # planted** % of total # planted Species
River birch (Betula nigra) FACW 817 14.3 -- -- 1510 11.1 2326 Box elder (Acer negundo)
Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana)
Sugarberry (Celtis occidentalis)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
Red Mulberry (Morus rubra)
Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides)
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrate)
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
Chestnut oak (Quercus prinus)
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
American Elm (Ulmus americana)
Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra)
Silky willow (Salix caroliniana)***
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)***
Elderberry (Sambucus nigra)***
Arrowwood viburnum
(Viburnum dentatum)***

Winged elm (Ulmus alata) FACW -- -- 1650 11.5 -- -- 1650
Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) FACW 817 14.3 -- -- -- -- 817
Red bud (Cercis canadensis) FACU -- -- 732 5.1 -- -- 732
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) FACW 817 14.3 -- -- 1510 11.1 2326
Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) FACU -- -- 732 5.1 -- -- 732
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) FAC -- -- 1837 12.8 -- -- 1837
American holly (Ilex Opaca) FACU 206 3.6 -- -- 843 6.2 1049
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) FACU -- -- 1478 10.3 -- -- 1478
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) FACW 1017 17.8 -- -- 1510 11.1 2526
Mockernut hickory (Carya alba/tomentosa) UPL -- -- 1291 9 -- -- 1291
Water oak (Quercus nigra) FAC 1222 21.4 2210 15.4 1510 11.1 4942
White oak (Quercus alba)) FACU 817 14.3 2210 15.4 -- -- 3026
Red oak (Quercus rubra) FACU -- -- 2210 15.4 -- -- 2210
Black willow (Salix nigra)*** OBL -- -- -- -- 3359 24.7 3359
Button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)*** OBL -- -- -- -- 3359 24.7 3359
TOTAL 5,712 100 14,348 100 13,600 100 33,660
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
***Live Stakes

-28- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MONITORING
Monitoring for the PRM Site will be guided by the protocols listed in the Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (USACE, 2016) and USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter
(RGL) No. 08-03 (USACE, 2008). This includes requirements as outlined for General Monitoring, Planted
Vegetation, Stream Channel Stability, Stream Hydrology, and Wetland Hydrology.

In addition to the seven (7) years of monitoring that will be required post-construction, subsequent
monitoring activities will be conducted by RS and/or their agents after completion of construction activities.
The monitoring includes visual monitoring twice per year and after each 10-year storm. Refer to Table 12
for the proposed project-monitoring schedule.

Table 12. Proposed Monitoring Schedule

Monitoring Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
As-Built Survey* Yes No No No No No No
Stream Monitoring** Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes
Wetland Monitoring Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vegetation Monitoring** Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes
Visual Assessment Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Report Submittal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
*As-Built Surveys will be conducted and submitted directly following construction completion.
**Stream and Vegetation Monitoring are not required during Monitoring Years 4 & 6 according to Wilmington
2016.

A final as-built survey and report will be submitted following the completion of physical and biological
improvements, including planting, to document baseline conditions. The as-built survey will include photo
documentation at identified cross-sections and monitoring instruments, a plan view diagram, a copy of the
recorded easement, verification of the installation of conservation easement boundary markers, a
longitudinal profile, and vegetation information. Stream lengths will be calculated using the stream bankfull
extents calculating lengths with a centerline (not thalweg). As-built surveys will indicate the locations of
monitoring activities. The as-built report will be provided to the USACE within 90 to 120 days from the
completion of physical and biological improvements, including planting.

-29- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
8.1 Vegetation Planting and Monitoring Requirements
Vegetation planting and subsequent monitoring will be guided by the Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (USACE, 2016). This includes the measures regarding
Vegetation Planting and Monitoring Requirements and the Planted Vegetation Performance Standards.

A detailed planting list will be developed based on the Guide to the Natural Communities of NC 4th
Approximation (Schafale 2012). It will include a mixture of native tree and shrub species common to the
area. These species will be ideal for stream restoration projects and will have a history of survival in this
region within this habitat. The stream banks will be planted with live stake species typically found growing
on the banks of streams. The floodplain will contain a mixture of bare root tree and shrub seedlings. Wetland
reestablishment, rehabilitation, establishment, and enhancement areas will be planted with live stakes.
Please see Table 11 for a summary of the proposed species.

Vegetation will be monitored for seven (7) years, with monitoring events occurring in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and
7. Any required vegetation planting/replanting will be conducted between November 15 and March 15
unless otherwise noted in the approved Mitigation Plan or corrective action plan.

Vegetation monitoring will be conducted between July 1st and leaf drop. If possible, monitoring will occur
later in the growing season to capture any effects of climatic or other conditions that may adversely affect
vegetation survival.

Vegetation will be planted, and plots established at least 180 days prior to the initiation of the first year of
monitoring (Year 1).

A combination of permanent fixed plots and random plots will be used to demonstrate vegetation coverage.
Random plots will not make up more than 50% of the total required plots. Random plots will be the same
size as the fixed plots. Additionally, the location (GPS coordinates and orientation) of random plots for
every year of monitoring will be identified in the monitoring report, and the plots will be marked so the
plots may be evaluated in the field.

Permanent vegetation plots will be randomly located in each target community. Plot sizes for the
determination of stem density and vigor (height) will be a minimum of 0.02 acre in size and will typically

-30- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
be square or rectangular. Fixed plots will not overlap the stream (top-of-bank to top-of-bank) to ensure that
vegetation data does not include stream bank live stakes.

Vegetation monitoring plots will be located across the PRM Site to provide a random sampling of all
reestablished vegetation community types. The monitoring plots will make up a minimum of 2% of the
planted area.

Upon initial establishment of fixed vegetation plots (as-built baseline/Year 0), the plot corners will be
identified in the field with markers. The plot will be divided into a grid pattern so that each planted stem
can be identified for future monitoring according to its grid location within the plot.

Plot vegetation data collected will include:

x Within each fixed plot: species, height, grid location, planted versus volunteer, and age (based on
the year the stem was planted or first observed for volunteers).
x Within each random plot: species and height.
x For both fixed and random plots, all woody stems, including exotic and invasive species, will be
counted (exotic/invasive species will not count toward the success of performance standards).
x Individual plot data for planted and volunteer species will be provided separately.
x The application of fertilizers will be conducted at the time of planting or as part of a remedial action
plan if needed.

8.2 Planted Vegetation Performance Standards
Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre will be present at year three; a
minimum of 260 stems per acre will be present at year five; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre will be
present at year seven.

x Planted bare root tree seedlings, must average 7 feet in height at year five and 10 feet in height at
year seven.
x No more than 50% of any one species of the native riparian plant community shall contribute
towards stems per acre. Native volunteer species may comprise no more than 50% of the actual
stem count.

-31- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
8.3 Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology Monitoring
Channel stability will be monitored for seven (7) years, with monitoring events occurring in years 1, 2, 3,
5, and 7, and will follow the methodology contained in the in the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update (USACE, 2016).

A longitudinal profile of the thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank, will be collected during the
as-built survey of the constructed channel to ensure the stream was constructed as designed and if needed
to compare with future geomorphological data. Additional longitudinal profiles may be during monitoring
if required.

Permanent, monumented cross-sections will be installed, and in general, the locations will be selected to
represent approximately 50% pools and 50% riffle areas. The location and frequency allowed for cross-
sections will be based on best professional judgment. The selection of locations will include areas that may
be predisposed to potential problems, and all channel cross-sections within riffles will include
measurements of Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER), which will be documented in
monitoring reports. The ER must be no less than 1.4 at any measured riffle cross-section (USACE, 2016).

8.4 Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology Performance Standards
Stream channels are designed to maintain an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in accordance with the
requirements of RGL 05-05, dated December 7, 2005, which establish the extent of USACE jurisdiction
for non-tidal waters for CWA Section 404. Stream channels were designed to the 2-year return interval,
with supporting H&H analysis to confirm that water overtops the banks in at least the 2-year return interval,
if not more frequent. To monitor bankfull events, a total of five in-stream piezometers with data loggers
will be installed to monitor flow and verify bankfull events. Continuous surface flow in each tributary
should occur each year for at least 30 consecutive days.

In addition, for the braided headwater stream reaches the headwater stream monitoring guidance provided
in the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (USACE, 2016) will be
followed. Braided channels will be monitored for vegetation establishment and documenting adequate
flooding regime and presence of periodic flow by evaluating physical characteristics of the channels, as
well as hydrology indicators such as drift lines (USACE & NCDENR, 2007).

-32- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
BHR will not exceed 1.2 at any measured riffle cross-section. This standard only applies to reaches of the
channel where BHR is adjusted to reference condition through design and construction.

BHR and ER at any measured riffle cross-section will not change by more than 10% from the baseline
condition during any given monitoring interval (e.g., no more than 10% between years 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3
and 5, or 5 and 7).

8.5 Wetland Hydrology Performance Standards
Wetland hydrology will be monitored for seven (7) years, with monitoring events occurring in Years 1-7
and guided by the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (USACE,
2016). This includes the measures regarding Wetland Hydrology Monitoring, Reporting Hydrologic Data,
and Wetland Hydrologic Performance Criteria.

Prior to the start of the project, the growing season will be defined by using the WETS table
(https://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=37007). The most recent 30-year data set will be used to account for
climate change. For the PRM site, the Wadesboro data station in Anson County will be used. Initial
evaluation at the time of the report preparation shows that applying the 50% probability of 28 degrees
Fahrenheit or higher temperature for 1991-2020 yields a growing season from March 8th to November 25th
(262 days). This data is subject to change depending on the actual start of monitoring for the project.

Wetland groundwater gauges will be installed in accordance with the techniques and standards described
in the Technical Standard for Water-Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-
2, June 2005). Bentonite seals must be installed and properly maintained on all wells; annual monitoring
reports will document any routine well maintenance. Each gauge location will have recorded GPS
coordinates and elevation at ground level that matches the calibration level of the gauge. Any offsets to this
elevation at ground level will be documented in the monitoring reports. A detailed soil profile description
will be taken for borings where each gauge is installed and will be described following standard procedures
as specified by USDA-NRCS. Water table depths beneath the soil surface will be recorded at least once per
day.

USACE (2016) and Wilmington District have established percent saturation/hydroperiod thresholds for
wetland restoration performance criteria in NC. Using the Worsham soil series taxonomic subgroup for

-33- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
performance criteria, all wetlands on site must have a minimum hydroperiod of 10% of the growing season
during average climatic conditions.

8.6 Reporting
Monitoring reports will include the following data regarding monitoring:
Vegetation Reporting (As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7)
x Permanent vegetation plot data.will be summarized in a table including species, height, planted vs.
volunteer.
x Annual random vegetation plot data will be summarized in a table including species and height.
x Areas of concern will be discussed in the narrative.

Stream Reporting
x A full longitudinal profile will be included in the as-built report as a graphic and tabular data.
x Permanent cross-sections will be included in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 reports as graphics and tabular data.
x Visual assessments will be performed yearly, and areas of concern will be depicted on a plan view
figure with a written assessment and photograph of the area included in the report.
x Bankfull events will be monitored continuously with surface water gauges and surface water data for
each monitoring year will be presented as a graphic along with a summary table and photo
documentation.
x The growing season is anticipated to be from March 8th to November 25th, subject to change based on
the actual start date of the project.

Wetland Reporting
x A summary table including all gauges and the number of days of saturation and percent hydroperiod.
x Each yearly monitoring report will include data from all previous monitoring years.
x Every gauge will have a representative graph showing the water table levels with a reference line at 12-
inches below the surface.
x An explanation or graphical representation that explains/portrays whether the site had an above, below,
or normal precipitation year. This will be determined by comparing gauge data with Antecedent
Precipitation Tool data or similar rainfall/precipitation tool data.
x The growing season is anticipated to be from March 8th to November 25th, subject to change based on
the actual start date of the project.

-34- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
9.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The PRM site shall be monitored regularly, and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted at least
once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine
maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may
include the following (Table 13):

Table 13. Proposed Maintenance Schedule

Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include securing 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.
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 controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department
of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Beaver Beaver and associated dams will be removed if they are within the project.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure a clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by a 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 as needed.
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.

10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Adaptive management strategies, along with the ever-changing level of knowledge and practices that are
associated with these natural systems, could possibly change over the course of the monitoring/maintenance
period or even during the permitting and/or construction processes. Adaptive management acknowledges
this possible change and, if prudent, will make any necessary changes that would presumably increase the
chances of project success.

Adaptive management measures will be handled on a case-by-case basis when problems occur, in
consultation with the USACE and NCDEQ. If performance standards are not being met or large-scale
corrective measures are required, RS will provide the agencies with a written plan to address the

-35- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
documented problems within 60 days of discovery. This plan should identify problems and will set forth a
schedule to meet performance standards and address the identified failures. Upon written approval, RS will
implement the corrective measures and provide documentation to the agencies when corrective measures
have been addressed. Corrective measures could include, but are not limited to, invasive species
management, bank stabilization, repair or replace signage and fencing, and supplemental planting.

11.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The USACE mitigation regulations at 33 CFR 332.7(a)(1) require long-term protection of the mitigation
site through real estate instruments or other available mechanisms, as appropriate. As such, long-term
management of the PRM Site will include maintenance of signage, site protection issues, and reporting any
site deficiencies, if applicable. RS will rely on current staff and contracted consultants to document any
deviations or issues with long-term maintenance of the PRM Site during the monitoring period.

The Site will be protected under the terms outlined in the perpetual conservation easement (Appendix I).
The conservation easement will prohibit incompatible uses that might jeopardize the objectives of the PRM
Site. Broad Water Innovations ("BWI") will be the conservation Easement Holder. Formed in 2013, BWI
is a 501(c)(3) qualified land trust focused on serving as a conservation easement holder and long-term
steward of wetland, stream, and species mitigation banks, as well as other unique properties. Additional
information on BWI is provided in Appendix J.

BWI will be the Deed for Permanent Conservation Easement Grantee and receive the Easement directly
from the fee-simple landowner. Upon recordation of the Deed for Conservation Easement, and to fulfill the
duties of Easement Holder, BWI has requested, and the Sponsor has agreed to provide Twenty-One
Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($21,500.00) dollars to establish the easement defense fund
(Appendix J).

In addition to serving as the conservation easement holder, BWI will be responsible for the long-term
management of the PRM Site. The stream restoration design was prepared to restore and enhance aquatic
habitats, which will be self-sustaining over time and require minimal long-term active maintenance and
management once performance standards have been achieved. As such, long-term management activities
will be limited to routine boundary inspections and, when necessary, marking boundaries to ensure clear
identification of conservation areas. Per their easement holder responsibilities, BWI will inspect boundaries
annually to monitor for encroachment. During these inspections, boundary marking conditions (i.e., signs)

-36- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
will be noted and replaced as needed. The Sponsor has agreed to provide BWI Twenty-Nine Thousand
Twenty-Nine and 00/100 Dollars ($29,029.00) at the conservation easement assignment to fund the Bank
Parcel's long-term management. For a detailed review of long-term management fund calculations, please
see (see Appendix J),

During the implementation of this Site Mitigation Plan, the Sponsor will install signs at each conservation
easement corner and along the easement boundaries as necessary to clearly mark the conservation easement.
Signage will be placed at least every 100 to 200 feet along the easement boundary.

12.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Before the issuance of the 404 and 401 permits and over the operational life of the Site, the Sponsor shall
provide financial assurances sufficient to assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and
monitoring, and any remedial work required per the Site’s Mitigation Plan and the UMBI. Such assurances
shall be separated into two types, identified as follows:

1. Plan implementation (herein referred to as "Implementation Assurance") shall assure the
completion of the PRM Site’s construction, as-built survey, and baseline conditions assessment.
RS intends to provide a Performance Bond underwritten by a surety company licensed to do
business in North Carolina with a Best's current rating of not less than "A-" as the form of
Implementation Assurance. The form of the Performance Bond will be substantially similar to the
draft provided in Appendix J. The penal sum for the said bond shall be One Million Nine Hundred
Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($1,980,220.00). The Performance
Bond will remain in effect until written approval from the USACE that the requirements of
construction, the as-built survey, and baseline documentation have been met.

2. Maintenance and monitoring (herein referred to as "Maintenance and Monitoring Assurance") –
following the full implementation of the Plan, the Sponsor will replace the Performance Bond with
a Monitoring Bond underwritten by a surety company licensed to do business in North Carolina
with a Best's current rating of not less than "A-". The Monitoring Bond shall be in a form
substantially similar to the draft provided in Appendix J. The yearly monitoring bond's penal sum
shall decrease each year under the following schedule.

-37- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
MONITORING BOND
SCHEDULE TOTAL PENAL SUM
Year 1 $350,350.00
Year 2 $300,300.00
Year 3 $250,250.00
Year 4 $200,200.00
Year 5 $150,150.00
Year 6 $100,100.00
Year 7 $50,050.00

Financial assurances shall be payable to the PRM Site’s easement holder and financial assurance Obligee,
BWI. A letter from BWI is provided in Appendix J detailing their commitment to the project. In addition,
financial assurances shall contain a provision ensuring the District Engineer receives notification at least
120 days before any termination or revocation.

13.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY
CEC will be providing natural stream channel design to provide ecological restoration and a subsequent
gain of 8,597 linear feet of stream on existing NCSAM ‘LOW’ scoring streams. Additionally, CEC will
also be providing ecological rehabilitation, re-establishment, establishment, and enhancement of a
minimum of 5.48 acres of existing NCWAM ‘LOW’ scoring wetlands. Although not part of the total
acreages or performance criteria, due to the reconnected groundwater table with a reactivated floodplain,
additional wetland acreage is anticipated over the development of the PRM site. The PRM site will be held
in a conservation easement maximizing buffer widths to the greatest extent as possible (see Appendix C,
Figure 2 from Agency Meeting Notes; March 27, 2023). The conservation easement will be held with a
third-party easement holder vetted by the USACE (Appendix I).

Table 14. Stream Mitigation Summary
Project Segment
Existing
Footage
(LF)
Mitigation
Plan Footage
(LF)
Restoration
Level Comment
SA1 4,388 4,329 R 62 ft associated with conservation easement
break receives no credit (outside CE)
SA2 - Reach 1 179 167 EII
SA2 - Reach 2 323 309 EI
SA2 - Reach 3 506 506 R

-38- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Table 14. Stream Mitigation Summary
Project Segment
Existing
Footage
(LF)
Mitigation
Plan Footage
(LF)
Restoration
Level Comment
SA3 1,583 1,519 R 61 ft associated with conservation easement
break receives no credit (outside CE)
SA5 509 491 R
SA6 77 71 R
SA7 339 375 R
SA8 67 85 R
SA9 339 349 R
SA10 92 20 R
SA11 417 375 R
Totals 8,819 8,597 --

Table 15. Wetland Mitigation Summary
Project Segment
Existing
Acreage
(AC)
Mitigation
Plan Acreage
(AC)
Restoration
Level Comment
Wetland Re-
establishment -- 2.16 R
Wetland Re-habilitation 1.03 1.75 R
Wetland Enhancement 2.24 1.22 E
Wetland Establishment -- 0.35 C
Totals 3.27 5.48 --

-39- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
14.0 REFERENCES

Bieber, Katrin, Rathjens, Hendrik, Allen, Peter M., and Arnold, Jeffery G., 2015. Development and
Evaluation of Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for the Physiographic Regions of the
United States. Publications from USDA-ARS/UNL Faculty, 17 p.

CEC. 2023a. Individual Permit Application (SAW-2020-00807) for Vulcan’s Rockingham TIAA
Quarry. Submitted to the USACE, September 2023.

CEC. 2023b. LiDAR Survey. Completed by Professional Licensed Surveyors on February 18, 2023

CEC. 2023c. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Letter Report and Findings. Submitted to the
USACE on January 15, 2023, with final revisions submitted & approved on August 4, 2023.

Daniels, RB, S.W. Boul, H.J Kleiss, C.A. Ditzler. 1999. Soil systems in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC:
North Carolina State University, Department of Soil Science.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction for
Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South
Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O’Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart.
1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC. 2022. HydroCAD v.10.20-2g, Chocorua, NH

Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Hydrometeorological Design Studies
Center. https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/. Accessed July 2023.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. National Engineering Handbook. Chapter 2
Estimating Runoff Volume and Peak Discharge.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2019. 2018 NC Category 5
Assessments "303(d) List" Final (online). Available:

-40- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2018/2018-NC-303-d--List-
Final.pdf (2020).

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2022. Guidelines for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Design.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-
82fd-04005f48eaa7&groupId=38364

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0) (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWRMacro
invertebrate-SOP-February%202016_final.pdf

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP 2009). Lower Yadkin/Pee-Dee River
Basin Restoration Priorities 2009 (online). Available:
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/yadkin-river-basin

North Carolina State University (NC State). 2023. Cardinal Data Retrieval System
(online). Available: https://products.climate.ncsu.edu/cardinal/scout/?station=318964 [August
25, 2023]

North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment
Method (NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.

North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado

Rosgen, D. 2009. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (online). Available:
http://www.u-s-c.org/html/documents/Erosionrates.pdf.

Rosgen, D. 2011. Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non-point source
Consequences of Sediment (BANCS). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment
Supply (WARSSS). Hagerstown, Maryland.

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina.

-41- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified
Tennessee Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest
Hydrology and Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.

Unites States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) & NC DENR. 2007. Information Regarding
Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain, Version 2.

Unites States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2022. HEC-RAS, Hydraulic Reference Manual v.6.3.0
USACE, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service. 1985. "Hydric Soils of the United
States," USDA-SCS National Bulletin No. 430-5-9, Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Agricultural Waste Management Handbook. Available at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/dma/?cid=nrcs143_0142
11.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2005. Soil Survey of Anson County, North
Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2015. Animal Manure Management (NRCS)
available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/nhj/technical/cp/cta/?

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils of the
United States. A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 8.2, 2018.
available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053171.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2023. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [March 16, 2023].

U.S. Department of the Interior. (1970). National Atlas of the United States, U.S. Geological Survey,
US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 110-111.

-42- Mitigation and Restoration Plan
CEC Project 324-404, September 2023
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. The StreamStats program for Colorado. Online at
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/. Accessed July 2023

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods
in Rural Basins of North Carolina – Recompiled. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report
01-4207. Raleigh, North Carolina.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

FIGURES
_____________________________________________________________________________________

FIGURE NO:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
TURKEY MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ZAF
8/22/2023
SITE LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP
\\
c
e
c
i
n
c
.
c
o
m
\
g
l
o
b
a
l
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
2
0
-
0
0
0
\
3
2
4
-
4
0
4
\
-
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
E
C
0
5
_
T
u
r
k
e
y
_
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
_
P
l
a
n
\
3
2
4
4
0
4
_
F
I
G
1
_
S
I
T
E
_
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
_
M
A
P
.
m
x
d

8
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
3
5

P
M

(
z
f
a
l
k
)
3701 Arco Corporate Drive · Suite 400 · Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone] · [phone]
www.cecinc.com
*Hand Signature on file
NORTH
!a
02,0004,0001,000
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Anson County Parcel
Boundary
Conservation Easement
Boundary (~34.5 AC)
1DRAWN BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:1 " = 2,000 '
CMM CMM*
324-404
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. USA TOPO Maps
http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps
2. USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map
Russellville, North Carolina Quadrangle
Published: 1973
Accessed: 8/22/2023
3. PARCELS DOWNLOADED FROM NC ONE MAP
(https://www.nconemap.gov/pages/parcels)
PROJECT LOCATION
Site Location
34.889954, -80.1497385
Impact Site
Mitigation Site
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
South
Carolina
FIGURE NO:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
TURKEY MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ZAF
8/22/2023
HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP
\\
c
e
c
i
n
c
.
c
o
m
\
g
l
o
b
a
l
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
2
0
-
0
0
0
\
3
2
4
-
4
0
4
\
-
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
E
C
0
5
_
T
u
r
k
e
y
_
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
_
P
l
a
n
\
3
2
4
4
0
4
_
F
I
G
2
_
H
Y
D
R
O
L
O
G
I
C
_
U
N
I
T
_
M
A
P
.
m
x
d

8
/
2
2
/
2
0
23

1
:
4
7

P
M

(
z
f
a
l
k
)
3701 Arco Corporate Drive · Suite 400 · Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone] · [phone]
www.cecinc.com
*Hand Signature on file
NORTH
!a
0 80,000 160,00040,000
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Conservation Easement Boundary (~34.5 AC)
USGS Hydrologic Unit 3040201
12 Digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries
State Border
Pee Dee River
2DRAWN BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:1 " = 80,000 '
CMM CMM*
324-404
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. ESRI World Imagery / ArcGIS Map Service
http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/world_imagery
Accessed: 8/22/2023, Imagery Date: 2/2019
2. USGS Hydrologic Unit Boundaries
https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html
Site Location
34.889954, -80.1497385
460
450
440
550
530
5 2 0
500
490
480
5
4
0
51
0
600
590
580
570
470
4 6 0
4 5 0
5 5 0
540
530
520
5
2
0
5
0
0
6 1 0
6 00
5 9 0
580
6 0 0
59 0
580
570
500
49
0
500
490
4
90
48
0
4
7
0
5 6 0
48
0
5
3
0
560
610
600
590
58
0
560
560
5
50
540
5
4
0
5
2
0
4 90480
4
8
0
470
4
7
0
43
0
FIGURE NO:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
TURKEY MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ZAF
8/31/2023
TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA MAP
P:
\
3
2
0
-
0
0
0
\
3
2
4
-
4
0
4
\
-
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
E
C
0
5
_
T
u
r
k
e
y
_
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
_
P
l
a
n
\
3
2
4
4
0
4
_
F
I
G
3
_
T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
Y
_
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
.
m
x
d

8
/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3

1
1
:
4
4

A
M

(
z
f
a
l
k
)
3701 Arco Corporate Drive · Suite 400 · Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone] · [phone]
www.cecinc.com
*Hand Signature on file
NORTH
!a
07501,500375
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Conservation Easement Boundary (~34.5 AC)
SA1 Drainage Area (~314.5 AC)
SA2 Drainage Area (~20.6 AC)
SA3 Drainage Area (~185.0 AC)
SA5 Drainage Area (~9.0 AC)
SA6 Drainage Area (~2.1 AC)
SA7 Drainage Area (~10.5 AC)
SA8 Drainage Area (~4.2 AC)
SA9 Drainage Area (~10.2 AC)
SA10 Drainage Area (~4.5 AC)
SA11 Drainage Area (~5.9 AC)
10' Contours
2' Contours
3DRAWN BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:1 " = 750 '
CMM CMM*
324-404
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. ESRI World Imagery / ArcGIS Map Service
http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/world_imagery
Accessed: 8/31/2023, Imagery Date: 2/2019
2. Contours derived from NC One Map database
www.nconemap.gov
!(
TaB
ChA
MaB
MaB
VaB
VaB
VaB
VaB
CaB
VgC
VgC
VgC
VgC
FIGURE NO:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
TURKEY MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ZAF
8/31/2023
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND
NRCS CURRENT SOILS MAP
P:
\
3
2
0
-
0
0
0
\
3
2
4
-
4
0
4
\
-
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
E
C
0
5
_
T
u
r
k
e
y
_
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
_
P
l
a
n
\
3
2
4
4
0
4
_
F
I
G
4
_
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
_
S
O
I
L
S
_
M
A
P
.
m
x
d

8
/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3

1
2
:
0
6

P
M

(
z
f
a
l
k
)
3701 Arco Corporate Drive · Suite 400 · Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone] · [phone]
www.cecinc.com
*Hand Signature on file
NORTH
!a
05501,100275
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Conservation Easement Boundary (~34.5 AC)
Drained Hydric Soils
SSURGO Soil Unit Boundary
Existing Intermittent Stream
Existing Perennial Stream
Existing Wetlands
Anson County Parcel Boundry
!(Approximate Well Location
4DRAWN BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:1 " = 550 '
CMM CMM*
324-404
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. ESRI World Imagery / ArcGIS Map Service
http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/world_imagery
Accessed: 8/31/2023, Imagery Date: 2/2019
2. USDA, NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)
Database
3. PARCELS DOWNLOADED FROM NC ONE MAP
(https://www.nconemap.gov/pages/parcels)
4. The wetland delineation services were perfomred by CEC
on November 14, December1, December 8, 2022 and
January 5, 2023. Delineation Has not been verified by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
5. Drained Hydric Soils layer provided by Axiom
Environmental Inc. Delineation conducted in Oct, 2019
Map
Symbol Unit Description Hydric Status Acres
CaB Candor sand 1-8% slopes Nonhydric >0.1
ChA Chewacla loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded Predominantly Nonhydric 2.7
MaB Mayodan fine sandy loam, 2-8% slopes Nonhydric 6.2
TaB Tarrus gravelly silt loam, 2-8% slopes Nonhydric 10.4
VaB Vaucluse loamy sand, 2-8% slopes Predominantly Nonhydric 2.6
VgC Vaucluse very gravelly loamy sand, 8-15% slopes Nonhydric 12.6
FIGURE NO:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
TURKEY MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ZAF
8/22/2023
HISTORIC IMAGERY MAP - 2022
\\
c
e
c
i
n
c
.
c
o
m
\
g
l
o
b
a
l
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
2
0
-
0
0
0
\
3
2
4
-
4
0
4
\
-
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
E
C
0
5
_
T
u
r
k
e
y
_
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
_
P
l
a
n
\
3
2
4
4
0
4
_
F
I
G
5
_
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
_
P
H
O
T
O
S
_
2
0
2
2
.
m
x
d

8
/
2
2
/
2
02
3

3
:
3
7

P
M

(
z
f
a
l
k
)
3701 Arco Corporate Drive · Suite 400 · Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone] · [phone]
www.cecinc.com
*Hand Signature on file
NORTH
!a
06001,200300
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
Boundary (~34.5 AC)
5DRAWN BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:1 " = 600 '
CMM CMM*
324-404
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
REFERENCES AND NOTES
Google Earth Pro Histroic Imagery
Origionally from US Geological Survey (USGS)
Imagery Date: 01/1993
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
SA1
SAR5
SAR1
SAR2
SAR7
SAR6
SAR3
SA2 Reach 1
SA3 Reach 1
SA5 Reach 1
SA6 Reach 1
SA7 Reach 1
SA8 Reach 1
SA9 Reach 1
SA10 Reach 1
SA11 Reach 1
SA1-XSP3
SA5-XSR
SA1-XSR2
SA1-XSP1
SA5-XSP
SA1-XSP2
SA9-XSP
SA9-XSR
SA11-XSR
SA1-XSR1
SA1-XSR3
SA11-XSP
Wetland-1
Wetland-2
Wetland-3Wetland-4
Wetland-5
Wetland-7
Wetland-8
Wetland-14
Wetland-10
Wetland-11
Wetland-12
Wetland-6
Wetland-9
SA1 Reach 2
SA1 Reach 1
SA2 Reach 2
FIGURE NO:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
TURKEY MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ZAF
9/21/2023
STREAM ASSESSMENT REACHES MAP
\\
c
e
c
i
n
c
.
c
o
m
\
g
l
o
b
a
l
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
3
2
0
-
0
0
0
\
3
2
4
-
4
0
4
\
-
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
E
C
0
5
_
T
u
r
k
e
y
_
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
_
P
l
a
n
\
3
2
4
4
0
4
_
F
I
G
6
_
S
T
R
E
A
M
_
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
_
R
E
A
C
H
E
S
.
m
x
d

9
/2
1
/
2
0
2
3

9
:
0
8

A
M

(
z
f
a
l
k
)
3701 Arco Corporate Drive · Suite 400 · Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone] · [phone]
www.cecinc.com
*Hand Signature on file
NORTH
!a
05001,000250
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Conservation Easement Boundary (~34.5 AC)
Stream Assessment Reaches
Stream Cross Section - Pool
Stream Cross Section - Riffle
!(NCSAM Reach Breaks
!(NCWAM Data Points
Anson County Parcel Boundary
6DRAWN BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:1 " = 500 '
CMM CMM*
324-404
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. ESRI World Imagery / ArcGIS Map Service
http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/world_imagery
Accessed: 9/21/2023, Imagery Date: 2/2019
2. PARCELS DOWNLOADED FROM NC ONE MAP
(https://www.nconemap.gov/pages/parcels)
FIGURE NO:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
TURKEY MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ZAF
8/31/2023
LIDAR MAP
P:
\
3
2
0
-
0
0
0
\
3
2
4
-
4
0
4
\
-
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
E
C
0
5
_
T
u
r
k
e
y
_
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
_
P
l
a
n
\
3
2
4
4
0
4
_
F
I
G
7
_
L
I
D
A
R
.
m
x
d

8
/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3

1
:
0
2

P
M

(
z
f
a
l
k
)
3701 Arco Corporate Drive · Suite 400 · Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone] · [phone]
www.cecinc.com
*Hand Signature on file
NORTH
!a
0425850212.5
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Conservation Easement Boundary (~34.5 AC)
Anson County Parcel Boundary
Value
High : 573.919
Low : 451
7DRAWN BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:1 " = 425 '
CMM CMM*
324-404
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
1. ESRI World Imagery / ArcGIS Map Service
http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/world_imagery
Accessed: 8/31/2023, Imagery Date: 2/2019
2. Existing topography prepared by Civil & Environmental
Consultants, Inc. (CEC) from geomorphic survey and
topographic data gathered by small unmanned aerial
systems (sUAS) with LiDAR and photographer sensor
payloads. Date of data collection: 02/18/2023.
3. PARCELS DOWNLOADED FROM NC ONE MAP
(https://www.nconemap.gov/pages/parcels)
REFERENCES AND NOTES
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
SA6
SA8
SA10
SA9SA11
SA7
SA5
SA2
SA3
SA1
3701 Arco Corporate Drive · Suite 400 · Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone] · [phone]
www.cecinc.com
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO:ZAF
9/1/2023
CMM
324-404
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
P:\320-000\324-404\-GIS\Maps\EC05_Turkey_Mitigation_Plan\324404_FIG8_PLANTING_PLAN.mxd 9/1/2023 1:41 PM (zfalk)
1 " = 300 '
CMM*
*Hand signature on file
PLANTING PLAN
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
TURKEY MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LEGEND
Conservation Easement Boundary (~34.5 AC)
Anson County Parcel Boundary
Streamside Assemblage (~5.3 AC)
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest (~8.1 AC)
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest (~21.1 AC)
Proposed Streams
!(Marsh Treatment Area0300600150
SCALE IN FEET
8
!(
APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION
NORTH
!a
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. ESRI World Imagery / ArcGIS Map Service
http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/world_imagery
Accessed: 9/1/2023, Imagery Date: 2/1/2019
2. CEC's stream and wetland delineation took place on
Nov 14, Dec 1, Dec 8 2022, and Jan 5, 2023 and has
not been verified by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE).
3. PARCELS DOWNLOADED FROM NC ONE MAP
(https://www.nconemap.gov/pages/parcels)
TOTAL
34.5
Species Indicator
Status # planted* % of total # planted* % of total
#
planted**% of total # planted
Winged elm (Ulmus alata ) FACW -- -- 1650 11.5 -- -- 1650
Hackberry (Celtis laevigata ) FACW 788 14.3 -- -- -- -- 788
Red bud (Cercis canadensis ) FACU -- -- 732 5.1 -- -- 732
Silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum )
Shagbark hickory
(Carya ovata )
Persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana )
American holly (Ilex Opaca ) FACU 198 3.6 -- -- 894 6.2 1092
Tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera )
Sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis )
Mockernut hickory
(Carya alba/tomentosa )
Water oak (Quercus nigra ) FAC 1179 21.4 2210 15.4 1600 11.1 4988
White oak (Quercus alba )) FACU 788 14.3 2210 15.4 -- -- 2997
Red oak (Quercus rubra ) FACU -- -- 2210 15.4 -- -- 2210
Black willow (Salix nigra )*** OBL -- -- -- -- 3561 24.7 3561
Button bush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis)***OBL -- -- -- -- 3561 24.7 3561
5508 100 14348 100 14,416 100 34,272
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial
Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest*
Stream-side
Assemblage**Potential substitute species or species for
adaptive management planting
Area (acres) 8.1 21.1 5.3
Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides )
Species
River birch (Betula nigra ) FACW 788 14.3 -- -- 1600 11.1 2388
Box elder (Acer negundo )
Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana )
Sugarberry (Celtis occidentalis )
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica )
Red Mulberry (Morus rubra )
Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra )
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomumI )***
Elderberry (Sambucus nigra )***
Arrowwood viburnum
Silky willow (Salix caroliniana )***
(Viburnum dentatum)***
Overcup oak (Quercus lyrate )
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii )
Willow oak (Quercus phellos )
Chestnut oak (Quercus prinus )
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii )
American Elm (Ulmus americana )
732
FACW 788 14.3 -- --
FACU -- -- 732 5.1
1600 11.1 2388
-- --
-- 1837
FACU -- -- 1478 10.3 -- -- 1478
FAC -- -- 1837 12.8 --
11.1 2581
UPL -- -- 1291 9 -- -- 1291
FACW 980 17.8 -- -- 1600
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
***Live stakes
TOTAL
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
SA10
SA6
SA8
SA10 BRAID SYSTEM
SA2
SA2
SA9
SA11
SA7
SA5
SA3
SA3
SA1
SA1
3701 Arco Corporate Drive · Suite 400 · Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone] · [phone]
www.cecinc.com
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT NO:
FIGURE NO:ZAF
8/31/2023
CMM
324-404
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
P:\320-000\324-404\-GIS\Maps\EC05_Turkey_Mitigation_Plan\324404_FIG9_MONITORING_PLAN.mxd 8/31/2023 1:08 PM (zfalk)
1 " = 300 '
CMM*
*Hand signature on file
Restoration & Monitoring Plan
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
TURKEY MITIGATION SITE
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LEGEND
Conservation Easement Boundary (~34.5 AC)
Anson County Parcel Boundary
Wetland Enhancement (~1.22 AC)
Wetland Establishment (~0.35 AC)
Wetland Re-establishment (~2.16 AC)
Wetland Rehabilitation (~1.75 AC)
Proposed Stream Restoration (~7,782 LF)
Proposed Stream Enhancement Level I (~309 LF)
Proposed Stream Enhancement Level II (~506 LF)
Permanent Monumented Cross Section
Random Vegetation Transects
Permanent Vegetation Plot
!(Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature Probe
!(Flow Gauge
!(Groundwater Gauge
!(Marsh Treatment Areas
Index Contour - 10' Interval
Intermediate Contour - 1' Interval0300600150
SCALE IN FEET
9
!(
APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION
NORTH
!a1. ESRI World Imagery / ArcGIS Map Service
http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/world_imagery
Accessed: 8/31/2023, Imagery Date: 2/1/2019
2. Existing topography prepared by Civil & Environmental
Consultants, Inc. (CEC) from geomorphic survey and topographic
data gathered by small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) with
LiDAR and Photographer sensor payloads. Date of data
collection: 02/18/2023
3. PARCELS DOWNLOADED FROM NC ONE MAP
(https://www.nconemap.gov/pages/parcels)
4. CEC's stream and wetland delineation took place on
Nov 14, Dec 1, Dec 8 2022, and Jan 5, 2023 and has
not been verified by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE).
REFERENCES AND NOTES