20200002 Ver 1_Three Creeks MP_FINAL 22Mar2024_20240328

March 22, 2024

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Attention: Steve Kichefski Subject: Mitigation Plan Update
Three Creeks Mitigation Project, Davidson County Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040103
USACE Action ID SAW-2019-02341 Dear Steve:
Eco Terra, LLC is providing an updated mitigation plan to reflect the previously omitted powerline easement
and update the Sponsor for the project. The updated conservation easement takes the amended powerline easement into account. Below are the changes made to the document since the July 2023 submittal.

• Changed Sponsor name from Eco Terra Partners, LLC to Three Creeks Mitigation, LLC. The new Sponsor, Three Creeks Mitigation, LLC, will be responsible for all remaining tasks post mitigation
plan approval, including but not limited to, permitting, construction, monitoring, etc. The Sponsor Qualifications and Assignment and Assumption of Rights are attached to the Errata Sheet.
• Removed all references to Eco Terra as the Sponsor.
• Changed acreage of conservation easement from 41.20 acres to 41.13 acres.
• Updated Table 15 restoration acreage of wetlands to three decimal places.
• Added footnote to Table 21 that no credit loss occurred due to powerline easement along Norman Shoaf Road and updated credits to make a portion of UT1 1.5:1.
• Updated Table 22 restoration acreage of wetlands to three decimal places.
• Updated conservation easement on figures.
• Included new Figure 13 to show the powerline along Norman Shoaf Rd and the 50-foot buffer from the design top of bank.
• A change request has been submitted via RIBITS.

Sincerely,

Norton Webster, Eco Terra
Sponsor Qualifica�ons
The Three Creeks Farm Mi�ga�on Bank sponsor will be Three Creeks Mi�ga�on, LLC (hereina�er
referred to as TCM). TCM is owned, operated, and managed by a 3-person team that has a combined
50+ years in the mi�ga�on industry. The TCM team includes Alec Sheaff, Adam V McIntyre, and Krystyn
Bennet. Two of the three team members live and work in North Carolina and have spent the majority of
their career developing mi�ga�on opportuni�es in the State. All three have strong familiarity with the
NC IRT members including the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), NC Division of Water Resources
(DWR), the Environmental Protec�on Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
Na�onal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC),
and the State Historic Preserva�on Office (SHPO) amongst others. These team members have been
involved with the Three Creeks Farm Mi�ga�on Bank for the majority of 2023 including the review of all
project components.
Adam V. McIntyre will be the lead manager for the project and has 25 years of experience coordina�ng
and implemen�ng mi�ga�on projects in the State. Adam managed the development and
implementa�on of stream and wetland restora�on/mi�ga�on for over 30 NC mi�ga�on sites. Adam also
has experience with site inspec�on and monitoring of the mi�ga�on sites to ensure site success. A few
recent projects Adam developed include but are not limited to the Scarborough Mi�ga�on Bank (11,342
SMUs, 118 WMUs, 230 total acres), the Hollowell Mi�ga�on Bank (8,979 SMUs, 11 WMUs, 72 total
acres), and the Upper Rocky Mi�ga�on Bank (9,685 SMUs, 14 WMUs, 45 total acres). Adam’s experience
has included the implementa�on of projects in all NC physiographic regions, all credit types currently
supported by the NC IRT and all phases of mi�ga�on project development. As an ac�ve par�cipant and
Board member of both the Ecological Restora�on Business Associa�on (ERBA) and the North Carolina
Ecological Restora�on Associa�on (NCERA), Adam is also an expert in the development of and
understanding of mi�ga�on policies that dictate mi�ga�on success criteria.
Alec Sheaff has over 6 years of experience in the mi�ga�on industry, with a majority of his career spent
in NC and the Southeast. He has worked with numerous IRT groups in NC, SC, TN, VA, GA and KY where
he has been a part of the approval of 15+ mi�ga�on and nutrient sites. Alec is an ac�ve par�cipant in
the Ecological Restora�on Business Associa�on and from 2020-2022, served as the President of the
Tennessee Ecological Restora�on Associa�on (TERA).
Krystyn Bennet is a senior project manager in the mi�ga�on industry working with Adam on the
management and development of mi�ga�on banks across the U.S. Krystyn has 7 years of experience in
mi�ga�on including the management of an 80 million dollar mi�ga�on por�olio for the past 3 years.
Krystyn is an expert in project management tasks, IRT interface and engagement, and overall project
implementa�on. Krystyn has experience working in the Galveston, Fort Worth, and Wilmington districts.

1
00595699
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF RIGHTS

THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF RIGHTS (“Assignment”) is made
and entered into this 17th day of November , 2023, by and among Piedmont Mitigation
Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal office located at 932 Coo
ke Road, Louisburg, North Carolina 27549 (herein “Assignor”), Three Creeks
Mitigation, LLC, a South Dakota limited liability company with its principal office located at
111 Main Avenue, Brookings, South Dakota 57006 (herein “Assignee”) and Eco Terra, LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company with its principal offices located at 1328 DeKalb avenue, NE,
Atlanta, Georgia 30307 (herein “Eco Terra”).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Eco Terra and Assignor entered into that certain Purchase and Sale
Agreement dated July 3, 2023 (the “Purchase Agreement”) pursuant to which Assignor has
agreed to purchase all of Eco Terra’s rights as sponsor of the stream and wetland mitigation bank
project known as the Three Creeks Mitigation Bank, located in Davidson County, North Carolina
and identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) as action ID SAW-2019-02341
(the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, Assignor has agreed to transfer and assign to Assignee all of Assignor’s
rights, duties and obligations under the Purchase Agreement and Assignee has agreed and is
prepared to assume, perform, and discharge all of Assignor’s obligations and duties under the
Purchase Agreement and assume all liabilities of Assignor under the Purchase Agreement,
including all liabilities which arise and accrue subsequent to the date hereof; and
WHEREAS, Eco Terra has agreed and consented to the Assignor’s assignment and
transfer of Assignor’s rights, duties, and obligations under the Purchase Agreement to Assignee;
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Assignment. Assignor does hereby grant, sell, convey, transfer, assign, and
deliver to Assignee and its successors and assigns, as of the date hereof, (1) all of Assignor’s
right, title and interest in and to the Purchase Agreement, including but not limited to all of
Assignor’s rights and benefits accruing under any and all agreements, arrangements,
relationships or understandings, whether written or oral, with respect to the Purchase Agreement
and (2) all materials, documents, drafts, plats, easements, plans, contracts, designs and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4930B39D-1F86-41D9-8DA2-AA8F42AD9CDE
2
00595699
information relating to or which are in the possession and/or knowledge of Assignor in
connection with the Purchase Agreement and/or the Project, and (3) all of Assignor’s rights in
and to any and all monies now or hereafter held by Old Republic Title pursuant to that certain
Escrow Agreement dated July 12, 2023 by and between Piedmont Mitigation Holdings, LLC and
Eco Terra, LLC, as amended.
2. Assumption. Assignee hereby assumes and hereby becomes liable for and shall
hereafter pay, perform, assume, or discharge, all of Assignor’s obligations, debts, and liabilities
with respect to the Purchase Agreement, including but not limited to all obligations and duties of
Assignor which arise or accrue after the date hereof.
3. Consent to Assignment. Eco Terra hereby acknowledges and consents to the
assignment of rights, benefits and obligations of Assignor to Assignee as set forth herein and
shall hereafter recognize Assignee as the “Purchaser” as defined in the Purchase Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor, Assignee and Eco Terra execute this assignment as
of the day and year first above written.

The remainder of this page left intentionally blank

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4930B39D-1F86-41D9-8DA2-AA8F42AD9CDE
3
00595699
ASSIGNOR:

Piedmont Mitigation Holdings, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company

By:_______________________________
Adam V. McIntyre, Manager

ASSIGNEE:

Three Creeks Mitigation, LLC, a South
Dakota limited liability company

By: _____________________________
Joseph B. Long, Managing Board
Representative

Eco Terra, LLC, a Georgia limited liability
company

By:______________________________
Michael Beinenson, President

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4930B39D-1F86-41D9-8DA2-AA8F42AD9CDE

July 19, 2023

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Attention: Steve Kichefski

Subject: Mitigation Plan Comment Letter Dated May 16, 2023
Three Creeks Mitigation Project, Davidson County
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040103
USACE Action ID SAW-2019-02341

Dear Steve:

We have reviewed the IRT’s second round of comments on the Three Creeks Mitigation Plan. We have
made the requested changes and provided comment below following our call on June 29, 2023 and
subsequent emails on August 7, 10, and 14, 2023.

Todd Bowers, USEPA:

I have performed a brief cursory review of the Eco Terra Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank draft
mitigation plan dated January 2023. Responses from the sponsor pertaining to my comments of the
previous draft mitigation plan (dated December 2021) in the letter dated January 23, 2023 have all been
addressed to my satisfaction and I do not have any substantial comments on the new revision. If either of
you have any issue areas with the document or the site plan that you would like me to look in depth on,
please do not hesitate to let me know.

Mac Haupt, NCDWR:

Folks had a lot of good comments, some of the comments below are the one’s I believe were not
addressed adequately:
1. A couple of folks commented on the changing watershed. I believe there was verbiage in the
mit plan which stated that they did not believe significant changes would occur in the near
future. However, on page 4 it is stated, “The project area has seen a 20-23% population
growth since 1995…and expects a 9.2% increase from 2020 to 2030”.Given the project’s
location very close to the Triad, DWR believes there will be sufficient changes to the project’s
watershed. Additional detailed North Carolina growth projections from the FUTURES
dataset showed low growth potential in the watershed of the Three Creeks site and the
watershed. Additionally, the watershed of UT1 and LBF are near the border of the
watershed for HUC 03040103. The watershed of the Triad is in HUC 03040101.
2. In Section 8.5.2 it was stated that a Sediment Transport Capacity assessment was not
performed because of the stability of the watershed. DWR believes that because this is an
alluvial channel with a sand bed stream and the likelihood of a changing watershed that a
sediment capacity analysis should have been performed. Based on the information from
FUTURES and the location of the project watershed, outside of the Triad’s drainage,
VHB believes a Sediment Transport Capacity assessment is not necessary.

3. DWR concurs with COE’s statement (Kim’s comment #2) concerning the parallel
streams. During the June 29, 2023, call with the IRT VHB described the desire by
the IRT and the design team to keep hardened structures out of the floodplain in
the sand bed system. The confluence of UT4 and LBF was designed based on
elevation to prevent having drop-down structures along UT4. VHB followed up
with an email on July 7, 2023 with additional information, this email is attached
to the comment letter response. An email on August 7, 2023 resulted with the
IRT saying the portions of UT4 that are parallel to LBF have a 1.5:1 mitigation
ratio instead of 1:1. This was determined to be all of UT4 Reach 2, 990 lf. UT4
Reach 2 will produce 660 SMUs. 700 lf of UT 1 Reach 2 will have a 1.5:1 ratio.
The total stream credit for the entire project is 8,695 SMUs.

4. The site proposes significant areas of wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation and
enhancement; therefore, the plan should include significant hydric soil investigations to
support the wetland proposals. The soil report does not provide enough information to
adequately support the proposals given. The report states that there 75 soil borings but only
5 borings were included with profiles. Each boring should either have a profile or give the
wetland indicator status, or depth to hydric indicator. DWR recommends the provider obtain
at least 10 detailed soil profiles with wetland indicator status (e.g., F3) on each wetland
polygon (1-5). The location of the soil borings with a designation of “No Indicator Met”,
“F13 Met”, or “F19 Met” was added to the map in the Soils Report in Appendix F.

Erin Davis, USACE:

1. The proposed 3-foot-deep floodplain depressions are deeper than the IRT recommends for
riparian habitat. Please show the extent of each constructed floodplain depression on the
project as-built and provide max. depth survey points for each depression area. The max
depth of the floodplain depressions will be called out on the as-built. The design
sheets have reduced the max depth from 3 feet to 2 feet. The pools are designed with
the intention that they will fill with sediment during major overbank events and
eventually become shallower.

2. If the headwater channel design is implemented during construction along UT2 and/or
UT3, please callout extents of this approach on the project as- built and include a
monitoring cross section and photo point within the approach area. The headwater
design is a construction technique to drop down the channel. The as-built will call
out extents of this approach, if used. Figure 10B showed a cross section on UT3
in the area where this design would occur. Figure 10C was updated to show a
cross section in the upper portion of UT2. If the headwater design is used in a
different location than the shown cross section, the cross section will be moved to
the location of the headwater design.

3. It is appreciated that efforts were made to change two external easement breaks to internal
stream crossings. Please make sure to still callout internal crossings and show the
associated non-credit maintenance width on project figures and design sheets. The non-
credit areas have been called out on Figure 9 and design sheets.

4. Detail Sheets – There are two wetland conveyance details, WC 1 is 20’W and WC 2 is 2’W,
and both appear to be referenced for the same location on different plan sheets, please
correct. Also, please include a standard base ditch detail as referenced in on Sheet PSH-05
as DD1 or update terminology. Please make sure callouts on Sheets PSH-05 and PSH-11
are consistent. Additionally, please confirm that the proposed wetland conveyance/ditch

networks within the easement will be self-sustaining and will not require active long-term
management. Wetland conveyance labels have been updated to be consistent with
design plans and details. The previous standard base ditch call out was updated to
be wetland conveyance 1 (WC1) and has been updated on PSH-05 and PSH-11

5. Regarding the response to DWR question 33, wrapping stream and ditch plugs with
impervious fabric is not a typical practice on seen on mitigation projects in North Carolina.
The IRT has had concerns with burying impervious fabric within a floodplain and/or wetland
credit area. Please propose an alternative method/plug design (e.g., clay plug core). A
natural material, jute matting or CBN-125 was recommended by North State as an
alternative and will be used if clay material is not readily available. Stream plug detail
has been updated to reflect

6. Appendix I – Under the Initial Allocation of Released Credits section please add: f.
Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow account. A
Letter of Intent is now included in Appendix I and part f has been added.

Steve Kichefski, USACE:

1. Concerns still exist regarding previous USACE comments #2 and #12 regarding
parallel channel design and crediting. USACE recommends a call with the IRT to
discuss the proposed approach in further detail. During the June 29, 2023, call with
the IRT VHB described the desire by the IRT and the design team to keep
hardened structures out of the floodplain in the sand bed system. The
confluence of UT4 and LBF was designed based on elevation to prevent having
drop-down structures along UT4. VHB followed up with an email on July 7, 2023
with additional information, this email is attached to the comment letter
response. An email on August 7, 2023 resulted with the IRT saying the portions
of UT4 that are parallel to LBF have a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio instead of 1:1. This
was determined to be all of UT4 Reach 2, 990 lf. UT4 Reach 2 will produce 660
SMUs. 700 lf of UT 1 Reach 2 will have a 1.5:1 ratio. The total stream credit for
the entire project is 8,695 SMUs.

2. Concerns still exist regarding previous USACE comments #8, #23 & #25 regarding
wetland conveyances/vernal pools. USACE recommends a call with the IRT to discuss
the proposed approach in further detail. The max depth of the floodplain depressions
will be called out on the as-built. The design sheets have reduced the max depth
from 3 feet to 2 feet. The pools are designed with the intention that they will fill
with sediment during major overbank events and eventually become shallower.

Steve Kichefski
Mitigation Project Manager Regulatory
Division

January 23, 2023

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Attention: Kim Isenhour

Subject: Mitigation Plan
Three Creeks Mitigation Project, Davidson County
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040103
USACE Action ID SAW-2019-02341
Dear Kim:

We have reviewed the IRT’s comments on the Three Creeks Mitigation Plan. We have made the requested changes and
provided comment below.

Todd Bowers, USEPA:

Note: It is understood that site visits have been made by IRT members during the development of site feasibility to
provide mitigation credit. In that regard, I feel it necessary to denote that I have not been on-site during this process
and that my comments may reflect a lack of on-site observation and evaluation.

1. General:
o Generally pleased to see that the number of crossings was kept to a minimum and that historic floodplains of Little Brushy Fork and UT1 are included for functional uplift. Comment is appreciated. o Having not been onsite to see UT3 for myself, I am curious if the head of the stream could benefit from a BMP within or without the conservation easement. The conservation easement is extending past the jurisdictional stream reach to incorporate additional drainage into the system. This is the portion of land the landowner was comfortable relinquishing for the project.
2. Section 8.7.1/Pages 42-43: o I understand the reason for a crossing in this location on Little Brushy Fork, but 85 feet wide seems
excessive to move farm equipment and/or cattle egress. Please justify the rationale for such an apparently
overwide crossing. The crossing over Little Brushy Fork has been reduced to 60’.
o UT3 Reach 1 is within the CE but has no riparian zone for approximately half it’s length. This portion is not
considered a jurisdictional feature. It was included with minimal buffer to capture the head of the
drainage.
3. Table 14/Page 44:
o Wetland 5 is between and reconnecting to the floodplains of LBF and UT4, not UT1 as listed in Table. Updated table to state UT4.
4. Table 16/Page 46:
o Please add wetland indicator status to the Table per the Planting Plan Sheets. Wetland indicator status
added.
5. Section 9.2/Page 48: o Eight groundwater wells are proposed to cover hydrology monitoring of Wetlands 1, 3-5. Recommend
adding two more gauges to monitor Wetland 2, which currently does not have groundwater wells
designated. Increased groundwater monitoring gauges to 10 and added one into Wetland 2
(Pasture) and one into Wetland 2 (Successional).
6. Section 9.3/Page 48:
o Recommending clarifying the height requirement as the average of 7 feet or greater at Year 5 and an average of 10 feet or greater at Year 7. Updated so that the average height is seven feet after five years and the average height must be 10 feet or greater after seven years of monitoring.
7. Table 17/Page 50:
Eight groundwater gauges (recommend 10) are listed for W1, 2, 4, and 5. This is inconsistent with figures
that show no gauges for Wetland 2. Recommend monitoring all wetlands generating credit. Updated table 17 to have 10 gauges and included all wetlands.
o Final vegetation standard should be 210 stems per acre at Year 7. Changed after 5 to after year 7.
8. Section 10.3/Page 51: o Recommend 10 monitoring wells to provide coverage of all credit generating wetland assets. Updated to 10 groundwater gauges.
9. Section 10.5/Page 51:
o Will any of the 31 vegetation plots be set up for random placement? The vegetation plots were changed
to 21 permanent and 10 random. The number of random plots was specified by DWR in their
comments.
10. Section 10.6/Page 51: o I recommend much earlier MY reporting especially if corrective action that may require IRT approval is
needed. Feb 4 is recommended (approximately 90-days post growing season) for latest submission. The monitoring report submission date will remain April 1st.
11. Table 21/Page 55:
o Recommend removing approximately half of the credit for UT3 Reach 1 as the riparian buffer is essentially absent on the uppermost 100 feet. Removed the 58’ of non-jurisdictional channel that had a narrower buffer.
12. Table 22/Page 56:
o Missing values for Wetland 3. Values for restoration acreage and mitigation were added.
13. References/Page 59: o Recommend using Schafale 2012. Guide to the Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (4th Approximation) Updated to the 4thApproximation in references and in Sections 8.6.3 and 8.8.
14. Sheet PSH-04/Page 145:
o Wetland 5 appears to be absent in the vicinity of the LBF and UT4 floodplains. Reestablishment wetlands
are now shown on plans.

Erin Davis, NCDWR:

1. Page 4, Section 3.2 – Please include a discussion of projected future watershed and adjacent area land use.
Section 5.1 notes that population growth in the watershed is expected to continue. Section 8.5.1 notes
residential development and continued heavy agricultural presence are expected to continue. DWR encourages
the consultation with local/county planning agencies and NCDOT, as well as review of available planning
documents (e.g., comprehensive land use plan, community master plan) as due diligence in assessing potential
future watershed and adjacent land use changes that may affect the long-term success of the project (e.g., risks
of utility/roadway encroachments and influx of sediment/nutrient inputs). Included information from Davidson
County Land Development Plan and NCDOT information about future work.
2. Page 6, Table 2 – It would be helpful to have the DWQ stream scores and NCSAM ratings included in this
table or section. Added DWQ scores and NCSAM/NCWAM ratings.
3. Page 8-9, Section 3.4 – Other than perched, what’s the condition of existing road culverts? Please check
whether NCDOT has any future roadwork/culvert maintenance planned. The existing road culverts are in
fair condition. NCDOT provided a response that they have no plans to upgrade the existing
culverts.
4. Page 15, Section 5.7 – Design Sheet PSH-03.d lists four ford crossings and a permanent culverted stream
crossing, which is not consistent with the narrative of this section or Section
8.10. Please update to make consistent the number and type of stream crossings, and number and width of
easement breaks. Please describe all crossings proposed for installation during the project construction phase,
including those located outside of the easement. Additionally, DWR has concerns about the long-term stability of
the proposed at-grade crossings within this large sand bed system. As noted in the IRT site walk meeting
minutes, “all stream crossings should consist of culverts or pipes”. If you believe at-grade crossings to be the
most suitable option, DWR will require a more thorough justification and examples of stable at-grade livestock
stream crossings within sand bed systems (years out from installation) to review.
Section 5.7 and Section 8.10 have been updated to be consistent with the plans. Additional descriptions
of the crossings have also been added. The at-grade stream crossings issue was discussed during a
DMS site visit for a different project and NCWRC staff expressed concerns about multiple piped stream
crossings on large stream restoration projects creating maintenance and stability issues as well as
promoting over widening of the channel. It was determined that at grade crossings for LBF and UT1
would be a better approach in the long term. Eco Terra submitted a letter detailing this on May 11, 2021
and received IRT approval via an email from Kim May 12, 2021. The approval email also stated Travis
Wilson, NCWRC agreed with the approach. These correspondences are included in Appendix E. A
similar size and scale project, Ellington Branch, has performed well since installation in 2007. This
issue was discussed with Erin Davis and Kim Isenhour on June 22, 2022 and Travis Wilson on July 5,
2022. Kim and Erin deferred to Travis and his experience with crossings in larger systems. The
conclusion from the two phone calls is the at-grade crossings will remain. Information to address the
at-grade crossings is included in Appendix H: Project Risks and Uncertainties.
5. Page 19, Table 7 – Please confirm that the anticipated temporary impacts for UT3 enhancement reaches only
involves top of bank stabilization. Any work below OHWM (e.g.,instream structures, bank toe treatments,
fill/excavation) will need to be listed as permanent impacts. The headcut repair (HCR) portion +/-100’ will involve
structure and will be listed as a permanent impact. The rest of the enhancement reach will be temporary with
no work below OHWM.
6. Page 31, Section 8.6.2 – When was the onsite soils investigation completed? Were the 75 borings mapped? If
so, please provide. Please include a selection of representative soil boring logs with location map. Boring photos
are also encouraged. All 75 borings were not mapped. The soils report is included in Appendix F.
7. Page 33, Section 8.6.4 – Was the Wetbud model run with the general jurisdictional hydroperiod (5%) or the
proposed mitigation hydroperiod (10%)? Not being very familiar with Wetbud, is it possible to get a list of all the
inputs and assumptions added to Appendix F? The Wetbud program doesn’t use a specific hydroperiod.
It is a predictor of inputs and outputs. It demonstrates whether you have additional inputs to a system
post-restoration. The assumptions/inputs are included in Appendix G. The rainfall data is not included
but varied between the normal, wet, and dry rainfall years.
8. Page 34, Section 8.6.4 – Please list the total number and installation date of the pre- construction
baseline groundwater gauges. Added gauge information.
9. Page 34, Section 8.7.1 – As valued habitat, please confirm that all vernal pools have been designed to be
seasonally dry. And please confirm the vernal pools will be planted/seeded with species tolerant of saturated soils
and inundation. Vernal pools have been renamed to floodplain depressions. The maximum is 3-feet but
will vary between them. It is expected that these will fill with sediment from overbank events over time
and there is a possibility for them to become vernal pools. These are not considered part of the wetland
credits.
10. Page 35, Section 8.7.1 – Please provide more information on why the UT1 and UT4 confluence is proposed to
shift approximately 150 feet downstream with a vernal pool between them? Are there any concerns about the
long-term stability of these parallel channels? This comment is believed to be referenced to LBF instead of
UT1. The confluence point of LBF and UT4 was driven by stream bed elevations required to connect the
streams, maintain stability, minimize boulder structures, and maintain channel floodplain connectivity.
The Project Site was designed to minimize the amount of structure within the sand bed stream systems.
The placement of drop structures in UT4 would be required to connect LBF and UT4 earlier and would
create a stability concern during larger flooding events. Available historical data does not show original
channel confluence.
11. Page 36, Table 14 – For Wetland 3, please add the removal of clay drainage pipes. The removal of clay drainage
pipes has been added to table 14.
12. Page 37, Section 8.8 –
a. Please describe proposed soil restoration. DWR is concerned with compaction from site land use
(including existing farm paths) and proposed construction equipment use, as well as unfavorable growing
properties (e.g., pH, lack of organics) within proposed excavation/bench cut areas. Soil treatment
details have been included in Section 8.8 and is addressed within the Sediment and Erosion
Control plans. Disturbed areas will be tilled or ripped to a minimum depth of 4 inches and lime
and fertilizer shall be applied according to soil tests.
b. Please include a description of all invasive and nuisance species currently onsite and proposed
management or reference Appendix G. Added a reference to Appendix G.
c. Will fescue be treated prior to or during construction? Fescue will be treated in the areas outside of the
streambanks. Fescue treatment has been included in the Erosion Control Plans and construction
sequence.
13. Page 38, Table 16 – Please add a column for the species wetland indicator status. Wetland indicator status
added
14. Page 38, Section 8.9 –
a. DWR appreciates the discussions noted in this section. Since Appendix G appears to supplement this
section, please add a reference to that appendix. Added reference to Appendix G.
b. As listed, early flooding is a concern, and we were pleased to read the construction plan general notes
regarding phased seeding to establish cover as quickly as possible. Commented appreciated.
c. In addition to the risk that sand movement has on constructed structures, DWR is concerned that the
smaller tributaries may lose channel features within the larger, flatter floodplains of UT1 and LBF and
trend toward becoming wetland features. Please consider this concern in your risk analysis and adaptive
management planning. And please note that channel maintenance (e.g., instream vegetation
treatment/removal, hand grading) should be limited to early monitoring (pre-MY3) in order for the IRT to
properly evaluate how these systems are trending. The smaller tributaries (UT2, UT3, and UT5) will be
monitored and credit will be adjusted if they trend towards becoming wetlands. This risk has
been added to Section 8.9. However, UT2 connects to UT1 off a hillside, and requires rock steps
to convey the stream to UT1. Due to the steepness and required structure, UT2 is unlikely to lose
channel features. UT3 at the confluence with UT4 is replacing an existing 12 inch pipe and
providing connectivity to the restored UT4 location. UT5 is also replacing an 8 inch pipe that
connects to a defined channel upstream of the existing pipe. Due to the condition and presence
of the UT5 channel upstream of the existing pipe, it is reasonable to predict UT5 will also maintain
proposed channel features.
15. Page 39, Section 9.0 – DWR does not support early termination of the monitoring period. Revised sentence to
state the site will be monitored for seven years.
16. Page 39, Section 9.1.3 – Please add photo points at all proposed stream crossings. Photos at stream crossings
has been added and put onto Figures 10A-10D.
17. Page 39, Section 9.1.4 – Bankfull events are a performance standard for all restoration reaches, including
intermittent. Please update. Additionally, DWR has some flow concerns with the proposed work and small
drainages of UT2 and UT5. As a reminder, the 30 consecutive days flow is the very minimum threshold to meet
the performance standard and not a target to demonstrate success. Updated to state all restoration reaches
will be monitored for bankfull events. Document states the minimum is 30-days of flow for UT2, UT3, and
UT5. Monitoring reports will document any consecutive days of flow over 30-days.
18. Page 40, Section 9.2 – DWR is glad an onsite rain gauge is proposed. Please provide the distances to the
listed offsite rain stations. Also, what years were used for the WETS Table growing season dates
determination? Added in distance to Lexington station and years the USDA uses to calculate the
WETS data. Also added USDA reference for the WETS table data.
19. Page 40, Section 9.3 –
a. Please update the vigor standard to 7 feet in Year 5 and 10 feet in Year 7. Updated so that the average
height is seven feet after five years and the average height must be 10 feet or greater after seven
years of monitoring.
b. Please clarify your performance standard exemption request. DWR is ok with an exemption for existing
forest riparian and wetland areas that are only proposed to be supplementally planted. If requesting a
specific vigor standard exemption for individual shrub and/or slow growing tree species, please identify
which species and provide a justification. No exemption is requested.
c. Please be aware that competition from colonizing pine, sweet gum and/or red maple may require
thinning during the monitoring/maintenance period. This will be addressed during the
implementation of our Adaptive Management Plan and first two years of active management.
20. Page 41, Table 17 – Please note four bankfull events “in separate years” within the monitoring period (on
perennial and intermittent restoration reaches). Please update the final rate of tree survival from 5 to 7 years and
add the vigor standard. Added in separate years on all restoration reaches. Updated 5 to 7 years and
added in average height of 10-feet at 7 years.
21. Page 43, Section 10.5 – DWR requests that at least 10 of the 31 veg plots are random rather than fixed. At least
one fixed plot should be located within each wetland credit area, except Wetland 2 Successional. Please also
make sure that all Priority 2 and onsite soil borrow areas are sampled by fixed or random veg plots during the
monitoring period. Changed to 21 permanent and 10 random vegetation plots. There is at least one
vegetation plot in each wetland, except for Wetland 2 Successional. There are two vegetation plots
downstream of the confluence of UT1 and Little Brushy Fork. This is the only Priority 2 portion.
22. Page 43, Section 10.6 – Please include redline drawings in the MY0 Report. Redline drawings should show
actual boundaries of all vernal pools and floodplain interceptors. Comment noted for as-built redlines.
23. Pages 47-48, Tables 21 & 22 – Restoration equivalent (RE) is no longer used by DWR. Please use mitigation
types: restoration/reestablishment/rehabilitation (R/Reest/Rehab), enhancement (E), and/or preservation (P).
Also, please add/update ratios in Table 22 to be consistent with Table 14 and Figure 9. Added in either
restoration or enhancement I or enhancement II for Table 21. Added in either re-establishment,
rehabilitation, or enhancement for table 22. Updated Table 20 to have either restoration or enhancement
instead of R or RE. Ratios between Table 14, 22, and Figure 9 are consistent.
24. Figures – DWR encourages the inclusion of a colored LiDAR map and individual tributary watershed map.
This information is helpful for our review. Included Figure 12 LiDAR map.
25. Figure 4 – Please add the following features/callouts: surrounding property boundaries, pre- construction
groundwater gauge locations, DWQ/SAM/WAM/delineation sample points, existing ford and culvert stream
crossings, existing clay drainage pipes, existing swales and ditches, and the selected reference wetland site.
Items have been added.
26. Monitoring Figures 10A-C –
a. Please differentiate between crest and flow gauges. Difference between crest and flow gauges added.
b. All flow gauges should be located within the upper one-third of the reach. Please shift the flow gauges
upstream on UT3 Reach 1, UT2 and UT5.Gauges have been shifted upstream.
c. Please make sure that no groundwater gauges are installed over filled existing ditches or stream
channels. Groundwater gauges will not be installed over filled ditches.
d. DWR requests that one of the groundwater gauges from Wetland 3 be relocated to near the photo point in
Wetland 4 as we are concerns about the proposed ditch drainage effect on the reestablishment credit
area. Also, please relocate the Wetland 1 right/east groundwater gauge to be next to the right/east veg
plot. DWR can provide a figure markup upon request. The wetland re-establishment area for
Wetlands 4 and 5 has been reduced to account for stream construction activities and the
potential for drainage. The gauge from Wetland 3 has been moved to Wetland 4. The gauge in
Wetland 1 has been moved.
27. Appendix A – Typically, a Long-term Steward engagement/preliminary agreement letter is included for the IRT
to review in which the proposed entity outlines the specific activities they intend to be responsible for in
perpetuity. DWR appreciates the opportunity to review this document as evidence of clear communication
about the project between the Sponsor and proposed Long-term Steward. Please make sure to include this
information in the final mitigation plan. A letter from Southern Conservation Trust is included in Appendix
A.
28. Appendices C – Please include NCSAM and NCWAM rating sheets. NCWAM and NCSAM forms are in Appendix
C.
29. Appendix E – Please include the 2020 IRT site walk meeting minutes. 2020 IRT Site Walk is in Appendix E.
30. Appendix G – DWR was glad to see the zero tolerance of Kudzu reiterated, as well as the 5% max. threshold of
invasive cover sitewide. Comment appreciated.
31. Sheet PSH-02.g – Constructed Riffle Micro Pool Log – The callout states to bury log into bank 4’ minimum but
Note #8 states 3’ minimum. Please update. Note 8 refers to the end rock sill, not the logs. No revisions
necessary.
32. Sheet PSH-02.h – Please identify on the as-built redline if/which structures were not installed with footer logs.
Comment noted for as-built redlines.
33. Sheet PSH-02.i –Stream Plugs – Plug details typically include an impervious core. Will an impervious material
(e.g., clay) be used in proposed channel plugs? If so, is this material expected to be sourced onsite? Please
confirm this detail also applies to proposed ditch plugs. An impervious fabric will be used to wrap onsite
material for the stream plugs. The site is unlikely to contain adequate clay material for plugs. This detail
also applies to proposed ditch plugs. Additional notes have been added to the detail.
34. Sheet PSH-02.i – Floodplain Interceptor – Please briefly describe the function of proposed floodplain
interceptors. Will these features be seeded and planted? The minimum length is listed at 6 feet; what is the
maximum length? The floodplain interceptor is a mechanism to stabilize areas where defined drainage
paths meet the proposed channel. The detail shows a 6-inch minimum depression. Minimum and
maximum widths have been added to the detail. These will be seeded and planted.
35. Sheet PSH-02.j – DWR has some concerns about the long-term stability of proposed at-grade crossings. Please
see DWR comment #14. This issue was discussed during a DMS site visit on a different project and
NCWRC staff expressed concerns about multiple piped stream crossings on large stream restoration
projects creating maintenance and stability issues as well as promoting over widening of the channel. It
was determined that at grade crossing would be better in the long term. Eco Terra submitted a letter
detailing this on May 11, 2021 and received IRT approval via an email from Kim May 12, 2021. These
correspondences are included in Appendix E. This issue was discussed with Erin Davis and Kim
Isenhour on June 22, 2022 and Travis Wilson on July 5, 2022. Kim and Erin deferred to Travis and his
experience with crossings in larger systems. The conclusion from the two phone calls is the at-grade
crossings will remain. Information to address the at-grade crossings is included in Appendix H: Project
Risks and Uncertainties.
36. Sheet PSH-02.k – Rock Cross Vane – What is the proposed max. drop? Please consider aquatic passage
with all drop structure designs and installations (e.g., 1-foot or less perch). The max drop for Rock Cross
Vanes is 1-foot, this has been added to the detail.
37. Sheet PSH-02.l – Fill Channel & Vernal Pool – Lines appear to be missing. Please provide a maximum depth for
partially filled channels. DWR has concerns with the proposed 3-feet deep vernal pools. Please consider a max.
depth that will seasonally dry for added wildlife habitat value. Will vernal pools connect to proposed stream
channels? If so, please include details on the outlet structure. If not, please provide the minimum distance
between vernal pools and stream meander bends. Line work was missing from the details. Vernal pools
have been renamed to Floodplain Depressions; these areas are expected to partially fill with sediment
during flooding events and create ecological diversity during varying groundwater levels. These areas
will not be connected to stream channels, so a minimum setback from the stream channel has been
added to the detail. No credit is being proposed for these features.
38. Sheet PSH-02.q – Please identify on the plan sheets where the Headwater Channel design is being proposed.
This design was not noted in the plan narrative. If it is being proposed, please provide more information on why
this design has been selected and how it will be monitored. Notes are shown on plans for UT2 and UT3 that
state “method of construction may be at the contractors discretion with approval from engineer.
Bankfull profile and channel dimensions shall be maintained”. This detail has been used on similar
projects with success for headwater channels. This may be used in lieu of the head cut repair on UT3
and the double log drops/rock step pool/head cut repair on UT2 so long as the channel dimension and
profile are maintained as designed.
39. Sheet PSH-03.e – Note #16 – Non-native vegetation should be removed within the entire easement. Treatment
of existing invasives located outside of construction areas but within the project easement should not be delayed
to MY1. Note# 16 has been updated as requested.
40. Sheet PSH-03.h – Note #40 – Please confirm that “installation” of the Floodplain Wetland along UT1 refers to
grading the Wetland 4 reestablishment area. Please confirm that proposed grading will not be greater than 12
inches. This is correct, ‘installation’ has been revised to ‘grading’. Proposed grading will not be greater
than 12 inches.
41. Sheet PSH-04 –
a. Please show the NCDOT right-of-way/easement line. What is the setback distance from the NCDOT
culvert to the proposed conservation easement and beginning of stream credit? Is this distance sufficient
for potential future NCDOT culvert maintenance?
The setback was originally +/-6.0’ from the NCDOT culvert. The Conservation Easement has been
adjusted to provide +/-50’ of setback. A permanent drainage easement area has also been added
to the plans for future NCDOT culvert maintenance. Credit has been updated to begin at the
transition from permanent drainage easement to conservation area.
b. Please confirm that no proposed vernal pool areas overlap with proposed wetland credit areas. Also,
should vernal pool areas be located within proposed grading limits? Vernal pools/Floodplain
depressions do not overlap with proposed wetland credit areas. These areas show on the plans
are approximate and will be subject to site conditions and available site material and therefore
were not included in the grading limits.
c. Please callout reach breaks on all plan sheets. Reach breaks have been included on plan sheets.
42. Sheet PSH-05 –
a. Please explain why construction of a ditch network is necessary. Why can’t the access road ditch
transition through a BMP to diffuse flow within the conservation easement? How will the ditch tie into
the stream over the meander brush toe stabilization?
This proposed ditch is a wetland conveyance and is designed to provide relief for the proposed
wetland. Additionally, it has a base width of 20 feet to provide shallow diffuse flow from the
floodplain wetland to the stream channel. The conveyance is designed to tie in at the LBF
bankfull elevation with the use of brush toe to provide bank stability. There isn’t a concern of
hydrologic trespass from the proposed wetland grading, there is adequate fall from the 30-inch
pipe under Norman Shoaf Road to the proposed graded wetland. This outfall was included in the
Wetbud modelling. The access road contains a 30” pipe with a dissipator pad to generate
diffuse flow through the riparian buffer before the water enters the stream.
b. For all “end construction” callouts on the tributaries, please make sure that credit stops at the bank and
not the centerline of the confluence. Credit is stopped at the bank and not the centerline of
confluences.
43. Sheet PSH-06 – What is the length of the Priority 2 section along LBF Reach 3? How will any bench cutting
affect the hydrology of the adjacent wetland enhancement credit area? Priority 2 section along LBF Reach 3
is 582 feet. Adjacent wetland hydrology will be monitored, it should be noted that the existing LBF
channel will be filled in this section also.
44. Sheet PSH-07 & 08 (UT1 & UT2) – Please confirm that stream crediting does not start outside of the project
conservation easement. Stream crediting does not start outside the project conservation easement. Sheet
PSH-08 –
a. Please show NCDOT and utility right-of-way/easement lines. What is the setback distance from the
NCDOT culvert to the proposed conservation easement and beginning of stream credit? Is this distance
sufficient for potential future NCDOT culvert maintenance? The Conservation Easement has been
adjusted to provide +/-35’ of setback on both the upstream and downstream side of the NCDOT
culvert. A permanent drainage easement area has also been added to the plans for future
NCDOT culvert maintenance. Credit has been updated to begin at the transition from permanent
drainage easement to conservation area.
b. Please callout the roadway ditches that connect to UT1. During the IRT site walk, we discussed either
including these features in the easement or creating BMPs (see page 1 of the meeting minutes). Please
discuss how flow from these ditches will be stabilized and treated prior to entering the project stream.
Roadway ditches are contained and maintained within the NCDOT Right of way. These ditches
are vegetated and stable and will be maintained in their current location. Roadway ditches will
enter the project stream through the bank and scour hole stabilization detail which has key-ed in
stone adjacent to the culvert on Norman Shoaf.
45. Sheet PSH-10 –
a. Why is the buffer width so drastically reduced at the top 50-foot section of UT3? Can this buffer area be
expanded? Is there a different credit ratio proposed for this section? This portion of UT3 is not a
jurisdictional feature per the PJD. It was included as part of the project to capture the entire
channel but is not part of the credit length.
b. Other than for the headcut repair, is any bank grading proposed for stabilization and/or floodplain
connection along UT3? There is a section where UT3 ties in with UT4, this section is replacing an
existing pipe and providing connectivity between the two channels. Outside of these two areas,
no further grading is proposed for UT 3.
c. Since full buffer planting isn’t necessary and no stream work is shown for UT3 Reach 3, DWR believes
that a 3:1 ratio is more appropriate. Per comment, 11, by Kim Isenhour we are leaving the ratio at
2.5:1 since we are including Wetland 2.
46. Sheet PSH-11 – Related to the above DWR comment #42. Why is installation of a ditch network necessary? Is
there a concern about hydrologic trespass from the proposed wetland grading? How will this affect the
hydrology of the adjacent proposed wetland reestablishment area? Was this “outflow” included in the Wetbud
modelling? Discussion of new ditches within the easement needs to be added to Section 8.7. This proposed
ditch is a wetland conveyance and is designed to provide relief for the proposed wetland. Additionally,
it has a base width of 20 feet to provide shallow diffuse flow from the floodplain wetland to the stream
channel. The conveyance is designed to tie in at the LBF bankfull elevation with the use of brush toe to
provide bank stability. There isn’t a concern of hydrologic trespass from the proposed wetland grading,
there is adequate fall from the 30-inch pipe under Norman Shoaf Road to the proposed graded wetland.
This outfall was included in the Wetbud modelling. The access road contains a 30” pipe with a
dissipator pad to generate diffuse flow through the riparian buffer before the water enters the stream.
47. Sheet PLT-01 – Reforestation – DWR appreciates the proposed species diversity and that species quantities are
capped at 15 percent. Please update Table 16 to be consistent with this table (e.g., sugarberry, tag alder,
hackberry, hickory, white oak). Table 16 has been updated to be consistent with the PLT-01 Reforestation
sheet.
48. Sheet PLT-01 – Seeding – Please add the wetland indicator status to the seed mix species. Given the acreage of
wetland and vernal pool areas, please consider adding a few more wetter species to the mix or adding a separate
wetland/pool/floodplain seed mix. The indicator status has been added and the seed mixes are separated
into upland and wetland.
49. Sheet PLT-02 – Please note that all planting should occur by March 15th. Any late planting extension
requests need to be approved by the IRT and may involve a postponement of the MY1 monitoring period.
This note has been added to the planting notes.
50. Design Sheets – Please include an overall fencing concept plan with approximate locations of existing (to remain)
and proposed fencing. Please ensure there is adequate safe access points for regulatory agency and long-term
steward representatives to walk the site. Fencing plan has been added.
51. General design note – DWR encourages placement of woody debris within wetland and floodplain areas
as habitat enhancement. Comment noted.
52. DWR appreciates efforts made to enhance the proposed project including reducing the number of crossings,
enriching species diversity, and capturing stream origins where feasible. Comment appreciated.

Olivia Munzer, NCWRC:

1. In the permanent seed mix, I would like to see another species or two of flowering herbaceous species.
Permanent seed mix table has been updated. Additional species were added, and it was split into two
zones, wetland/floodplain depression and upland.
2. In the Planting Details, there is no differentiation between permanent seed mix between upland, wetland, or
riparian habitats. In the Streambank Reforestation Table, I recommend differentiating between species planted in
wetland vs. the streambank since certain species have different hydrologic tolerances. Permanent seed mix
table has been updated. Additional species were added, and it was split into two zones, wetland/floodplain
depression and upland. Zones were added to the reforestation table.
3. In the temporary riparian seed mix, we recommend not using Sudangrass. Sudangrass was removed.
4. Access Road to LBF Stream Crossing has a 30” HDPE. NCWRC does not prefer HDPE. Comment noted, a note
will be added to include supplemental material types will be based on availability.

Travis Wilson, NCWRC:

1. WRC prefers crossing to be included within the recorded conservation easements. Doing so helps to assure
those crossings will not be modified in the future without proper coordination or go unrepaired if damaged. The
60’ crossing over Little Brushy Fork will remain outside of the conservation easement. The crossings
over UT1 and UT3 will be inside the easement.
2. This system was predominately a sand bed system, at grade crossing are typically not appropriate for this
type of system unless there is underlying bedrock. Even with larger stone/boulders placed under the crossing
the substructure will be vulnerable to destabilizing with even moderate use by larger equipment or vehicles.
The at-grade stream crossings issue was discussed during a DMS site visit at a different project and
NCWRC staff expressed concerns about multiple piped stream crossings on large stream restoration
projects creating maintenance and stability issues as well as promoting over widening of the channel.
It was determined that at grade crossings for LBF and UT1 would be a better approach in the long
term. Eco Terra submitted a letter detailing this on May 11, 2021 and received IRT approval via an
email from Kim May 12, 2021. This letter also stated Travis Wilson, NCWRC agreed with the approach.
These correspondences are included in Appendix E. A similar size and scale project, Ellington
Branch, has performed well since installation in 2007. Due to the size of the watersheds, the required
approach works for culvert or spanning structure installation in the floodplain, long term
maintenance, and wash out potential, at-grade crossing provides a more conducive crossing design
for a stream restoration. This issue was discussed with Erin Davis and Kim Isenhour on June 22, 2022
and Travis Wilson on July 5, 2022. Kim and Erin deferred to Travis and his experience with crossings
in larger systems. The conclusion from the two phone calls is the at-grade crossings will remain.
Information to address the at-grade crossings is included in Appendix H: Project Risks and
Uncertainties.
3. UT 3 (approx. station 16) crossing shows the symbology for an at grade crossing but labels the crossing as a
culverted crossing. Please confirm. This symbology is representing the proposed stone on top of the
culverted crossing. Please see the Permanent culverted stream crossing detailed called out on the label
(PSH-02.j). The ford crossing symbology is different and is shown as block hatching to represent
boulders. See PSH-11 for an example of a ford crossing adjacent to road stone.

4. UT 1 (approx. station 30) crossing shows the symbology for an at grade crossing but does not indicate using the
(AG detail). Please confirm and see note #2. The at grade crossing is represented as a symbol and shown
in the plans legend. An AG label has been added to the at grade crossing to provide clarity.

5. LBF (approx. station 30+50) crossing shows the symbology for an at grade crossing but does not indicate using
the (AG detail). Please confirm and see note #2. The at grade crossing is represented as a symbol and
shown in the plans legend. An AG label has been added to the at grade crossing to provide clarity.

6. LBF (approx. station 30+50) access road: the 100-year floodplain at this location is approximately 300' wide. The
plans include an access road elevated across the floodplain for a length of over 200'. Looking at the detail (AR)
there will be one 30" pipe to pick drainage toward the toe of slope, the road will be elevated 2+ feet above the
natural floodplain elevation, and a berm will be constructed to further separate overbank flow from portions of the
floodplain. Placing an elevated road across the floodplain is counterproductive to stream and watershed
restoration efforts, specifically a causeway that is not vented to allow flood flow through the causeway and across
the majority of the floodplain. Furthermore, elevating the access road only to go
to an at grade crossing leads to the question are there already plans to improve this crossing in the future. Please
see note #1. An explanation should be provided for the design of the access road. The access road ties back in
with natural ground approximately 40 feet away from top of bank, as shown by the grading limits. The
intent of the road was to tie back to natural ground as soon as possible to minimize the amount of
elevated access road in the floodplain. Additional information has been added to the access road detail to
clarify this offset. Measurements show a +/-390’ 100-yr floodplain, and a +/-150’ section of elevated
roadway. The access road is required to be elevated to accommodate the 30” pipe. We are unaware of
any plans to improve this crossing in the future. We agree with this comment and minimized the length of
elevated access road to the greatest extent. This comment is also supportive of providing an at grade
crossing of LBF in the location as opposed to a culverted or spanned option over the creek due to having
to elevate the approaches to the crossing and blocking the floodplain.

Kim Browning, USACE:

1. Figure 4: Please add the following: Existing ditches/swales, existing crossing types, existing pre-data
groundwater gauges, property boundaries, NCSAM/WAM locations, existing stream conditions (i.e.,
incised, hoof shear, etc.). Added in the items to Figure 4A and created Figure 4B to how channel
stability.
2. Sheet PSH-05: It’s unclear why the confluence of UT4 and Little Brushy Fork extends approximately 150
feet downstream of the current confluence. I still question the need for parallel channels due to the ridge
between the two channels. I do not agree that the proposed locations are where the channels occurred
naturally. I think there is evidence that the system has been highly manipulated throughout the years, and
that the streams were likely straightened and relocated to the edges of the floodplain to accommodate
farming and agriculture, as is the case with many floodplain stream systems across the state. If you have
a reference stream system with similar characteristics that you feel justifies your approach, please let us
know so that we may reconsider our comments. I have a concern that this approach would actually
increase the risk of problems occurring with these two reaches, not only because there is more overall
length of channel to be concerned with, but also because one system would dominate the floodplain and
overwhelm the tributary with the smaller watershed. I would question whether the two channels can be
tied-in much further upstream. The confluence point of LBF and UT4 was driven by stream bed
elevations required to connect the streams, maintain stability, minimize boulder structures, and
maintain channel floodplain connectivity. The Project Site was designed to minimize the amount
of structure within the sand bed stream systems. The placement of drop structures in UT4 would
be required to connect LBF and UT4 earlier and would create a stability concern during larger
flooding events. Available historical data does not show original channel confluence.
3. Crossings: Crossings that are added for landowner access (e.g., cattle crossings, farm equipment
crossings, other maintenance roads or trails) should be located within the conservation easement.
These crossings are subject to the restrictions of the conservation easement and oversight by the long-
term steward. They must also be identified in the conservation easement description and/or map so that
the allowed activity (e.g., 60’ wide gravel path) and extents of the easement exception are clear. The 60’
crossing over Little Brushy Fork will remain outside of the conservation easement. The
crossings over UT1 and UT3 will be inside the easement.
4. Figure 9: Without a detailed soils report, we cannot agree to proposed wetland approaches or
ratios. Please submit the soils report, along with a map of the boring locations. Soils report is in
Appendix F.
5. Figure 10C:
a. An additional wetland gauge should be added to the re-establishment wetland (W4) near the
edge to help determine the limits of jurisdiction. There are three gauges in Wetland 4. One
is near the edge closest to Little Brushy Fork.
b. Since UT1 R2 is being raised to access the floodplain, do you not anticipate wetlands to
form adjacent to the channel? This may be an opportunity to add wetland creation, or even
additional re-establishment, depending on the soils report. Soils in this area were not
considered hydric or relic hydric. Wetlands may form but it is unclear what location
that will occur.
c. What does the label “Wetland 2 Field” mean? Is it currently a field? It should be labeled with the
proposed wetland restoration approach. Or simply label each wetland by number and use the
colors in the legend to differentiate functional uplift approach. Wetland 2 is described in the
narrative as being either pasture or successional. This describes that state of the
existing vegetation. Figures 9, 10A, and 10B have been updated to state pasture
instead of field. The symbology for both portions of Wetland 2 are enhancement.
d. I believe the label UT4 R2 should actually read UT3 R4. These are labeled correctly. UT4 R2
begins a little upstream of the confluence with UT3. UT3 R4 starts at the transition from EII to R
and continues to the confluence with UT4.
e. Please show random veg plot locations. Updated language in Section 10.5 to include 10
random vegetation plots. Figures 10B-10D still show 31 plots, showing random plots is not
feasible at this time. Random plots will not overlap from year to year.
6. Figure 10B:
a. The legend colors used for wetland enhancement at different ratios should remain consistent
throughout the document. This figure is different than Figure 9. Figure 9 symbology matches
Figures 10A-10D. Figures 10B-10D have the same symbology for stream and wetland
work.
b. How wide is the buffer at the top of UT3 R1? Is it possible to obtain the required 50’? The upper
most portion of UT3R1 is considered non-jurisdictional. This narrower easement captures
the headwater of the stream and is not for credit. This length has not been counted as
credit.
7. Figure 10D: Does Trib A originate in the easement, or continue off site? I think I recall this being a
larger, stable channel. Is this proposed for restoration only for the tie-in? This is only proposed as
restoration for the tie in to UT1. It is 293 linear feet and the restoration goes to a larger headcut.
a. A flow gauge should be placed in the upper 1/3 of UT2. The flow gauge has been moved
upstream on UT2, UT3, and UT5.
8. General design questions:
a. What is the purpose of the standard ditch networks being installed? This seems
counterproductive to wetland restoration. A ditch network is not proposed. This proposed
ditch is a wetland conveyance and is designed to provide relief for the proposed
wetland. Additionally, it has a base width of 20 feet to provide shallow diffuse flow from
the floodplain wetland to the stream channel. The conveyance is designed to tie in at
the LBF bankfull elevation with the use of brush toe to provide bank stability. There isn’t
a concern of hydrologic trespass from the proposed wetland grading, there is adequate
fall from the 30-inch pipe under Norman Shoaf Road to the proposed graded wetland.
This outfall was included in the Wetbud modelling. The access road contains a 30” pipe
with a dissipator pad to generate diffuse flow through the riparian buffer before the
water enters the stream.
b. Will the access path be within the conservation easement? This should be shown on Figures 9 and
10. Placing a road in the floodplain seems counterproductive to the intent of this project. No, the
access path will not be in conservation easement. This is shown on Figures 9 and 10. The
access road ties back in with natural ground approximately 40 feet away from top of bank,
as shown by the grading limits. The intent of the road was to tie back to natural ground as
soon as possible to minimize the amount of elevated access road in the floodplain.
Additional information has been added to the access road detail to clarify this offset.
Measurements show a +/-390’ 100-yr floodplain, and a +/-150’ section of elevated roadway.
The access road is required to be elevated to accommodate the 30” pipe. We are unaware
of any plans to improve this crossing in the future.
9. Figures: Please add figures for the following: Lidar, a watershed map that shows the drainage acres for
each reach, and show the location of the reference site on one of the figures. Drainage area and LiDAR
maps, Figures 11 and 12 have been added. The reference wetland is shown on Figure 4.
10. Page 5, Section 3.3: Additional information on existing vegetation should be provided. Added in additional
tree species.
11. UT3: At the IRT site visit we discussed a portion of UT3 only needing one side of the channel planted
and fencing, which would yield a 3.5:1 ratio for those areas already vegetated on one side. Since you
included wetland 2 in the easement, we are more amenable to the proposed ratios; however, the text
should include clear discussion on whether the entire buffer is being planted, or only one side, and
explain why there is no buffer at the top. In Section 3.4 added in description of UT3 above headcut
and distinction between the jurisdictional portion and non-jurisdictional portion. In Section 8.7.1
added in information about planting only on one side of UT3 for Reach 1, Reach 2, and portions
of Reach 3
12. UT4: At the IRT site visit you proposed enhancement II for about 420 linear feet. Restoration was not
discussed on this reach. Is the entire reach proposed for restoration on this parcel? It appears to be
outside the easement boundary on the JD map. Lastly, Table 3 does not contain information on this
reach; further justification for restoration on this reach should be provided. I also question whether UT4
and Little Brushy fork can be tied-in much further upstream in the floodplain. Parallel channels seem
unnecessary now since you are planning to capture the upper end of UT4. It seems like the channels
could be tied in above UT3 in the flood plain. Lidar would be helpful for this review. The confluence
point of LBF and UT4 was driven by stream bed elevations required to connect the streams,
maintain stability, minimize boulder structures, and maintain channel floodplain connectivity.
The Project Site was designed to minimize the amount of structure within the sand bed stream
systems. The placement of drop structures in UT4 would be required to connect LBF and UT4
earlier and would create a stability concern during larger flooding events. Available historical
data does not show original channel confluence.
13. Page 9: Please add the NCSAM summary table to this section. NCSAM/NCWAM was added to Table 2
per NCDWR comment.
14. Sections 5.0 & 5.6: The functional pyramid is cited to describe the functional uplift potential of the
project, which is fine; however, these principles of the Pyramid Framework are tied to the goals and
objectives of this mitigation plan. Additionally, the pyramid was designed as a functional assessment for
streams, not wetlands. The text states that it’s not practical or feasible to directly measure the
physiochemical or biological uplift, and that these benefits are assumed. It’s unclear why NCSAM and
NCWAM were not addressed in this section, nor were their functional assessments used to target areas
for functional uplift. This would be particularly beneficial for the wetlands on-site. The functional uplift
section was re-written to relate back to NCWAM and NCSAM. The pyramid discussion was
removed.
15. Section 5.3: Did you perform the SQT on this site? This section indicates that the streams are “not
functioning” according to the Simon Channel Evolution Model, which may be the case, but without
completing the SQT, it appears speculative that the streams will be restored to “functioning.” The
results from NCSAM/NCWAM should be used to help demonstrate the specific functional areas where
improvements may be made; however, these tools do not replace the need to conduct more thorough
assessments and measurements of existing conditions. Section 5.3 has been removed. The
functional uplift section was re-written to relate back to NCWAM and NCSAM. The pyramid
discussion was removed.
16. Sections 5.4 & 5.5: It should be stated that while physiochemical and biological uplift are implied, they
will not be directly measured. Added the uplifts are implied and will not be measured.
17. Section 5.7: The first sentence of this section states that this is an active cattle farm and crossings will
allow access to areas outside the easement. With proposed at-grade ford crossings, there is little
confidence that cattle will not affect the crossing, particularly with a sand-bed system. The use of culverts
in the system is preferable. Cattle will only be able to utilize the crossing during the changing of
outside of easement fields, cattle will be fenced and gated out of the crossing area at all other
times. The minimal usage of the crossing is unlikely to impact the stability and functionality of
the crossing. The use of culverts promotes risk of failure and wash out due to the size of the
watersheds, the use of culverts would also require elevated approaches to the streams in the
floodplain which is counterproductive for stream restoration. The future required channel and
road maintenance to maintain channel stability after flooding events is further risk of channel
degradation and contributes to proposed design of at-grade stream crossings for LBF and UT1.
Information to address the at-grade crossings is included in Appendix H: Project Risks and
Uncertainties.
18. Page 16, Table 5: the 404/401 have not yet been resolved. Please update table. Changed to No
19. Page 17: There is a No Effect list in this section for Schweinitz’s sunflower; however, Table 6 lists MA-
NLAA. Please confirm which is correct. Additionally, the survey was conducted in September 2020,
which is current for 2 years. If the 404 permit is not completed by September 2022, another survey,
during the appropriate season, will be required prior to issuing the 404 permit. Table has been
updated to “No Effect”. An additional survey will be completed if the permit is not completed
by September 2020.
20. Table 7: When submitting the ePCN, the impacts for crossings will need to be separated out from
the stream restoration lengths. Will Wetland 2 have temporary impacts for construction? Impacts
for crossings have been separated out. Wetland 2 shows some temporary construction
impacts.
21. Section 8.6.3 and 8.8: The updated version of Schafale and Weakley should be used; the Fourth
Approximation, dated March 2012. Please list some of the species found at the reference site. Updated
version to 2012 and change community classifications to match 4th Approximation.
22. Page 33, Section 8.6.4: A summary of existing groundwater gauge data for all wetlands should be
provided, as well as included in the appendix. This is especially important to show room for functional
uplift in Section 9.2. Table 13B has been added to include a summary of the existing gauge data.
23. Section 8.7.1: A lot of vernal pools appear to be planned. Are these your source of channel fill material?
These areas should be no deeper than 14 inches so that they dry seasonally, and not be so numerous
that they fragment the riparian buffer. Vernal pools have been renamed to floodplain depressions.
The maximum depth is 3-feet but will vary between them depending on site conditions. They will
be a contributing source for channel fill material. It is expected that these will fill with sediment
from overbank events over time and there is a possibility for them to become vernal pools. These
are not considered part of the wetland credits.
24. Section 8.7.1: I’m glad to see that mostly wood structures are proposed. Although there is some clay in
the banks, this sand bed system is risky to work in, from a stability standpoint, and rock will likely wash
out. Comment noted.
25. Page 36, Table 14: Please elaborate in the narrative on page 37 how you will fill two drainage ditches
while still allowing flow under Norman Shoaf Road. The flow from under the road should be directed
into the newly restored channel. The following explanation has been added to the table 14 ‘Two
existing drainage ditches will be filled while still allowing flow underneath Norman Shoaf
Road. to prevent hydrologic trespass. One ditch conveys flow from the adjacent hillside, while
the other ditch conveys flow from Norman Shoaf Road. The ditch conveying flow from the 30”
CMP under Norman Shoaf Road will begin to be filled at the proposed at grade crossing up to
an elevation slightly lower than the existing 30” CMP invert elevation. This will allow
continued flow under Norman Shoaf Rd. As shown in the wetland grading plan, the flow will
be directed toward the re-established wetland and eventually to the restored LBF channel.
A. What is the likelihood that the adjacent fields will become too wet with the increased overbank
flow? A contingency for the adjacent landowner constructing ditches adjacent to the easement
should be added to the risks and uncertainties sections. Added section in Appendix H to cover
potential wetness is adjacent fields.
26. Page 37, Section 8.8: Soil compaction is a concern, especially in areas of old haul roads and livestock
feeding areas, as these areas can take much longer to recover a typical wetland soil profile, which
increases the temporal lag for functional replacement. Pasture grass eradication is recommended to
alleviate vegetation establishment competition. Soil treatment details have been included in Section
8.8 and is addressed within the Sediment and Erosion Control plans. Disturbed areas will be
tilled or ripped to a minimum depth of 4 inches and lime and fertilizer shall be applied according
to soil tests.
27. Table 16 and Sheet PLT-01 do not match. Tag alder was omitted from Table 16 for the low stream zone
and several inconsistencies occur with the upland zone. Tables have been updated.
28. Section 9.0: Please remove the sentence about termination of monitoring after five years.
Particularly with wetlands, monitoring will be required for 7 years. Changed to seven years of
monitoring.
29. Section 9.1.4: The bankfull standard applies to all restored stream channels, perennial and intermittent.
Updated to include all restoration reaches, perennial and intermittent.
30. Section 9.1.4: The 30-day metric was established to show success in the Coastal Plain Headwater
guidance and was not intended to demonstrate success for intermittent
flow. Intermittent streams only dry seasonally and therefore should have flow or the presence of water for
periods much longer than 30 days. It is recommended that cameras are also used to monitor flow for both
consecutive days and cumulative days, if flow is questionable. A camera will be used as supplemental
data if flow data is not providing reliable flow regime.
31. Section 9.3:
a. The vegetative performance standards apply to the entire conservation easement,
not just the first 50-feet from top of bank. Updated to say planted areas instead of
50-feet from top of bank.
b. The veg height average should be stated as 7 feet at year 5 and 10 feet at year 7. Updated to
state seven feet after five years and 10 feet after seven years.
c. The vigor/height standard will apply to all vegetation on site. Since all the wetlands are
proposed to be planted as bottomland hardwoods, they are expected to be composed of
hardwood species. We welcome the inclusion of herbaceous and shrub layers as well. Please
remove the statement “except for forested wetlands.” Table 14 states that you will
supplementally plant the successional wetland. Updated to say all planted areas.
d. If you intend for any of the wetlands to be more herbaceous or shrub/scrub, please propose a
separate performance standard for those areas; for example, composed of at least 4 species
with no one species comprising more than 50% of the total stems. No wetlands are intended
to be herbaceous or shrub/scrub.
32. Table 17:
a. The four bankfulls should be in separate years on all restored channels. Updated to say in
separate years on all restoration reaches.
b. The final survival rate of 210 stems/ac after 7 years. Updated to seven years.
33. Section 10.3: We would recommend downloading wetland hydrology data at least quarterly, as
we’ve experienced many gauge failures and lost data due to lack of knowledge that the gauges
malfunctioned. Updated to quarterly.
34. Section 11.0, Long-Term Management: A signed obligation letter from Southern Conservation Trust
should be included in the appendix, which directly references this project and the endowment required
for long-term management. A letter from Southern Conservation Trust in Appendix A.
35. Table 18:
a. Does Southern Conservation Trust intend to install the fence along the easement boundary and
at crossings? If so, fence expenditures should be included in the funding amount. The fence will
be outside of the conservation easement and the responsibility of the landowner.
b. Inspection of the integrity of crossings should also be included, as well as encroachment
review and signage replacement. Added language about inspection of crossing
integrity, easement encroachment and if new signs are needed.
36. Table 19: This table should be broken down to include specific line-item expenditures for:
a. Annual Monitoring: including staff time to prepare file review, travel time, on-site time, post visit
report time, staff time needed for minor violations, mileage, meal costs, travel costs, and
inflation. If fence removal or installation are anticipated activities, these costs should be
included, which will significantly increase the endowment amount. If trash removal is
anticipated, a cost should be associated with that. The Southern Conservation Trust
includes these as a lump sum. A note has been added to the table. An updated letter will
be requested to match the sum of $46,600 instead of the original $38,000.
b.Accepting and Defending the Easement in Perpetuity:
i.Aside from addressing minor violations, the cost for major violations should be
significantly increased. The cost has been increased to $11,600.
ii.Staff time for major violations should be included (approx. 80 hours). Staff time of 80
hours has been added to the major violations.
iii.Legal counsel of at least $10,000. Legal counsel cost of $10,000 has been added.
iv.Sign replacement and other incidentals should be added. Sign replacement and
incidentals has been added to Table 19.
v.Stewardship complexities if more than one owner. I would suggest this be added unless
the easement will have a subdivision clause. There is only one landowner.
37.Section 13.0: What percent of the buffers are less than 50’? Also, the actual mitigation approach should
be listed (e.g., restoration, enhancement, etc.) rather than RE. Tables 20 and 21 have been updated to
remove RE. The percent of the stream with less than 50 foot buffer is 0.3%. UT1 has 11-feet on
the right bank near the upstream end of the project that is a little under 50-feet from top of bank.
UT2 has 19-feet on the left bank where the new Permanent Drainage Easement (PDE) begins that
is less than 50-feet from top of bank. This area has been removed from the credit length.
38.Table 22, page 48: The acres and ratio are missing/incorrect for Wetland 2 (successional)
and wetland 3 (enhancement). Updated Wetland 2 from 5:1 to 7.5:1. Added in the
restoration acreage, 1.90, and the ratio, 5:1, for Wetland 3 Successional.
39.Section 14.0: Please reference Appendix I for the financial assurance breakdown. Included reference to
Appendix I.
40.Appendix I: Is the MY-0 report included in the first line item for Monitoring Costs? Does the maintenance
and contingency include supplemental planting and/or repairs? Appendix I is now Appendix J. Yes,
the costs shown in Appendix J include MY-0 report, and supplemental planting and/or repairs.
41.Appendix G: Thank you for including this section. We welcome this inclusion of site- specific risks
and uncertainties in future submittals. Comment appreciated.
42.Why is the crossing on LBF 85’ wide? Crossing has been reduced to 60’ wide.
43.Please confirm that the stream crossings lengths are not credit generating. Table 21 has a footnote
stating restoration footage “lengths end at TOB of receiving waters”.
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank
Mitigation Plan
Davidson County, North Carolina
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040103
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-02341
Bank Sponsor: Three Creeks Mitigation, LLC
Prepared By: Eco Terra, LLC and Three Creeks Mitigation, LLC with assistance from VHB
Engineering NC, P.C.
March 2024

Draft Mitigation Plan
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank
Davidson County, NC
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040103
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-02341

Prepared By:

Three Creeks Mitigation, LLC
111 Main Avenue Brookings, SD 57006
919.632.5910
VHB Engineering N C, P.C.
940 Main Campus Dr. Ste. 500 Raleigh, NC 27606 919.754.5019
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.08 paragraphs (c)(2) through
©(14).

Contributing Staff:
Adam McIntyre, Co-Project Manager and Principle in Charge, Three Creeks Mitigation, LLC
Norton Webster, Co-Project Manager, Eco Terra
Heather Smith, LSS, Project Manager/Natural Resources, VHB
Reid Robol, P.E., Lead Designer, VHB
Miranda Salzler, P.E., Designer/FEMA Compliance, VHB
Jenny Fleming, P.E., Design QA/QC, VHB
Lane Sauls, QA/QC, VHB
Executive Summary
Three Creeks Mitigation, LLC, the bank sponsor, is proposing a stream and wetland mitigation
bank, Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank, in the Yadkin River Basin. Figure 1 shows the Site
location. This project will enhance and restore Little Brushy Fork and five of its tributaries and
restore and enhance five wetlands. The work completed by this project will offset unavoidable
impacts to Waters of the United States in the service area of hydrologic unit (HUC) 03040103.

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection ........................................................................................... 1
2.1 Subbasin ............................................................................................................................................ 2
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions........................................................................................................ 3
3.1 Landscape Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 3
3.1.1 Physiography and Topography ............................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Existing Vegetation .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Project Resources ............................................................................................................................. 5
4.0 Watershed and Channel Disturbance Response ............................................................................ 11
5.0 Functional Uplift Potential ................................................................................................................. 12
5.1 Overall Functional Uplift Potential ............................................................................................... 12
5.2 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift ............................................................................................ 12
6.0 Regulatory Considerations ................................................................................................................ 13
6.1 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 13
6.2 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 14
6.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance ....................................................................................................... 14
6.4 Section 401/404 .............................................................................................................................. 15
7.0 Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................................... s16
8.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan .................................................................................. 17
8.1 Design Approach Overview ........................................................................................................... 17
8.2 Reference Streams .......................................................................................................................... 18
8.2.1 UT to Little Brushy Fork .......................................................................................................... 19
8.2.2 North Prong Creek .................................................................................................................. 19
8.2.3 Lake Norman Group Camp Upstream .................................................................................. 19
8.2.4 UT to Lyle Creek ....................................................................................................................... 19
8.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 20
8.4 Bankfull Discharge Analysis ........................................................................................................... 20
8.4.1 Published Regional Curve Data ............................................................................................. 21
8.4.2 Continuity Equation and Velocity Comparison Analysis .................................................... 21
8.4.3 Existing Bankfull Indicators (Manning’s Equation) .............................................................. 22
8.4.4 Design Discharge Analysis Summary .................................................................................... 22
8.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ........................................................................................................ 23
8.5.1 Sediment Supply ..................................................................................................................... 23
8.5.2 Competence and Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................... 24
8.6 Wetland Design .............................................................................................................................. 27
8.6.1 Wetland Design Overview ...................................................................................................... 27
8.6.2 Hydric Soils within Wetland Restoration/Enhancement Areas .......................................... 27
8.6.3 Reference Wetland .................................................................................................................. 28
8.6.4 Hydrologic Modeling .............................................................................................................. 28
8.7 Project Implementation ................................................................................................................. 30
8.7.1 Stream Restoration and Enhancement ................................................................................. 30
8.7.2 Wetland Mitigation Activities ................................................................................................ 31
8.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan ....................................................................................................... 33
8.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties ...................................................................................................... 34
8.10 Proposed Crossings ..................................................................................................................... 35
9.0 Performance Standards ..................................................................................................................... 35
9.1 Streams ............................................................................................................................................ 35
9.1.1 Dimension ................................................................................................................................ 35
9.1.2 Pattern and Profile .................................................................................................................. 36
9.1.3 Photo Documentation ............................................................................................................ 36
9.1.4 Bankfull Events ......................................................................................................................... 36
9.2 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 36
9.3 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 37
9.4 Visual Assessments ........................................................................................................................ 37
10.0 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................................................ 37
10.1 As-Built Survey .............................................................................................................................. 39
10.2 Visual Monitoring ......................................................................................................................... 39
10.3 Hydrology Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 39
10.4 Cross Sections ............................................................................................................................... 39
10.5 Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 40
10.6 Scheduling and Reporting .......................................................................................................... 40
11.0 Long-Term Management Plan........................................................................................................ 40
11.1 Ownership and Long-Term Manager ........................................................................................ 40
11.2 Long-Term Management Activities ........................................................................................... 40
11.3 Funding Mechanism .................................................................................................................... 41
12.0 Adaptive Management Plan ........................................................................................................... 42
13.0 Determination of Credits ................................................................................................................. 43
14.0 Financial Assurances ........................................................................................................................ 44
15.0 References ......................................................................................................................................... 46

Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Service Area
Figure 3. Anticipated NCDOT Projects for Fiscal Years 2020 – 2029 in Yadkin 03
Figure 4A. Existing Conditions
Figure 4B. Existing Conditions- Channel Stability
Figure 5. USGS Topographic Map
Figure 6. NRCS Soil Survey
Figure 7A. 1955 Historical Aerial Overview
Figure 7B. 1955 Historical Aerial Zoom
Figure 8. FEMA Mapped Areas Figure 9. Mitigation Areas Figure 10A. Monitoring Plan Overview Figure 10B. Monitoring Plan Figure 10C. Monitoring Plan Figure 10D. Monitoring Plan Figure 11. Drainage Area Map Figure 12. LiDAR Map Figure 13. Powerline Easement along UT2

Tables
Table 1. General Project Information
Table 2. Project Resources Existing Conditions
Table 3. Project Attribute Table
Table 4. Summary of NCWAM Scores
Table 5. Regulatory Considerations Table 6. Federally Protected Species Potentially Occurring in Davidson County Table 7. Estimated Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources Table 8. Mitigation Goals and Objectives Table 9. Stream Reference Data Utilized for Design Development Table 10. Select Proposed Morphological Parameters Table 11. Stream Design Discharge Analysis Summary Table 12. Results of Competence Analysis Table 13A. Water Budget Analysis of Wetland 4
Table 13B. Existing Groundwater Gauge Data
Table 14. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Activities and Credit Ratios
Table 15. Wetland Mitigation Units
Table 16. Proposed Planting Plan
Table 17. Monitoring Plan
Table 18. Long-Term Management Plan
Table 19. Management Funding
Table 20. Project Assets Summary
Table 21. Stream Assets
Table 22. Wetland Assets
Table 23. Reduction of Penal Sum
Appendices
Appendix A. Conservation Easement Information
Appendix B. USACE Wetland Data Forms and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix C. NCDWR Stream Classification, NCWAM, and NCSAM Forms
Appendix D. 60% Design Plans
Appendix E. IRT, USFWS, NCWRC, SHPO Correspondence, and Approved CLOMR Letter
Appendix F. Soils Report
Appendix G. Wetland Hydrologic Modeling Charts
Appendix H. Project Risk and Uncertainties
Appendix I. Credit Release Schedule and Southern Conservation Trust Letter
Appendix J. Financial Assurance

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Site Description
The Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Project Site or Site) is
located in Davidson County, approximately four miles south of Winston-Salem near the
community of Midway (Figure 1). The center latitude and longitude are 35.970173 and
-80.197086. It is part of the Yadkin River Basin within 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03040103030010 and NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Subbasin 03-07-07. The Project
Site was ultimately selected based on its potential for functional uplift opportunities to existing
impaired streams and wetland resources resulting from previous and current land use activities.
The project will provide a combination of stream and wetland mitigation credits in the Yadkin
River Basin 8-digit Cataloging Unit 03040103 (a.k.a. Yadkin 03). Stream attributes include the
restoration of approximately 8,939 linear feet (lf) and enhancement of 729 lf of stream channel.
The combined restoration and enhancement activities will generate a total of 8,695 Stream
Mitigation Units (SMUs). In addition, wetland attributes include the rehabilitation of 1.41 acres
of degraded wetland areas, re-establishment of 2.31 acres, and the enhancement of 2.70 acres
of riparian wetlands. Wetland restoration and enhancement activities will generate 3.80
Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs). The Site will be protected in perpetuity by a 41.13-acre
conservation easement, which is provided in Appendix A.
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The NC Office of State Budget and Management (2021) predicts that the counties within the
Yadkin 03 Cataloging Unit (CU) will see a population increase between 0.9% and 8.4% over the
next 10 years (2020-2030). The Office also predicts that the three most populous counties in the
Unit will witness an 8% or greater increase. This increase in population will increase
development pressures, conversion of land use, and increased need for transportation
infrastructure, all demanding a need for stream and wetland mitigation in this CU. The
Mitigation Bank will help to offset unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional resources in this area.
The Site’s service area is the Yadkin 03 watershed (Figure 2).
Potential customers for the Bank include, but are not limited to commercial and residential
developers, county governments and local municipalities, and the NC Department of
Transportation (NCDOT). The Yadkin 03 watershed incorporates parts of the Winston-Salem, NC
Metropolitan Statistical Area, including the cities of Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point.
Additional cities and towns within the CU are Lexington, Thomasville, Kernersville, Asheboro,
Salisbury, and several other smaller municipalities. Figure 3 illustrates anticipated NCDOT
projects for Fiscal Years 2020-2029 in the Cataloging Unit.

Abbotts Creek and the Lexington-Thomasville Water Supply Reservoir, classified as WS-III and
WS-III/CA, respectively, are receiving waters located downstream of the Site. They are both
identified on the 2018 303(d) list as Impaired for chlorophyll a. This Site currently serves as a
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 2
source of nutrients from ongoing livestock operations adjacent to multiple unbuffered streams,
as well as a source of sediment from the actively eroding stream banks. Section 5.4 discusses
the nutrient removal benefits with project implementation. Reducing nutrient and sediment
inputs at one of the sources will ultimately help to ameliorate the increased presence of
chlorophyll a in the downstream drinking water. Protecting these sources of drinking water
within the greater Yadkin 03 area is imperative for economics and growth and critical for the
environment.
2.1 Subbasin
The project is within the NCDWR Subbasin 03-07-07. The Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Plan (RBP)
serves as the watershed plan for this Subbasin. According to data provided in the Plan (2003),
this subbasin is the most developed in the basin. Based on recent 2018 aerials of the watershed,
the Project Site consists of approximately 40% agricultural, 40% forested, and 15% developed
lands. The remaining 5% is classified as impervious area.
The NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDWQ) Yadkin River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan (RBWQP) (2008) rates Abbotts Creek as Impaired, with stormwater runoff serving as the
main contributing source. Additional impairments listed are habitat degradation, turbidity, fecal
coliform, and nutrient enrichment. The Plan also states that soils within the Abbotts Creek
watershed are susceptible to erosion and provide increased sediment downstream. The Site
contributes nutrients and sediment due to its approximately 80 head of cattle and the lack of
exclusion fencing along the stream corridors.
The NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) (2009)
further describes the 03040103 CU in detail as having multiple impaired streams. Its stated
goals for the watershed are:
• continuation of watershed improvements;
• protection of wildlife resources;
• improved management of stormwater runoff to these waters; and,
• mitigation of impacts resulting from urbanization in the area.
The Site supports all four of the recommended goals. It was selected for the opportunity to
restore/enhance approximately two miles of stream channel, restrict livestock access to streams,
restore/enhance riparian wetlands, and provide functional uplift upstream of a designated
impaired drinking water source.
Agricultural and forestry practices are two of the known stressors within the local watershed.
These activities contribute nutrients, fecal coliform, and increased sediment to receiving waters.
Project implementation will provide numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin River Basin.
Project benefits range from Site specific aquatic and terrestrial habitat improvements to those
that extend beyond the immediate area and improve water quality in the river basin, including
reduction of nutrient and sediment loads.
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 3
Stream and wetland restoration/enhancement activities will address the stressors identified in
the RBWQP by stabilizing stream banks, removing cattle access to wetlands and streams, and
planting forested riparian buffers. The project will increase retention times, reduce surface water
temperatures, and increase floodplain connectivity. The reduction of downstream nutrient and
sediment loads will also help to reduce the production of chlorophyll a.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
Table 1 summarizes watershed attributes associated with the Site. The existing conditions of the
watershed (Figure 4) and watershed processes, including watershed disturbance and response
are described in the following sections. Existing conditions photos are provided in Appendix B.
Table 1: General Project Information
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Ecoregion Ecoregion 45b-Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin River
USGS HUC (8-digit, 14-digit) 03040103, 03040103030010
NCDWR Sub-basin 03-07-07
Project Drainage Area 4.2 sq. mi. (measured from downstream end at project terminus)
Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious Area 5%
CGIA Land Use Classification 40% forested, 40% agriculture, 15% developed,
5% impervious

3.1 Landscape Characteristics
3.1.1 Physiography and Topography
The Site is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. Project
implementation will address six total stream channels: Little Brushy Fork and five of its unnamed
tributaries (UTs). For the context of this document and the construction drawings, the tributaries
have been labeled UT1 through UT5. Figure 4 depicts their locations, as well as other existing
Site conditions.
Topography at and surrounding the Project Site is characterized as gently rolling with medium
sized floodplains (Figure 5). Little Brushy Fork, UT1, UT4, and UT5 are part of a wide valley
traversing in a southerly direction and ranging in width between 250 and 350 feet. Average
slopes associated with the valley range between 0.18% and 0.70%. UT2 and UT3 are associated
with steeper valleys, with widths ranging between 50 and 150 feet. Channel slopes average
1.5% to 4.9%, respectively.
Five wetland areas, labeled as Wetlands 1 through 5 are part of the overall project. Wetlands 1,
3, 4, and 5 are all associated with the floodplain of Little Brushy Fork. These riparian wetlands
receive overbank flooding, surface runoff from the surrounding landscape, and groundwater
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 4
infiltration. Wetland 2 is a headwater wetland situated along the upper portion of UT3 near its
transition point from an ephemeral to an intermittent stream channel.
3.1.2 Geology and Soils
The Site is located in a portion of the Piedmont known as the Charlotte Belt (NCGS, 1985). The
rocks in this region are primarily granite and gabbroic plutons and range in age from 735 million
to 235 million years old. The Charlotte Belt contains highly altered mafic intrusive rocks formed
by ocean crust, including gabbro, amphibolite, serpentine, and greenstone metabasalt. Streams
in the Charlotte belt have intermittent baseflow throughout the year. A study by Guise and
Mason (1993) states that the Charlotte Belt in the western Piedmont has an “intermediate
potential for sustaining base flow to streams.” Little Brushy Fork and UT1 appear to have
consistent baseflow due to the larger drainage area for these systems, while UT2, UT3, UT4, and
UT5 all appear to experience intermittent flow periods during the summer months, as witnessed
during Site visits.
Chewacla loam dominates the floodplain along Little Brushy Fork and UT1 (Figure 6). This soil
frequently floods and is classified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as
somewhat poorly drained with a depth greater than 80 inches. The depth to bedrock provides
no natural grade control in the streambed, allowing the streams to degrade and incise according
to current flow regimes and patterns. The degradation and incision will likely continue until the
channels reach bedrock or a manmade barrier, which is not likely to occur within the foreseeable
future.
Little Brushy Fork, UT1, and UT4 exhibit excess sand that masks natural bedform substrate
diversity. UT2, UT3, and UT5 are dominated by a clay streambed with small amounts of gravel
throughout.
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover
Land Use activities associated with the Project Site center around livestock management,
particularly cattle farming. The open fields serve as both pasture for livestock and associated
hay production. Cattle have non-restricted access to all streams and wetland areas. They are
periodically rotated between pastures to ensure good vegetative cover in the fields.
As previously noted, the watershed is approximately 40% forested, 40% agriculture, and 15%
developed. The most common historical and current land uses in the watershed appear to be
agriculture and rural development. A review of historic aerials shows that the Site has been in
agricultural production in the existing configuration since at least 1964 (Figure 7). This
consistency in land use within the project watershed over the past 57 years indicates that
watershed processes affecting hydrology, sediment supply, and nutrient and pollutant delivery
have not varied widely over time.
The Davidson County Land Development Plan projects a 9.2% increase in the population from
2020 to 2030. The project area has seen a 20%-23% increase in population since 1995. This
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 5
area is expected to continue to experience population growth with continued agricultural land
use. No NCDOT projects proposed in the 2020-2029 STIP are located in the project vicinity
(Figure 3), and NCDOT specifically confirmed this for the pipe on UT1 underneath Norman Shoaf
Road.
3.3 Existing Vegetation
Pasture Areas
The growth of native vegetation is highly restricted due to periodic and ongoing maintenance as
pasture lands. Vegetation within these areas is limited to a mix of grasses, sedges, and rushes.
The jurisdictional wetland areas in these pastures exhibit common vegetative species such as
soft rush (Juncus effusus), various sedges, lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), arrowhead (Sagittaria
latifolia), lady’s thumb (Polygonum persicaria), and spike rush (Eleocharis spp.). Scattered canopy
trees exist along portions of Little Brushy Fork and all five tributaries. Canopy species include
white oak (Quercus alba), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum),
and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Successional Areas Successional vegetation was observed in and around Wetlands 2 and 3. Common species observed were black willow (Salix nigra), water oak (Quercus nigra), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), soft rush, arrowhead, lady’s thumb, and nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). The vegetation in these areas does not have a canopy stratum and evidence of disturbance by cattle is present.

3.4 Project Resources
Jurisdictional areas were delineated using the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On-
Site Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual and the Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement. Potential
jurisdictional wetlands and typical uplands were classified using the USACE Wetland
Determination Data Form. Evaluation methods also utilized the NCDWR Stream Identification
Form. Locations of jurisdictional waters of the US (WOTUS) boundaries were surveyed for
inclusion on plans and figures.
Six jurisdictional stream channels (Little Brushy Fork, UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5) and five
wetland areas (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) comprise the attributes at the Project Site. USACE Wetland
Determination Data Forms and the issued Preliminary Jurisdictional determination (USACE
Action ID No. SAW-2019-02341) are provided in Appendix B. According to the NCDWR Stream
Form classification method, Little Brushy Fork, UT1, and UT4 meet the requirements of perennial
stream types while UT2, UT3, and UT5 are considered intermittent. Stream Identification Forms
are provided in Appendix C. Table 2 provides a summary of water resources within the Project
Site and Table 3 provides Project attributes. Reach specific cross sections and geomorphic
summaries are provided in Appendix D.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 6
Table 2: Project Resources Existing Conditions
Stream
Reach
Length (lf)
/Area (ac)
Stream/Wetland
Type
NCSAM/
NCWAM Score
DWR
Stream Score Existing Condition Impairment
Little Brushy Fork (LBF) 3,043 lf Perennial Low 41.5
Incised, streambank scouring, mass
wasting, lack of bedform, lack of riparian vegetation, and direct
livestock access.
UT1 2,906 lf Perennial Low 41.0
Incised, streambank scouring, mass
wasting, lack of bedform, lack of bedform diversity, lack of riparian vegetation, and direct livestock
access.
UT2 325 lf Intermittent Low 27.5
Incised, lack of riparian vegetation,
direct livestock access, lack of bedform diversity, and active
headcuts.
UT3 804 lf Intermittent Low 26.25
Incised, lack of riparian vegetation,
direct livestock access, and active headcuts.
UT4 1,101 lf Perennial Low 30.25
Lack of bedform diversity, lack of
riparian vegetation, and direct livestock access.
UT5^ 0 lf Intermittent Low 26.0 Stream is piped.
Wetland 1 1.41 Riparian Low N/A
Altered wetland hydrology, lack of
mature forested vegetation, direct livestock access.
Wetland 2 (successional) 0.62 Riparian Medium N/A Lack of mature forested vegetation, direct livestock access.
Wetland 2 (pasture) 0.18 Riparian Low N/A Lack of mature forested vegetation, direct livestock access.
Wetland 3 1.90 Riparian Medium N/A Lack of mature forested vegetation, direct livestock access.
Wetland 4* 0 Riparian N/A N/A
Lack of wetland hydrology, lack of
mature forested vegetation, direct livestock access.
Wetland 5* 0 Riparian N/A N/A Lack of wetland hydrology, lack of mature forested vegetation, direct
livestock access.
^Piped stream, * Currently considered non-jurisdictional

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 7
Table 3: Project Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameter LBF Reach 1 LBF Reach 2 LBF Reach 3 UT1 Reach 1
Existing Length of Reach (lf) 1,431 1,019 593 1,135
Valley Confinement Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined
Drainage Area (acres) 887 1,127 2,687 434
Stream Flow Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-III
Stream Classification Existing/Proposed1 G5/C5 Unstable G5/E5 to C5 G5/C5 G5/E5
Evolutionary Trend (Simon)1 III: Degrading V: Aggrading & Widening
V: Aggrading & Widening III: Degrading
FEMA Classification Zone AE
Parameter UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach
2a UT2 UT3 Reach 1
Existing Length of Reach (lf) 1,513 259 325 142
Valley Confinement Unconfined Unconfined Confined Confined
Drainage Area (acres) 1,542 15 46
Stream Flow Perennial Perennial Intermittent Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-III
Stream Classification Existing/Proposed G5/E5 G5/E5 G5/E5 C5/C5
Evolutionary Trend (Simon) III: Degrading V: Aggrading
& Widening N/A
FEMA Classification Zone AE Zone AE Not Mapped Not Mapped
Parameter UT3 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 3 UT3 Reach 4 UT4 Reach 1/2 UT5^
Existing Length of Reach (lf) 100 526 35 1,101 0
Valley Confinement Moderately Confined Confined Unconfined Unconfined
Drainage Area (acres) 46 205 13
Stream Flow Intermittent Perennial Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-III
Stream Classification Existing/Proposed2 G5/C5 C5/C5 G5/C5 G5/C5 C5/C5
Evolutionary Trend (Simon)1
IV: Degradation and
Widening
N/A N/A (piped) II: Channelized N/A (piped)
FEMA Classification Not Mapped Zone AE (flooding source LBF)
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 8
Table 3: Project Attribute Table (cont.)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameter Wetland 1 Wetland 2* Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Wetland 5
Size of Wetland (acres) 1.41 0.62 0.18 1.90 N/A N/A
Wetland Type Riparian
Mapped Soil Series Chewacla
Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Groundwater and overbank events
Approach Restoration (Rehabilitation) Enhancement Restoration (Re-establishment)
^Information is based on natural upstream portion of UT5, *Wetland 2 has two distinct areas, successional (0.62 acres) and pasture (0.18 acres)
Little Brushy Fork (LBF) Little Brushy Fork originates approximately two miles northeast of the Site near the intersection of Gumtree and Old Thomasville Roads. This perennial channel enters the Site through two 8.5’ x 6’ corrugated metal arch pipes underneath SR 1719 (Tom Livengood Road) and flows southward converging with the waters associated with UT4, then UT1, and ultimately towards the downstream terminus of the Project. Its floodplain is moderately sized as compared with other nearby streams. The double pipes at Tom Livengood Road are perched nearly three feet above the existing stream bed. Channel incision, active erosion, vertical streambanks, and other
characteristic signs of instability are common along this channel. Stream incision becomes less
evident downstream of the confluence with UT4, as the valley slope decreases. Bank heights
along LBF decrease in vertical height as the channel converges with UT4; however, they remain
vertical on both sides for the remaining extent on Site. Valley slopes decrease from 0.64% to
0.39% as LBF transitions across the Site, although erosion along LBF is common and appears to
increase in amount and frequency as the watershed size increases. Riparian vegetation is sparse
along the channel, especially in the areas near the upstream pipes, middle portion, and lower
portion along the right stream bank facing downstream. Trees and shrubs exist within the
buffer areas, but their overall extent is very limited. Mass wasting was observed downstream of
the confluences with both UT4 and UT1, and the sand bed channel exhibits little bedform
diversity, consisting primarily of riffle/run sequences throughout its length across the Project
Site. The channel pattern associated with LBF is reminiscent of similar type streams that have been straightened in the past.
Unnamed Tributary 1 (UT1)

UT1 is a perennial channel that originates approximately one mile northwest of the Site at the
outfall associated with a 2.5-acre private pond. UT1 enters the Site from the northwest via a forested corridor. The channel is incised, and mass wasting is obvious along both stream banks. Bank height ratios range from 1.3 to 2.1. Little to no riparian vegetation exists along this channel upstream of SR 1715 (Norman Shoaf Road). Near the road crossing, UT1 converges
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 9
with another unnamed tributary from the west and riparian vegetation associated with this
channel continues along the right stream bank to the single 8.5’ x 6.0’ corrugated metal arch
pipe under Norman Shoaf Road. UT1 is joined by UT2 approximately 75 feet downstream of the road crossing. At this point, the riparian corridor associated with UT1 has poor vegetative density and composition. The valley slope downstream of the road is 0.52%. No bedform diversity was observed throughout the entire length of this sand-bed channel. Unnamed Tributary 2 (UT2) UT2 is an intermittent channel that originates 350 feet south of the Site along Norman Shoaf Road. This tributary enters the Site via a perched, single corrugated metal pipe underneath a
private access road. The pipe is perched nearly six feet above the existing stream bed. UT2 is
incised, with bank height ratios averaging 4.7. There is no floodplain connection in its current
position or state. Erosion is obvious along the length of the channel and the valley slope is
relatively steep, at 2.7%. This slope decreases once UT2 enters the floodplain associated with
UT1. Minimal bedform diversity was observed along this channel, consisting mainly of sand with
small amounts of gravel. Riparian vegetation is limited to a single line of trees along the
streambanks with sparse shrubs in the understory.

Unnamed Tributary 3 (UT3)

UT3 is an intermittent channel that originates within the conservation easement area. The
tributary is associated with a small watershed that is along the east side of the Project Site. A
non-jurisdictional channel begins at the conservation easement at the head of UT3 and
continues for approximately 58 linear feet before the channel becomes a jurisdictional,
intermittent stream. This upstream, non-jurisdictional reach was included in the project to
capture an additional portion of the watershed, but has a limited buffer, 25 feet in width. As the
channel transitions to a jurisdictional feature, there is an existing wetland (Wetland 2) on the left
bank. A very deep headcut (greater than 6 feet in height) currently exists 178 linear feet downstream from the start of the jurisdictional channel. This headcut will continue its progress upstream until it reaches a controlling factor or human intervention is employed. As a result, mass wasting and bank erosion are significant through this reach. Further downstream the channel splays into the floodplain of UT4 and LBF. This stream also lacks bedform diversity and sand dominates the majority of the reach. Unnamed Tributary 4 (UT4)
UT4 is a perennial channel that originates approximately one-half mile northeast of the Site at
the confluence of three smaller tributaries. UT4 enters the Site via a 12-inch corrugated plastic
pipe under a farm road. Once in the conservation easement area, its floodplain transitions with
the LBF floodplain. Based on observations and its general location within the larger floodplain,
this channel has been relocated in the past. It is currently positioned along the valley edge and
was likely relocated in order to provide a larger farming area between UT4 and LBF. This stream
exhibits little to no bedform diversity, and sand dominates the sediment supply. Riparian
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 10
vegetation is very limited, consisting of a single row of trees along the adjacent banks. UT4
converges with UT3 approximately 750 feet downstream of the pipe. The channel then flows a
short distance and empties into Little Brushy Fork. Unnamed Tributary 5 (UT5) UT5 is an intermittent channel that originates near the southeast corner of the Site outside of the conservation easement area. The riparian corridor associated with UT5 is forested throughout its length to LBF. The lower extent of this tributary was piped via an 8-inch ductile iron pipe directly into LBF. The length of this pipe is approximately 100 feet. Upstream of the
pipe, UT5 exhibits stability and bedform diversity. A portion of this stream was used as an on-
site reference channel for design purposes.

Wetlands 1 through 5
An on-site delineation of jurisdictional resources identified three areas of existing jurisdictional
wetlands and two drained wetland areas within the proposed conservation easement. Table 3
(above) outlines specific details of the on-site wetland resources.

Wetland 1 (W1) is located near the downstream end of the Project Site in the floodplain along
the right bank of Little Brushy Fork. In its current state, this wetland is disconnected from
overbank flows due to channel incision. It is devoid of woody vegetation and is dominated by
herbaceous wetland plants. According to the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NCWAM) dichotomous key, W1 classifies as a bottomland hardwood forest.
Wetland 2 (W2) is situated immediately south of the headwater portion of UT3. The vegetation associated with W2 has been altered through past land use activities. A portion of W2 has successional hardwood growth and the other portion is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. According to the NCWAM dichotomous key, W2 classifies as a headwater forest. Wetland 3 (W3) is located along the left bank of LBF and right bank of UT5. Wetland vegetation consists of successional growth hardwoods and a predominance of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) in the understory. According to the NCWAM dichotomous key, W3 classifies as a bottomland hardwood forest. Drained wetland 4 (W4) is located in the floodplain between LBF and UT1. This area is currently
considered non-jurisdictional due to drainage ditches that are negatively affecting the
hydrology. One of the drainage ditches begins within the wetland area and flows towards LBF.
The second, more substantial drainage ditch, begins upstream of Norman Shoaf Road and flows
underneath the road towards Little Brushy Fork. The area draining towards this wetland is
approximately 20 acres. The area has been heavily impacted by cattle and vegetation is
dominated by pasture grasses and sporadic soft rush. No NCWAM assessments were
completed due to the current state of this area.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 11
Drained wetland 5 (W5) is located between LBF and UT4. This area is also currently considered
non-jurisdictional due to disconnection from the two bordering streams and a shallow drainage
ditch. The area has been heavily impacted by cattle, and vegetation is dominated by pasture grasses and sporadic soft rush. With conditions similar to W4, no NCWAM assessments were completed due to the current state of this area. Wetlands 1, 2, and 3 exhibit one or more of the following wetland hydrology indicators: high water table, saturation in upper 12 inches, oxidized rhizospheres, and/or surface water. Hydric soils meeting the F3 (depleted matrix) indicator were observed. The soils associated with Wetlands 4 and 5 predominately met the F19 (floodplain soils) indicator and had small areas
meeting the F3 indicator. These two areas, however, did not exhibit any wetland hydrology
indicators.

As previously noted, each jurisdictional wetland area was evaluated using the NCWAM.
Wetlands 4 and 5 were not evaluated due to their current status as non-jurisdictional; however,
it is assumed they will reflect the bottomland hardwood forest community, post restoration. The
rapid assessment evaluates field conditions to generate qualitative function ratings (Low,
Medium, High) for the overall area relative to reference conditions for the specific wetland type.
Results from the NCWAM evaluation are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of NCWAM Scores
Wetland Name* NCWAM Score Impairment Reason for Impairment
Wetland 1 Low Low hydrology function Low water quality function Low habitat function
Hydrology: Cattle compaction and land use activities
Water Quality: lack of floodplain connectivity and woody vegetation.
Habitat: lack of diverse vegetation structure
Wetland 2-Successional Medium Medium hydrology function High water quality function
Low habitat function
Hydrology: Cattle compaction and past land use activities
Habitat: lack of diverse vegetation structure
Wetland 2-Pasture Low
Low hydrology function
High water quality function Low habitat function
Hydrology: Cattle compaction and land use
activities Habitat: lack of diverse vegetation structure
Wetland 3 Medium Medium hydrology function Medium water quality function
Low habitat function
Hydrology: Cattle compaction Water Quality: lack of floodplain connectivity
Habitat: lack of diverse vegetation structure
*Wetlands 4 & 5 were not evaluated due to the lack of hydrology.
4.0 Watershed and Channel Disturbance Response
Very little change has occurred in the watershed of Little Brushy Fork and its tributaries over the
past few decades. There have been some additional rural developments of small subdivisions or
single-family homes, timber activities, and ongoing agricultural land uses, but these
disturbances have been minor and do not appear to be the main source of degradation
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 12
throughout the Project Site. The original land disturbances (50+ years ago) associated with
conversion of 40% of the watershed to agricultural land use and ditching and draining of
wetlands appear to be the driving factors for the degradation of Site streams and wetlands. The
incision of the streams and ditching of wetlands resulted in degraded aquatic and terrestrial
habitats, bare riparian zones, floodplain disconnection, and loss and degradation of wetland
functions. Streambank erosion is ongoing and contributes to further resource degradation.
5.0 Functional Uplift Potential
5.1 Overall Functional Uplift Potential
The primary stressors to Site streams are hoof shear from livestock, lack of riparian vegetation to
stabilize stream banks, ongoing erosion, and lack of floodplain access. All project streams
scored a Low using the NCSAM assessment tool. The NCWAM assessment tool was used to
evaluate the jurisdictional wetlands. Two wetlands located in active pasture scored Low and the
other two wetlands with woody vegetation scored Medium. The active stressors on-site led to
these low scores. Without intervention, the primary stressors will continue to degrade the
system. Ultimately, functional uplift for the Site is linked to improvement and maintenance of
hydrologic connectivity between streams and riparian wetlands. Additionally, establishing a
riparian buffer will protect and enhance this connectivity. Functional uplift for the site will be
achieved through the following:

• Restoring degraded stream channels to reduce erosion and reconnect streams to riparian wetlands to restore hydrologic connection.
• Reducing bank erosion and direct sediment inputs to the stream.
• Planting a riparian buffer to shade streams, help stabilize streams, and promote woody debris in the system.
• Restoring wetland hydrology by reconnecting streams to the floodplain and filling in drainage swales/ditches.
• Planting hardwood trees in the restored wetland.
• Excluding livestock via fencing from the conservation easement.
• Protecting the Site with a conservation easement
Implementing these actions throughout the project will provide increases in the three metrics,
hydrology, water quality, and habitat, measured by NCWAM and NCSAM.

5.2 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift
The Site is an active cattle farm and crossings of the streams are proposed to allow access to
areas outside of the conservation easement. A total of four at-grade stream crossings (upstream
end of UT1 outside of the Project Site, downstream of Norman Shoaf Road near the confluence
of UT1 and UT2, downstream of the 30-inch CMP cross pipe on Norman Shoaf Road outside of
the Project Site, and on Little Brushy Fork) are proposed. One piped stream crossing is located
on UT3 and is a proposed 36-inch Corrugated Aluminum Alloy Pipe that will be buried 6-inches.
These crossings will be fenced and gated to prevent cattle from utilizing the areas on a day-to-
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 13
day basis. Cattle will have access to the crossings during movement from one pasture to the
next. At-grade crossings, instead of pipes or culverts, are proposed on the large stream
channels due to the risks of over-widening and maintenance issues with culverted crossings.
6.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 5 summarizes the regulatory considerations for the Site. Additional detail for each
consideration is provided in Sections 6.1-6.4.
Table 5: Regulatory Considerations
Federal Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documents
Water of the U.S. Section 404 Yes No PCN1
Water of the U.S. Section 401 Yes No PCN1
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix E
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix E
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes No CLOMR/LOMR2
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
1- PCN will be submitted to IRT with Final Mitigation Plan, 2- CLOMR/LOMR are still being processed through FEMA.
6.1 Biological Resources
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) and
NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases were utilized to search for potential
occurrences of federally listed threatened and endangered species in Davidson County. Table 6
lists the three federally protected species potentially occurring in Davidson County. According
to both the USFWS and NCNHP, there are no known occurrences of federally listed species
within one mile of the Site.
Table 6: Federally Protected Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area1
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Suitable
Habitat
Biological
Conclusion
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGPA No Not Required
Perimyotis septentrionalis Tricolored PE Yes Not Required*
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s sunflower E Yes No Effect
1-IPaC checked on 10/3/2022, * E - Endangered, PE – Proposed Endangered, BGPA- Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act, * If the tricolored bat is fully listed prior to construction a survey suitable habitat will be conducted.
Scoping letters were sent to the USFWS and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on
April 23, 2021. The letters requested response about the potential presence of federally listed
threatened and endangered species on the Site protected by the Endangered Species Act. All
correspondence between Eco Terra and the USFWS and NCWRC is provided in Appendix E.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 14
Bald eagle
The bald eagle nests in large trees near coastlines, rivers, and large lakes. These bodies of water
provide ample food supply. The bald eagle will typically select the tallest tree in a forested area
and can roost on man-made objects such as power poles. Bald eagle nests are generally four to
five feet wide and two to four feet deep.
Habitat for the bald eagle does not exist within 1.13 miles of the Site. There are no bodies of water large enough to provide foraging habitat for the eagle. Additionally, a NCNHP report
dated October 3, 2022, did not identify any occurrences of the species within one mile. A
biological conclusion is not required for bald eagle.

Schweinitz’s sunflower

Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of North and South Carolina. The few sites
where this rhizomatous, perennial herb occurs in relatively natural vegetation are found in Xeric
Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside rights-of-way, maintained power lines
and other utility rights-of-way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings and edges of
upland oak-pine-hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests, and other sunny or semi-
sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, blow downs, storms,
frequent fire) help create open or partially open areas for sunlight. It is intolerant of full shade
and excessive competition from other vegetation. Schweinitz’s sunflower occurs in a variety of
soil series, including Badin, Cecil, Cid, Enon, Gaston, Georgeville, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Misenheimer, Secrest, Tatum, Uwharrie, and Zion, among others. It is generally found growing on shallow sandy soils with high gravel content; shallow, poor, clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks. Plant-by-plant surveys were conducted on August 19, 2020 and September 22, 2022, for the
presence/absence of Schweinitz’s sunflower. No specimens were observed during either survey.
A NCNHP report dated October 3, 2022, did not identify any occurrences of the species within
one mile. The biological conclusion for this species is No Effect.
6.2 Cultural Resources
The USACE sent a scoping letter to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on May 15,
2020, after the initial Interagency Review Team (IRT) site visit. The letter requested comment on
the project with regards to historic resources. SHPO concluded there are no historic resources
that would be affected by the project and had no comment on the project as proposed. This
correspondence can be found in Appendix E.
6.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance
The Site contains Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulated areas. Site streams
are located on Davidson County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 3710684000J, with an
effective date of 3/16/2009. The Site is located within the Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) regulatory floodplain associated with Little Brushy Fork and UT1 (associated with Little
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 15
Brushy Fork Tributary 1 and Little Brushy Fork Tributary 1A on FIRM). The majority of UT4 and
UT5 within the Site are located within the Little Brushy Fork Floodplain but do not have an
independent hydraulic model. The remaining Site streams are not mapped by FEMA. Effective
FEMA mapping for the Site is shown on Figure 8. The effective hydraulic models for Little
Brushy Fork, Little Brushy Fork Tributary 1, and Little Brushy Fork Tributary 1A were downloaded
from the NC Flood Risk Information Systems website. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) was submitted and approved on August 25, 2022 (Appendix E) A floodplain
development permit will be obtained from the Davidson County floodplain administrator.
6.4 Section 401/404
There are six stream channels and three wetlands that are considered jurisdictional Waters of
the US (WOTUS) on the Site. The USACE issued a preliminary jurisdictional determination on
February 25, 2021, SAW-2019-02341. This document is provided in Appendix B.

Impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands will be necessary for restoration and
enhancement activities, but the overall result will be an uplift in aquatic function to the
historically impacted resources. Appropriate levels of intervention were developed based on
existing stream stability and functionality. Project streams with greater instability and less
functionality, Little Brushy Fork, UT1, UT2, UT3 (Reach 4), UT4, and UT5 are proposed for
restoration which will involve the construction of new stream channels. A portion of UT3 is proposed for enhancement due to less instability and partial stream functionality. Existing Wetlands 1, 4, and 5 are impacted by swales, ditches, or other anthropogenic methods to exacerbate the conveyance of surface and groundwater from these areas. In their current state, these areas are disconnected from the normal flood flows of Little Brushy Fork and its unnamed tributaries. In addition, periodic and ongoing vegetation maintenance also occurs. Existing Wetlands 2 and 3 are impacted by cattle access and maintenance of vegetation. Impacts to Wetland 1 will include filling of swales to promote better hydroperiods while the swales, ditches, etc. associated with Wetlands 4 and 5 will be removed. There are no proposed impacts to Wetlands 2 and 3. Table 7 denotes the estimates of anticipated impacts to existing streams and wetlands as a result of Project implementation.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 16
Table 7: Estimated Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources

Jurisdictional Resource Classification
Existing Permanent Impact (P) Temporary Impact (T)
Length
(lf)
Acres
(ac) Activity Impacts
(lf/ac) Activity Impacts
(lf/ac)
Little Brushy
Fork Perennial 3,043 Restoration 2,983
Little Brushy
Fork Perennial 3,043 Crossing 60
UT1 Perennial 2,907 Restoration 2,887
UT1 Perennial 2,907 Crossing 20
UT2 Intermittent 325 Restoration 325
Trib A* Perennial 71 Restoration 71
UT3 Intermittent 804 Restoration 35 Enhancement
(EI/II) 730
UT3 Intermittent 803 Crossing 38
UT4 Perennial 1,101 Restoration 1,101
UT5 Intermittent 0 Pipe Removal 25
Wetland 1 Riparian 1.41 Swale Fill 0.18
Wetland 2 Riparian 0.80 Construction 0.10
*No credit Total Impact (P) lf 7,520 Total Impact
(T) lf 755
Total Impact (T) ac 0.28
7.0 Goals and Objectives
The overarching goal of the project is to provide stream and wetland credits, to offset
unavoidable impacts, as compensatory mitigation. These credits will be developed through a
combination of stream and wetland restoration and enhancement activities. Project goals are
desired project outcomes and are verified through measurement and/or visual assessment.
Objectives are activities that will result in the accomplishment of goals. The project will be
monitored after construction to evaluate performance as described in Section 10 of this report.
The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 8.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 17
Table 8: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal Objective Expected
Reconnect channels with historic floodplains
and improve wetland hydrology in existing
and drained wetland areas.
Reconstruct stream channels for bankfull dimensions and depth
relative to the existing floodplain. Fill ditches to increase wetland hydroperiod
Regular bankfull events with access to the floodplain. Higher groundwater table elevation
Improve the stability of stream channels
Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and profile.
Reduce sediment input from bank erosion. Reduce shear stress on channel boundary.
Exclude cattle from streams
Implement cattle exclusion measures around conservation
easements.
Reduce sediment input; reduce fecal coliform, reduce nutrient input.
Improve stream habitat
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles, root wads, and woody debris in restored/enhanced
stream channels. Construct pools of varying depth
Increase and diversify available habitats for macroinvertebrates,
fish, and amphibians.
Restore/enhance
wetland hydrology, soils, and plant communities.
Restore/enhance riparian wetlands
and soils by raising stream bed elevations, filling ditches/swales,
removing livestock, and planting native wetland plants.
Elevate groundwater elevation in
drained wetlands and prolong elevated groundwater levels in enhanced wetlands.
Restore and enhance native floodplain and
streambank vegetation
Plant native tree and understory species in riparian zone and plant appropriate streambank species.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion and runoff. Increase nutrient cycling and storage in
floodplains. Provide riparian habitat. Add woody debris to
streams.
Permanently protect
the project site from future development.
Establish conservation easement on the Site.
Protect Site from encroachment on
the riparian corridor and direct impact to streams and wetlands.

8.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
8.1 Design Approach Overview
The proposed design involves the restoration and/or enhancement of Little Brushy Fork and five
unnamed tributaries. For design purposes, segments of channel were separated into fourteen
distinct stream reaches: Little Brushy Fork (three reaches), UT1 (three reaches), UT2 (one reach),
UT3 (four reaches), UT4 (two reaches), and UT5 (one reach). These reaches were categorized by
contributing drainage area, channel slope, valley slope, and valley type. The overall design
approach is similar across the entire Site and utilizes both analog and analytical approaches, as
well as empirical data and prior experience. Construction drawings depict proposed
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 18
implementation methods and methodologies. These drawings are provided in Appendix D.
Existing and proposed morphology data are shown in Appendix D.
The design approach for the Site was developed to meet the goals and objectives described in
Section 7. The project streams will be reconnected with an active floodplain and channels will
be reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile that will transport the water and
sediment delivered to the system. Wetlands will be restored by plugging and filling existing
drainage ditches. Floodplains and wetlands will be planted with native species to restore
adequate buffer areas where necessary. Instream structures were designed to provide stable
channel morphology and improve aquatic habitat. The entire project area will be protected by a
conservation easement.
The design criteria applied to this Project included the evaluation of an on-site reference stream,
the upper portion of UT5, a combination of reference reach data available online and via the NC
Division of Mitigation Services’ website, past reference reach surveys, and prior designs and
monitoring data from past successful stream restoration projects completed in the Piedmont
Physiographic province of North Carolina. The design criteria were developed using Natural
Channel Design (Rosgen 1996) as the standard approach, combined with hydrologic/ hydraulic
analysis information, sediment transport calculations, and comparison with available empirical
data. The approach provides the optimum opportunity for successful uplift via the established
goals and objectives for Project implementation.
8.2 Reference Streams
One reference stream (UT5) was identified and surveyed on the Three Creeks Farm Site. This
stream was chosen due to its proximity, stream type, watershed, and stability. The reach is
immediately upstream of the piped reach that will be daylighted as part of Project
implementation.
The use of multiple reference streams representing the characteristics of stable channels
(including dimension, pattern, and profile) provides a comparison of data which can be very
beneficial to the design of stable channels of similar character, nature, and location. Published
data from five reference streams were evaluated and utilized in the design of Little Brushy Fork
and its tributaries. Parameters utilized in the selection included drainage areas less than three
square miles, watersheds of similar composition, valley types, and channel slopes, similar bed
material, and stream systems originating in the Piedmont physiographic province of North
Carolina.
Reference reach data, where applicable, are provided in Table 9.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 19
Table 9. Stream Reference Data Utilized for Design Development
Site Stream Name Little Brushy Fork UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4 UT5
Reference Stream Name Watershed Size (mi) Stream Type
UT Little Brushy Fork 0.05 C5        
North Prong Creek 3.00 C5     
Lake Norman Group Camp
Upstream
0.10 C/E5b 
UT to Lyle Creek 0.25 C5   

8.2.1 UT to Little Brushy Fork
UT to Brushy Fork (UT5) is a perennial stream channel exhibiting a drainage area of
approximately 0.05 square miles (13 acres). This channel is located at the south end of the
Project, immediately east of Little Brushy Fork. The reference reach originates in a narrow valley
east of the site and connects with Little Brushy Fork’s floodplain before entering a pipe which
discharges directly into Little Brushy Fork. The section between the bottom of the valley and
pipe was used as a reference as it contained stable riffles and pools in the meander bends. The
reference reach exhibits a sinuosity of 1.2, greater than 2.2 entrenchment ratio, and high width
to depth ratio which classifies it as a C5 channel. The reach is bordered by mature forest with
lush understory of herbaceous species.
8.2.2 North Prong Creek
North Prong Creek is in Durham County and classified as a narrow width/depth C5 stream type.
It was originally identified and surveyed by KCI (NCDMS 2007). This reference reach has a
comparable sediment regime and valley slope to the site and was used to develop
morphological criteria and hydraulic relationships. The portion of the stream used as a reference
is found approximately 1,500 feet northwest of the intersection of Interstate 40 and State
Highway 55.
8.2.3 Lake Norman Group Camp Upstream
Lake Norman Group Camp Upstream was identified and surveyed by Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
(NCDMS 2021). The Rosgen E5b stream exhibits a sinuosity of 1.6, a valley slope of 0.023 ft/ft
and a channel slope of 0.017 ft/ft. The bank height ratio is between 0.9-1.1. This channel is
located west of Interstate 77 in the Lake Norman State Park.
8.2.4 UT to Lyle Creek
UT to Lyle Creek was also identified and surveyed by Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (NCDMS 2019).
According to the Mitigation Plan associated with DMS ID No. 100048, this tributary’s watershed
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 20
is predominately wooded. The Rosgen C5 stream exhibited an entrenchment ratio of more than
2.5, sinuosity of 1.7, width to depth ratio of 31, and channel slope of 0.4%. This perennial
channel is located in the floodplain of Lyle Creek in the vicinity of the Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
in Catawba County.
8.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Key proposed morphological parameters (i.e., cross section, pattern, and profile) are shown in
Table 10. Complete morphological tables for existing, reference, and proposed conditions are
provided in Appendix D.
Table 10: Select Proposed Morphological Parameters

Little Brushy Fork UT1
UT 2
UT3 UT4
UT5 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2a R2 R2 R4 R1 R2
Bankfull Width (Wbkf) ft 16.0 16.0 25.0 14.0 21.0 20.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 9.0 10.0 6.0
Bankfull Area (Abkf) sq ft 22.4 22.4 54.4 16.9 32.6 31.8 1.5 2.5 2.1 6.6 8.8 2.6
Bankfull Max Depth (dbkf) ft 2.1 2.1 3.1 1.8 2.3 2.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.4 0.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) ft 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.43
W/D Ratio
(Wbkf/dbkf) 11.4 11.4 13.9 11.6 13.1 12.5 6.0 10.0 11.9 11.4 13.4 13.8
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf) >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
Average WS
Slope, % 0.39 0.57 0.22 0.31 0.29 0.39 2.45 7.29 0.79 0.81 0.35 0.50
Sinuosity 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
Meander Length Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf) 10.8 11.6 8.2 10.4 5.1 8.7 N/A N/A 11.0 10.6 10.2 8.8
Ratio of Radius of Curve to Bankfull Width (Wblt/Wbkf) 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.3 N/A N/A 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.4
Meander Width Ratio (Wblt/Wbkf) 4.2 4.0 2.4 4.2 3.1 3.4 N/A N/A 3.6 3.8 3.9 2.3

8.4 Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Several methods were used to develop bankfull discharge estimates for each restoration reach
of the project: the NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999), the continuity
equation utilizing various velocity calculation methods described in section 8.4.2, and
professional judgement. The discharges obtained from the above-mentioned methods were
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 21
evaluated to determine applicability and compared to USGS regression methods to determine
return intervals. Using multiple methods to estimate bankfull discharge helps to eliminate
dependence on a single method as the basis of channel design. The different methods
commonly produce varying results, so professional judgement was used to select the final
design discharge for each restoration reach. For this analysis, there was some concurrence
between the NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve, Dr. Richard Hey method, Shear Velocity (u*)
method, and manning’s n methods; however, the resistance equations by stream type and
reference reach curve values were consistently lower than the other methods. Each of the
methods used to estimate discharge are described below in Section 8.4.2 and the results of the
analysis are summarized in Table 11.
8.4.1 Published Regional Curve Data
The NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve published by Harman et al. in 1999 was used to estimate
discharges of each restoration reach. The Piedmont curves were deemed most applicable to the
Site due to the project’s physiographic location along with restoration reach drainage areas and
slopes being within range of those used in the development of the Rural Piedmont Regional
Curve. The computed values of this method can be viewed in Table 11.
8.4.2 Continuity Equation and Velocity Comparison Analysis
VHB utilized four methods of calculating bankfull velocity to input in the continuity equation to
develop bankfull discharges for each restoration reach. To develop inputs for this analysis, VHB
conducted on-site surveys on each of the design reaches. A total of 10 cross sections were
surveyed. Bankfull indicators were identified in the field during the survey and were included in
the survey data collection. Dimension, slope, and bed material information gathered during the
surveys were used as inputs for the velocity comparison analysis. The four methods of the
velocity comparison analysis included:
1. Manning’s equation using a manning’s n value developed from velocity, slope,
channel material, and hydraulic radius data, (Rosgen, Leopold, and Silvey 1998;
Rosgen and Silvey 2005)
2. Shear Velocity (u*) using a friction factor back calculated from relative roughness
(Rosgen, Leopold, and Silvey 1998; Rosgen and Silvey 2005)
3. Manning’s equation using a manning’s n based on specified stream type (Rosgen,
Leopold, and Silvey 1998; Rosgen and Silvey 2005)
4. Dr. Richard Hey Method (derived from D’Arcy Weisbach equation)
Each of the specified methods produced varying ranges of velocities, which were then used in
the continuity equation based on surveyed bankfull areas to develop bankfull discharges;
however, greater emphasis was placed on Dr. Richard Hey’s Method due to the predominantly
sand bed material of the system. The computed values of each method can be viewed in Table
11.
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 22
8.4.3 Existing Bankfull Indicators (Manning’s Equation)
Field-observed bankfull data points, including the uppermost scour lines, and in some cases, the
backs of point bars, were surveyed and compared to data output from the continuity equation to
determine the existing bankfull discharge. Bankfull elevations throughout the site were consistent
with the 1.0-1.5-year storm, which is the common recurrence interval in North Carolina.
8.4.4 Design Discharge Analysis Summary
The results of the bankfull discharge analysis provided a range of values. The most obvious
convergence in values was between the existing bankfull indicators (Dr. Hey’s Method and Shear
Velocity) and the Piedmont Regional Curves for all reaches within the Site. These values were
consistently within 15% of each other apart from UT2 and UT5. The two outliers have drainage
areas much smaller than those used to develop the regional curves. When comparing Hey and
Shear Velocity methods, the range of discharges for these tributaries are within 5% of each
other. These three methods were more heavily weighted when determining the final design
discharge for this site because they were thought to account for the in-situ site conditions and,
in the case of the existing bankfull indicators, the mitigation of runoff throughout the watershed.
Final design discharges were selected based on analysis of the methods discussed in this
section. The final design discharges for all reaches weighted the Regional Curves and the
existing bankfull indicators heavily to arrive at values that were in line with observed conditions
and reflected return intervals between 1.0 and 1.5 years. The goal of the design was to achieve a
balance between streams that would be highly connected to their floodplain and not undersize
channels to the point where vegetation and aggradation could choke the channel. Table 11
below gives a summary of the discharge analysis results.
Table 11. Stream Design Discharge Analysis Summary
Little Brushy
Fork Reach 1
Little Brushy
Fork Reach 2
Little Brushy
Fork Reach 3
UT1
Reach 1
UT1
Reach 2a
UT1
Reach 2
Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) 1.4 1.8 4.2 0.73 2.4 2.4
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 113 135 250 71 167 167
Continuity
Equation
U/U* Manning's Equation (cfs) 93 127 268 67 148 154
U* (cfs) 106 139 283 76 167 174
Stream Type Manning's n (cfs) 76 92 187 46 103 108
Dr. Richard Hey
Method 110 145 292 79 173 180
Design Discharge (cfs) 106 140 283 76 167 174
Return Interval 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.0
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 23
Table 11. Stream Design Discharge Analysis Summary (cont.)
UT2 UT3 Reach 4 UT4 Reach 1 UT4 Reach 2 UT5
Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) 0.02 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.05
NC Rural Piedmont Regional
Curve (cfs) 5.3 13 39 39 10
Continuity
Equation
U/U* Manning's
Equation (cfs) 6 32 29 29 7
U* (cfs) 12 12 42 42 7.7
Stream Type
Manning's n (cfs) 5 5 21 21 5
Dr. Richard Hey
Method 12 13 44 43 8
Design Discharge (cfs) 8 12.5 42 43 9
Return Interval 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.5

8.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
VHB developed a qualitative assessment of the sediment supply and the sources in the project
watershed to recognize the quantity of sediment supplied to the project streams and if it is
being transported. A competence analysis was also performed to analyze the capability of the
proposed streams to transport the necessary sediment size. The sediment supply and
competence and capacity analysis are discussed in further detail in the following sections.
8.5.1 Sediment Supply
The past, present, and future conditions of the watershed were reviewed using the National
Land Cover Database (NLCD) as well as historic and current aerial photography to identify past
and present potential sediment sources. Historically, the watershed was predominantly in agricultural production since at least 1964 based on imagery. Other land uses consist of forested areas and low-density rural development. Relatively low-density residential development and continued heavy agricultural presence are expected to continue to be the most important land uses in the watershed for the foreseeable future. The contributing areas upstream of the project are relatively stable and are not expected to increase or decrease the incoming sediment supply to the Site streams. Physical and visual inspections of the streams revealed excess sediment and sand in the stream
with some depositional areas in all reaches. Little Brushy Fork and UT1 contained the largest
sediment depositions. The land use around these reaches is pasture farm with active cattle
grazing without fencing. Cattle frequently access the stream for drinking water, which degrades
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 24
the stream banks and causes sediment deposition. The existing riparian buffer is scarce, and
active cattle grazing prohibits a healthy herbaceous layer that is generally lush in the Piedmont
region. The major source of sediment in these reaches is thought to be from cattle impacts and overland flow from the farm throughout the project area due to a lack of fencing, unfettered access to the stream by livestock and diminished stream buffers. By establishing stable riparian buffers, fencing cattle out of the streams, and providing improved
profile, pattern, and dimension to streams during restoration, the sediment load to the project
streams is expected to be reduced. The channels were designed to remain stable and pass the
sediment delivered from the watershed. The focus of the sediment transport analysis is therefore
based on an evaluation of stream competence.
8.5.2 Competence and Capacity Analysis
Sediment analyses are generally divided into measurements of bedload and suspended sediment, changes in sediment storage, size distributions and source areas. Sediment plays a major role in channel stability and morphology (Rosgen, 1996). A stable stream has the capacity to move its sediment load without aggrading or degrading. Washload is normally composed of fine sands, silts and clays transported in suspension at a rate that is determined by availability
and not hydraulically controlled. Bedload is transported by rolling, sliding, or hopping (saltating)
along the bed. At higher discharges, some portion of the bedload can be suspended, depending
on the size and nature of the bed material and hydraulic conditions (Hey and Rosgen, 1997).

Two measures are used to calculate sediment loads for natural channel design projects:
sediment transport competency and sediment transport capacity. Competency is a stream’s
ability to move particles of a given size. It is expressed as a measure of force (lbs/ft2). Capacity
is a stream’s ability to move a quantity of sediment and is a measurement of stream power
expressed in units of lbs/ft·sec. These analyses are conducted to ensure that the design
streambeds do not aggrade or degrade during bankfull conditions. Brief descriptions of these
two analyses are presented below.
Boundary shear stresses were calculated and compared with Shield’s Curve to predict sediment
competency. The shear stress placed on the sediment particles represents the force that entrains
and moves the particles downstream. The equation for shear stress is presented below.
τ = γRS where,
τ = shear stress (lb/ft2 )
γ = specific gravity of water (62 lb/ft3 )
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
The critical shear for the proposed channel must be sufficient to move the D50 of the bed
material. The critical shear stress was calculated and plotted on Shield’s Curve to determine the
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 25
approximate size of particles that will be moved. Based on Shield’s Curve, a range of sediment
sizes and predicted shear stresses were developed to determine the necessary shear stress to
move the bed material. The D50, D100, Shield values, and shear stresses of all of the reaches
can be viewed in Table 12.
It is apparent based on existing bed material surveys on Little Brushy Fork, that surface bed
material decreases in size from upstream to downstream within the project area. This finding
likely explains the stream degradation caused by the cattle farm contributing to sediment
deposition on the downstream portion of the project.
Table 12. Results of Competence Analysis
Little
Brushy Fork Reach 1
Little Brushy Fork Reach 2 Little Brushy Fork Reach 3 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2a UT1 Reach 2
D50 (mm) 4.2 2.8 2.6 1.8 1.9 1.9
D100 (mm) 30 22 19 20 25 25
Movable Particle Size from Shields
Curve (mm)
15-40 15-40 15-35 10-32 15-40 15-40
Required Shear Stress Value from
Shields curve (lb/ft2)
0.30-1.00 0.20-0.70 0.20-0.60 0.20-
0.60 0.25-0.70 0.25-
0.70
Existing Bankfull shear stress (lb/ft2) 0.43 0.41 0.21 0.30 0.43 0.43
Proposed Bankfull shear stress (lb/ft2) 0.32 0.47 0.28 0.22 0.29 0.30

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 26
Table 12. Results of Competence Analysis (cont.)

UT2 UT3 Reach 4 UT4 Reach 1 UT4 Reach 2 UT5
D50 (mm) 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.5
D100 (mm) 20 0.5 4 4 4
Existing Movable Particle Size from
Shields Curve (mm) 15-45 N/A-piped 15-50 15-50 N/A-piped
Required Shear Stress Value from
Shields curve (lb/ft2) 0.20-0.60 0.002-0.03 0.03-0.15 0.03-0.15 0.03-0.15
Existing Bankfull shear stress (lb/ft2) 0.47 N/A-piped 0.51 0.51 N/A- piped
Proposed Bankfull shear stress (lb/ft2) 0.63 0.20 0.35 0.18 0.13

VHB performed a competence analysis using the proposed stream dimensions and existing bed
material determined from riffle pebble counts and subpavement samples. The goal of the
analysis is to evaluate the potential stability of the channels post construction and determine if
bed material will need to be supplemented with coarser material to prevent instability. The
majority of the bed material for Little Brushy Fork, UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 is coarse sand
with particle sizes at 2 mm or less. The results of the analysis indicate that there is enough shear
stress to move the sampled bed material. The range of particle sizes that will become mobile
during a bankfull event is within the size range of gravel. While this competence analysis could
indicate potential for degradation, VHB believes these results are more influenced by the
inundation of sand particles from adjacent agriculture within the bed and not related to
erosional forces from high shear stresses. Based on these results, VHB plans to supplement
existing bed material with coarser material in riffles to increase the D50. However, VHB wants
sand particles to remain mobile to ensure adequate geomorphic processes occur to maintain
channel dimensions within the bottomland. Grade control structures and brush toe stabilization
will be installed along the reaches, particularly at transitional or high sloped sections of the
reaches.
Competence for Little Brushy Fork, UT1, UT2, and UT5 indicate that there is enough shear stress
to move most of the existing bed material. The proposed restoration will reuse as much of the
native bed material as possible and supplement where necessary. The bed material surveys for
UT3 and UT4 compared to the anticipated moveable particle size predicted from the shields
curve indicate marginal degradation could occur. As depicted in Table 12 the only stream
mostly outside predicted range is UT4 Reach 1. Reach 1 of UT4 is a steeper section due to valley
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 27
slopes. The design includes grade control structures and stabilization techniques throughout
the reach to stabilize the channel and to dissipate excess energy and shear stresses.
By improving width to depth ratios and providing access to a floodplain at the bankfull stage,
the proposed designs will reduce both stream power and velocity, thus reducing capacity to
only that needed to move the sediment supplied by the watershed. In summary, the calculations
for competency, aggradation, degradation, and capacity, bankfull conditions in the design
channels for Little Brushy Fork and its unnamed tributaries will entrain particles ranging from 9
to 40 mm and 4 to 40 mm, respectively. Little Brushy Fork exhibits a D100 of 30 mm while its
tributaries range from 4-25. The design channels are predicted to remain stable over time based
on the establishment of proper dimension, pattern, profile, and an active floodplain. The
addition of riparian vegetation will further enhance the long-term stability of the entire system.
A detailed capacity analysis was not performed for the Site due to the expected stability of the
watershed. There is no indication that sediment yield will be altered by rapidly changing land
use or otherwise modified without the use of proper erosion control measures. Based on the
watershed assessment described in Section 3.0 and field data collections, the Site streams
generally indicate the capacity to move a sediment load greater than the sediment supply. Most
of the restoration reaches have been designed to maintain or exceed the competency of the
existing channels with the use of grade control structures to prevent future incision.
8.6 Wetland Design
8.6.1 Wetland Design Overview
The proposed design includes restoring 3.72 acres (1.31 acres re-establishment and 1.41 acres
rehabilitation) and enhancing 2.70 acres of historically altered wetlands. Wetlands proposed for
restoration have altered wetland hydrology due to ditches and lack of connection to Site
streams. Wetlands proposed for restoration and enhancement have disturbed vegetative
structure and diversity. VHB reviewed the proposed wetland areas to understand the effects of
past land use and ongoing land uses on wetland hydrology and hydric soils.
8.6.2 Hydric Soils within Wetland Restoration/Enhancement Areas
A VHB licensed soil scientist (LSS) performed a hydric soil evaluation after reviewing the NRCS
printed soil surveys, web soil survey mapping, and on-site conditions. Approximately 75 soil
borings were performed throughout the Site. Borings were located based on the existing
topography, ditching, and existing wetland vegetation. Each soil boring was classified based on
soil characteristics indicating the hydric soil status. Soil borings were placed into one of two
categories, hydric and relic hydric.
Borings classified as hydric met the depleted matrix hydric soil indicator (F3) and were generally
found in existing jurisdictional wetlands. These areas generally exhibited soil saturation within
12 inches of the soil surface, low matrix chroma, and distinct/prominent redoximorphic features.
The F3 indicator was found in drained wetland 4 in very limited areas and was not accompanied
by saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface.
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 28
Borings classified as relic hydric soils met the piedmont floodplain soils hydric indicator (F19).
These areas exhibited brighter chromas (3 and 4 compared to 1 and 2) as compared with the F3
indicator, and redoximorphic concentrations with concrete boundaries between the matrix and
the iron concentration. The presence of a concrete boundary around the redoximorphic
concentration indicates the process of wetting and drying under anaerobic conditions has
stopped or reduced from the condition that created the feature historically.
Based on the results from the LSS findings, existing groundwater gauge data, and existing
hydrologic alterations made to the site; zones of potential wetland restoration and enhancement
were developed. Areas not currently jurisdictional were classified as restoration via re-
establishment (Wetlands 4 and 5). Areas that are currently jurisdictional but with altered
hydrology were classified as restoration via rehabilitation (Wetland 1). Wetlands 2 and 3 were
classified as jurisdictional without potential hydrology uplift and are proposed as enhancement.
8.6.3 Reference Wetland
A reference wetland was identified within a forested portion of the Three Creeks Farm on the
right bank floodplain of UT1 upstream of Norman Shoaf Road. The wetland has a mature
canopy and resembles a Piedmont Bottomland Forest (High Subtype) defined by Schafale
(2012). The area does not appear to have been ditched or manipulated in the recent past, but
may have reduced hydrology due to the incision of UT1. Historical aerials show the reference
wetland has been forested since at least 1948. The vegetation at the reference site will be used
as a basis to develop the planting plan for the wetland restoration and enhancement on the
project site.
The system is located in the floodplain of UT1 and inundated during large overbank events and
from hillside seepage. The soils are mapped as Chewacla loam. The soil profile met the F3
indicator and had wetland hydrology within 12 inches of the soil surface. Hydrology indicators
were water-stained leaves, saturation at the surface with a water table at the soil surface. Wrack
lines were also evident throughout the wetland due to a large rain event.
8.6.4 Hydrologic Modeling
VHB analyzed the existing and proposed conditions for groundwater hydrology using Wetbud.
The model was run for the re-establishment area, Wetland 4, using a normal (2017), wet (2020),
and dry (2008) year condition. Climatic data was retrieved from the closest weather station with
daily precipitation and evapotranspiration rates, located in Salisbury, NC.
One existing conditions water budget model was developed based on current site conditions.
Water inputs included precipitation and runoff. Daily precipitation values were retrieved from
the weather station above and runoff was calculated using the SCS/NRCS curve number
method. Existing model outputs included potential evapotranspiration (PET), groundwater out,
and surface outflow. PET was obtained from the Salisbury weather station and was calculated
using the Penman-Monteith Method. Existing conditions assumed no surface water outflow and
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 29
groundwater out was assumed to be all water draining to the site via the drainage ditches. A
copy of the model hydrographs is included in Appendix G.
The proposed condition model was developed to predict the length of time groundwater levels
would be within 12 inches of the soil surface. This was evaluated for the same three normal,
wet, and dry years. Two years of the proposed condition model were run for the normal and dry
years, assuming the second years, climatic conditions would be normal, to show a long-term
recharge of the wetland hydrology.
The proposed condition model was updated to incorporate the wetland restoration design,
plugging drainage ditches. The most significant change is the groundwater out. The existing
model assumes all groundwater leaves the site via the drainage ditches. Proposed conditions
keep a significant portion of groundwater on-site. The model results support that proposed Site
changes will increase overall hydrology within the proposed wetland areas and bring the water
table to within 12 inches of the soil surface for multiple months within the growing season,
March 28 to November 4.
Table 13A: Water Budget Analysis of Wetland 4
Modeled Year Hydrology Classification
Number of Months with Wetland Hydrology (within 12-inces of soil surface)
Existing Conditions
Model Proposed Conditions Model
2008 Dry Year No months
No months-1st run
April-December-2nd run (9 months)
2017 Normal Year No months
May-December-1st run (8 months)
January-December-2nd run (12 months)
2020 Wet Year No months February-December
(11 months)

Table 13B: Existing Groundwater Gauge Data
Wetland* % Growing Season Wetland Hydrology Met Success Criteria of 10%
Wetland 1 (Edge) 21 Yes
Wetland 1 (Middle) 50^ Yes
Wetland 3 100 Yes
Wetland 4 (Edge) 5 No
Wetland 4 (Middle) 8 No
• No gauge data for Wetlands 2 and 5. ^ Missing the beginning of growing season.
There are currently six groundwater gauges on-site, installed on February 26, 2021 (Figure 4).
Existing well data for Wetland 4 was compared to the existing conditions model output and
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 30
regulatory requirements for hydrology for a jurisdictional wetland. According to the Antecedent
Precipitation Tool the 12-digit HUC 030401030201 was experiencing “Wetter than Normal”
precipitation prior to the start of the growing season on March 28, 2021. The Wetland 4 gauges
demonstrated the groundwater was above 12-inches for several months and began to decrease
after the growing season began. The groundwater levels exceeded 12-inches for short periods
of time after a rainfall event but had a quick drawdown effect shortly after. The gauges did not
show a hydroperiod of 28 days (10%) within the growing season per the existing data in a year
considered “Wetter than Normal”. Complete hydrographs for the model and existing gauge
data can be found in Appendix G.
8.7 Project Implementation
8.7.1 Stream Restoration and Enhancement
Physical impairments to the Site streams include bank erosion, incision, lack of riparian buffer,
cattle access, and lack of bedform diversity. Chemical impairments are due to water quality,
primarily via nutrient loading and the unrestricted access of cattle and the ongoing presence of
fecal coliform bacteria. The project will restore five stream channels and enhance a portion of
UT3. To ensure earthwork is balanced accordingly, floodplain depressions will be constructed
along portions of the original channel locations. The approximate locations of these floodplain
depressions are shown on the construction drawings in Appendix D. Riparian buffers, extending
a minimum of 50-feet outward from the stream banks along either side of the channels, will be
planted throughout the Site. Cattle will be excluded from the conservation easement in its
entirety.
All three reaches of Little Brushy Fork (LBF) will be restored using methodologies consistent with
a Priority Level I approach with the exception of a short section of LBF Reach 3 that transitions
back into the original LBF channel near the downstream end of the Site. The area falls under an
approach more consistent with Priority Level II. Bedform diversity and habitat uplift will be
achieved through riffle-pool sequences with log vane J-hook, brush-toe stabilization, and
revised channel dimensions. Landowner access across Little Brushy Fork will be provided via a
60-foot easement break with an at-grade crossing. The easement break will be gated and only
accessible during active use by the landowner for equipment or to re-locate cattle.
UT1 will also be restored via Priority I methodologies in order to reconnect the stream to the
floodplain. Restoration of pattern, profile, and dimension will result in a new channel and
incorporate features including brush toe stabilization, log vane j hooks, log vanes, and
constructed riffles. A 35-foot easement break with an at-grade crossing will allow the
landowner to access fields on either side of UT1 and the downstream portions of Little Brushy
Fork.
UT2 is severely incised with a steeper slope than other streams within the Site and will be
restored via Priority I methodologies. This reach of the intermittent channel originates at the
perched pipe and construction implementation activities will begin with a headcut repair.
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 31
Downstream double log drops will be utilized to stabilize and transition the channel towards
UT1. At the confluence of UT1 a series of grade control drop structures will be installed to
prevent future incision upstream.
UT3 has a severe headcut that has formed since the date of the IRT site visit. The intermittent
channel is separated into four distinct reaches, one proposed for full restoration through pipe
removal, one as enhancement I and two as enhancement II. Reaches 1 and 3 will remain in the
existing alignment. Reach 1 and 112-linear feet of Reach 3 will be planted on the right bank
only. The remainder of Reach 3 will be planted on both sides. All planted riparian corridors will
be a minimum of 50-feet wide and have cattle exclusion. Reach 2 is proposed for enhancement
I and will maintain the same alignment. This reach begins at the severe headcut, where a series
of headcut repair structures will be installed to mitigate the ongoing erosion. The bed elevation
will undergo a series of steps through this reach prior to linking with Reach 4. The riparian
corridor will be planted on the right bank only, and cattle will be excluded from the streamside
areas along both reaches. Reach 4 is proposed for restoration. Restoration activities proposed
for Reach 4 consist of newly constructed channel that exhibits stable pattern, profile, and
dimension as UT3 converges with UT4. The existing 12” RCP will be removed, and a constructed
riffle will be installed at the confluence with UT4. The channel will incorporate the appropriate
design dimensions.
Both reaches of UT4 will be reconstructed using Priority Level I methodologies. The previously
straightened channel will be restored to have more sinuosity and incorporate constructed riffles
and brush toe stabilization. The new channel will effectively move sediment in order to provide
bedform and habitat diversity. The confluence of UT4 and Little Brushy Fork will be moved
downstream to accommodate the elevation drop and allow for a stable transition at the
confluence.
UT5 is currently piped. The stream will be daylighted by removing the existing pipe and
allowing the stream to flow into the newly constructed channel. The new channel will utilize a
constructed riffle at the head of the restoration area and double log drops to the confluence
with Little Brushy Fork. The confluence is the end of the project and will be stabilized by a
combination of a constructed riffle and rock cross vane.
8.7.2 Wetland Mitigation Activities
Wetland mitigation activities will include restoration via re-establishment and rehabilitation, and
enhancement. There are currently three jurisdictional wetlands, Wetlands 1, 2, and 3
(successional and pasture), within the proposed conservation easement. The credit ratio for
enhancement of Wetland 3 has been adjusted to account for the varying level of effort
proposed. Two additional areas, Wetlands 4 and 5, are currently non-jurisdictional. Table 14
describes wetland mitigation activities and ratios.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 32
Table 14: Proposed Wetland Mitigation Activities and Credit Ratios
Wetland Name Approach Ratio Approach Description
Wetland 1 Restoration
(Rehabilitation) 1.5:1
Fill in existing drainage swales and reconnect overbank flows from LBF to the wetland. Plant area in appropriate
woody vegetation to accompany the existing herbaceous wetland vegetation. Exclude cattle from wetland.
Wetland 2 (successional) Enhancement 7.5:1 Headwater wetland currently going through successional growth. Supplemental planting will occur, and cattle will be
excluded.
Wetland 2 (pasture) Enhancement 2:1
Headwater wetland currently planted in pasture grasses will
be enhanced through planted native woody stems, stabilization of UT3 along northern boundary, and exclusion of cattle.
Wetland 3 Enhancement 5:1 Reconnection of LBF to floodplain, planting additional native woody stems, removal of clay drainage pipes, and
exclusion of cattle.
Wetland 4 (non-JD) Restoration (Re-establishment) 1:1
Two existing drainage ditches will be filled while still
allowing flow underneath Norman Shoaf Road. to prevent hydrologic trespass. One ditch conveys flow from the adjacent hillside, while the other ditch conveys flow from
Norman Shoaf Road. The ditch conveying flow from the 30” CMP under Norman Shoaf Road will begin to be filled at the proposed at grade crossing up to an elevation slightly lower than the existing 30” CMP invert elevation. This will allow continued flow under Norman Shoaf Rd. As shown in the wetland grading plan, the flow will be directed toward the re-established wetland and eventually to the restored LBF
channel. Plant area with native wetland vegetation and exclude cattle. Raising bed elevations in LBF and UT1 will
benefit wetland hydrology through overbank events.
Wetland 5 (non-JD) Restoration (Re-establishment) 1:1
Reconnect LBF and UT4 to the floodplain to increase
wetland hydrology. Fill small drainage ditch, plant native wetland vegetation, and exclude cattle.

Wetland 1 will be restored through rehabilitation efforts focusing on locations where wetland
hydrology is being negatively impacted by small ditches and/or drainage conveyances. The area
will be planted with native hardwood trees and the ditches/conveyances will be plugged to
increase the time water remains on-site. This increase in time will help to offset any negative
impacts to wetland hydrology that will come from establishing forest vegetation. The
introduction of forest species over time has the potential to reduce the hydroperiod in the
wetland. The wetland will be enhanced in the remaining areas by planting hydrophytic tree
species, characteristic of a bottomland hardwood riparian system.
Wetland 2 has two enhancement areas, the successional forest, and the maintained field.
Enhancement of the succession forest area will consist of removal of invasive species and cattle
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 33
exclusion fencing. There may be minor uplift to the existing wetland hydrology through
enhancement efforts to stabilize UT3; however, it is not expected that these changes will be
significant enough to classify the area as restoration via rehabilitation.
Wetland 3 will be enhanced through augmentation of wetland vegetation and hydrology.
Invasive species will be removed and maintained throughout monitoring and additional native
hardwood trees will be planted in areas with low stem densities. Clay drainage pipes, which
currently discharge into Little Brushy Fork, will be removed from the wetland to provide some
uplift to wetland hydrology.
Wetlands 4 and 5 will be restored through re-establishment efforts where the hydrology has
been altered due to disconnection of the surrounding streams from their floodplains and
existing ditching. Similar to Wetland 1, removal of internal drainage ditches will increase
residence time water remains within the wetland. This will allow the groundwater table to
recharge and provide wetland hydrology within these two areas during the growing season.
Figure 9 shows the proposed wetland mitigation areas and credit ratios. Table 15 shows the
breakdown of wetland mitigation units.
Table 15: Wetland Mitigation Units
Wetland Name Mitigation Category Credit Ratio Area (acres) Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs)
Wetland 1 Riparian 1.5:1 1.406 0.94
Wetland 2 (successional) Riparian 7.5:1 0.623 0.08
Wetland 2 (pasture) Riparian 2:1 0.189 0.09
Wetland 3 Riparian 5:1 1.897 0.38
Wetland 4 Riparian 1:1 1.313 1.31
Wetland 5 Riparian 1:1 1.009 1.00

8.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The objective of the planting plan is to establish, over time, a thriving riparian buffer composed
of native tree species. Prior to planting, disturbed areas on the project site will be tilled or
ripped to a minimum depth of 4 inches and lime and fertilizer will be applied according to soil
tests. The planting plan will be based on an appropriate nearby reference community and will be
developed to restore appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous layers).
Based on site conditions there will be two planting zones, low stream and wetland zone, and
upland riparian buffer zone. Based on initial observation of the Site, the Piedmont Bottomland
Forest (High Subtype) defined by Schafale (2012) is the appropriate target community for the
low stream and wetland zone. The upland riparian buffer zone will be based on the Schafale
(2012) Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Levee Forest (Typic Subtype) communities. The canopy will be restored through planting of bare root trees. The understory and shrub layers will be restored through a combination of planting bare root, low growth species and installing live
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 34
stake shrub species. The herbaceous layer will be restored by seeding the disturbed area with a
native seed mix with an emphasis placed on creating good soil contact to encourage
germination. Species chosen for the planting plan are listed in Table 16 below. The Draft Plans, Appendix D, also contain additional guidance on planting zones, Site preparation, and Site stabilization during construction. Invasive species will be treated and removed during construction. Treatment of invasive species will be completed throughout monitoring on an as-needed basis as described in Appendix H. These areas will be mapped. Table 16: Proposed Planting Plan
Location Scientific Name Common Name Stratum Wetland Indicator Status
Low stream and wetland zone
Alnus serrulata Tag alder Understory OBL
Betula nigra River birch Understory FACW
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Understory FAC
Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Understory FACW
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Understory FAC
Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak Canopy FACW
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum Canopy FAC
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Canopy FACW
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Canopy FAC
Salix sericea Silky willow Shrub OBL
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry Shrub FAC
Upland Riparian Buffer Zone
Quercus phellos Willow oak Canopy FAC
Quercus nigra Water oak Canopy FAC
Quercus alba White oak Canopy FACU
Celtis laevigata Hackberry Canopy FACW
Ulmus americana American elm Canopy FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar Canopy FACU
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Understory FAC
Carya tomentosa Mockernut hickory Canopy UPL

8.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties
This project includes risk associated with constructing new stream channels in an unforested
area. The site has the potential for sedimentation downstream if massive bank failures occur
during flooding events prior to vegetation stabilizing the soil. This will be addressed using live
stakes where appropriate and allowing for diffuse flow from the upland and wetland areas into
the stream channels. The conservation easement has expanded to include the majority of the
historic floodplains of LBF and UT1 in an effort to maximize the uplift of the aquatic resources
within the project and remove wet areas from potential impacts by cattle. Due to the large
floodplains of LBF and UT1, the smaller tributaries (UT2, UT3, and UT5) will be monitored and
credit will be adjusted if they lose channel features and trend toward becoming wetlands.
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 35
Another risk associated with UT1 and LBF is the amount of sand moving through the system.
Constructed structures can become unstable due to sand infiltration leading to localized
structure failure and potential systemic failures. The Sponsor is aware of this possible threat to
the stability of the project and will actively monitor for this type of problem. This is addressed
further in the Adaptive Management discussion in Section 12.0 and Appendix H.
8.10 Proposed Crossings
A total of five crossings are proposed. Three easement crossings are proposed within the
project area and two are outside the project area. A total of four at-grade stream crossings
(upstream end of UT1 outside of the Project Site, downstream of Norman Shoaf Road near the confluence of UT1 and UT2, downstream of the 30-inch CMP cross pipe on Norman Shoaf Road outside of the Project Site, and on Little Brushy Fork) are proposed. One piped stream crossing is located on UT3 and is a proposed 36-inch Corrugated Aluminum Alloy Pipe that will be buried 6-inches. At-grade crossings, instead of pipes or culverts, are proposed on the large stream channels due to the risks of over-widening and maintenance issues with culverted crossings. These crossings will provide the landowner with access to adjoining property. These crossings will be gated to prevent cattle from accessing the streams. The site can be accessed from Norman Shoaf and Tom Livengood Roads for monitoring and long-term stewardship.
9.0 Performance Standards
The stream and wetland performance standards for the project will follow the 2016 USACE
Wilmington District Stream Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Annual monitoring and
semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. Each
project component has specific performance standards: stream morphology, hydrology, and
vegetation. Wetland enhancement, rehabilitation, and re-establishment areas will be assigned
specific performance criteria for wetland hydrology and vegetation. The Sponsor will monitor
the site for seven years. Performance standards will be evaluated throughout the seven-year
post-construction monitoring. An outline of the performance criteria is detailed below.
9.1 Streams
9.1.1 Dimension
Successful riffle cross sections on restoration reaches should be stable and show little change in
bankfull area, bank height ratio, and width to depth ratio. Bank height ratios will not exceed 1.2
and entrenchment ratios will be at least 2.2 for restored channels. Channel dimensions,
specifically, riffle cross sections, should be within the parameters for the channels of the
designed stream type. In the event that dimensions fall outside the accepted range for a stream
type, the channel will be evaluated for signs of instability. Indicators of instability include
vertical incision of the thalweg and eroding stream banks. Remedial actions will be taken to
address any signs of instability that are indicative of a systemic issue.
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 36
9.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Visual assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining stable
and do not indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral instability. As-built surveys will include a
longitudinal profile survey which will not be completed for subsequent monitoring years. In the
event that instability, vertical or lateral, is noted, a longitudinal profile survey will be necessary
for the affected reaches. The survey will follow the standards described in the Stream Channel
Reference Sites; An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique (Harrelson et. al., 1994).
9.1.3 Photo Documentation
Photos will be used to document morphological stability on an annual basis. Photos will be
taken at each stream crossing, and each cross section, upstream and downstream, to document
the presence/absence of erosion along the stream banks. Channel photos will capture the
formation and longevity of mid-channel bars and vertical incision. Photos will be taken of any
potential signs of instability around grade control structures.
9.1.4 Bankfull Events
For both intermittent and perennial streams, four bankfull events must be documented in
separate monitoring years for each restored reach. In the event that bankfull events do not
occur in four separate years during the seven-year monitoring period, hydrologic monitoring
will continue until the performance standard has been met.
All intermittent restoration and enhancement reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 days
of continuous flow on an annual basis during the monitoring period. UT2, UT3, and UT5 will be
subject to the 30 days of continuous flow requirement. In the event that flow data is not reliable,
a camera will be used to monitor consecutive days of flow.
9.2 Wetlands
Areas designated as re-establishment and rehabilitation will have continuous groundwater
monitoring for seven years. A total of ten groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed and
will record groundwater levels on a daily basis. The approximate locations of the groundwater
gauges are shown on Figures 10A-10D.
Eco Terra installed an on-site rain gauge to determine ongoing rainfall conditions. This rain
gauge will remain post-construction during the monitoring period. Rainfall data from the
nearest rain gauge with available data will be used if the on-site rain gauge has data gaps.
According to the NC State University (NCSU) NC State Climate Office there are three weather
stations, Lexington (ID 314970), Davidson County Airport (ID KEXX), and Lexington (ID LXFN7), in
Davidson County.
The estimated growing season for Davidson County is approximately 282 days (March 28
through November 4). This range is based on WETS data, 1970 through 2000, for the Lexington,
NC station, located approximately 12 miles to the southwest, utilizing air temperatures of 28
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 37
degrees F or higher and 50 percent chance of growing season occurring between beginning and
ending dates.
The USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update issued in
October 2016 by the USACE and NCIRT states the wetland hydroperiod for Chewacla soils is 10-
12 percent. The proposed wetland hydrology performance standard will be groundwater levels
within 12 inches of the soil surface for 10 percent of the growing season (28 days) for Davidson
County under normal precipitation conditions.
9.3 Vegetation
The final vegetative performance standard for the stream restoration and enhancement areas
will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre within the planted areas at the end of the
monitoring period. The interim success criteria will be the survival of 320 stems per acre at the
end of the third monitoring year, 260 stems at the end of the fifth monitoring year, and 210
stems at the end of monitoring year seven. No single planted or volunteer species should
comprise more than 50% of the total stem density within any plot. The vegetation’s average
height must be seven feet or greater at the end of the fifth year of monitoring and 10 feet or
greater after seven years of monitoring. These performance standards will apply to all planted
areas. Invasive species will be monitored and treated as needed to promote success of native
hardwood stems. Photos will be taken at the origin of each vegetation monitoring plot each
year.
9.4 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments will view the integrity of the conservation easement, vegetation plots, and
monitoring gauges. The assessments will identify any issues with the above-mentioned items
and a plan to repair or prevent future problems will be developed.
10.0 Monitoring Plan
The Sponsor will report annual monitoring data in accordance with Regulatory Guidance Letter
(RGL) 08-03 and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (October 2016) produced by the NCIRT and
USACE. The monitoring period will be for seven years or until performance criteria have been
met. Table 17 describes how the monitoring plan verifies project goals and objectives have been
achieved.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 38
Table 17: Monitoring Plan
Goal Treatment Performance
Standard
Monitoring
Metric
Likely Functional
Uplift
Reconnect channels
with historic floodplains and improve wetland
hydrology in existing and drained wetland areas.
Post construction channels will have appropriate bankfull dimensions and
depth to allow flooding of the floodplain.
Four bankfull
events in separate years
on all restoration
reaches within monitoring period.
Crest gauges on
perennial channels and pressure
transducers on intermittent channels.
Longer resident time of flood flows on floodplain to recharge riparian wetlands.
Improve the stability
of stream channels
Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and profile
considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to
the system, landscape setting, and watershed conditions.
Entrenchment ratio stays over
2.2 for C and E channels and bank height
ratio is below 1.2.
Visual inspection and cross section monitoring
Reduce sediment inputs to downstream waters by reducing shear stress, and bank
erosion.
Exclude cattle from
streams
Construct fencing around the conservation
easement and fence off at-grade
crossings.
Cattle excluded from the
conservation easement.
Visual inspection of the fence and
for signs of cattle in easement.
Reduce fecal coliform amounts to
downstream drinking waters, and sediment.
Improve stream habitat
Construct stream to
have variety of stream habitats, varying depth pools,
riffles, woody debris, cover logs, and root
wads.
N/A N/A
Provide varied habitat for macroinvertebrates and other aquatic species, allowing for
an increase in biodiversity.
Restore/enhance wetland hydrology,
soils, and plant communities.
Restore/enhance wetlands by filling ditches and
reconnecting streams to floodplains. Plant native trees.
Have the water
table be within 12-inches of the soil surface for
10% of the growing season. Have 210 stems after seven
years.
Ten groundwater
gauges in wetlands 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5. Vegetation plots in wetlands.
Increase recharge of the wetlands and provide cover for wildlife.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 39
Table 17: Monitoring Plan (cont.)
Goal Treatment Performance
Standard
Monitoring
Metric
Likely Functional
Uplift
Restore and enhance native floodplain and
streambank vegetation
Plant a riparian
buffer with a minimum width of 50-feet with native tree species. Control invasives.
Final survival rate of 210 stems/acre after
7 years. Achieve 10-foot average height after 7 years.
Two percent of the planted area
will be monitored in 100m2
vegetation plots.
Improved riparian
habitat, eventual increase in large
woody debris, stabilization of banks
from roots, decreased sediment runoff from floodplain, and
increased resident time of floodwaters.
Permanently protect
the project site from future development.
Place a permanent conservation
easement on the project site.
Identify and correct any
easement encroachments.
Inspect the easement
boundary on a bi-annual basis.
Protection from
encroachment.

10.1 As-Built Survey
An as-built survey will be completed after construction to document channel dimensions and
new location. The survey will include a complete longitudinal profile including thalweg, water
surface, bankfull, and top of bank. This information will be used for comparison to determine
whether the stream dimensions remain stable. Longitudinal profiles will not be completed on
annual basis unless required by the NCIRT.
10.2 Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per year. Visual
assessments will include vegetation survival, presence of invasives, streambank stability,
structure integrity, easement fence integrity, and hydrology gauge integrity. Nineteen
permanent photo stations, not including those associated with vegetation plots or stream cross
sections, will be set up to document the site.
10.3 Hydrology Monitoring
Crest gauges will be installed to document bankfull events on all perennial channels. Crest
gauges on perennial channels will track the frequency of overbank events. All intermittent
channels will have pressure transducers installed to document frequency and duration of flow.
Wetland hydrology will be monitored using ten continuous groundwater gauges. These will
take a daily reading and will be downloaded a minimum of four times a year.
10.4 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed on restoration and enhancement reaches at a
minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in pools and half in riffles. Morphological data
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 40
and upstream/downstream photos will be collected for the cross sections. Riffle cross sections
will include bank height ratios and entrenchment ratios, which will not be collected for the pool
cross sections. Cross sections will be monitored in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
10.5 Vegetation Monitoring
Two percent of the planted area, approximately 37.7 acres, will be sampled using 0.0247-acre
size vegetation plots. Twenty-one permanent vegetation plots and ten random plots are
proposed for measurement of tree height, species, and location. Photos of each plot will be
taken from the origin of the plot each year. Vegetation will be planted, and plots established at
least 180 days prior to the initiation of the first year of monitoring. Monitoring will occur in
years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between September 1st and the end of the growing season, November 4th.
Invasive species will be monitored and removed if they hinder native vegetation growth or
become the dominant species. In the event that invasive species need to be removed, the
Sponsor will develop a treatment plan.
10.6 Scheduling and Reporting
A baseline monitoring report and as-built drawings will be submitted to the NCIRT within 60
days of site planting. The report will include elevations, photographs, vegetation plots,
groundwater gauges, and stream hydrology gauges. A list of species planted and planting
density will be provided. Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall and submitted to the
USACE no later than April 1 of the following year.
11.0 Long-Term Management Plan
11.1 Ownership and Long-Term Manager
The site will remain in private ownership, protected in its entirety, and managed under the terms
described in the conservation easement. Three Creeks Farm is the existing landowner and there
are no plans in the foreseeable future for a transfer of ownership. Southern Conservation Trust
will serve as the Grantee and long-term manager and will be the party responsible for long-term
management. The conservation easement will be transferred to Southern Conservation Trust
prior to the initial credit release.
Southern Conservation Trust is a US 501 (c)(3) public charity that is dedicated to elevating
nature through exceptional stewardship. Southern Conservation Trust has the ability to monitor
and enforce the requirements of the conservation easement and long-term management plan.
Southern Conservation Trust is currently stewarding over 57,000 acres of conserved land in
Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Virginia,
Colorado, Texas, and Kentucky. Southern Conservation Trust has been approved by the NCIRT
to act as the long-term manager of the conservation easement.
11.2 Long-Term Management Activities
The site streams and wetlands are designed to function as a stable riparian wetland and
piedmont stream complex. Natural wood will be used to the greatest extent practicable. Natural
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 41
channel design was based on reference stream conditions to promote a stable starting point.
Monitoring will be conducted on a yearly basis for seven years to ensure the site remains stable;
however, long-term management activities have been identified in the event that the site
experiences systemic instability and becomes a threat to project success.
The site will be protected in perpetuity by a permanent conservation easement. After the final
closeout process with the NCIRT, long-term management activities will be conducted to ensure
the site is monitored on a regular basis. The long-term manager will be responsible for
inspecting the site annually and conducting long-term management activities as described in
Table 18.
Table 18: Long-Term Management Plan
Long-Term Management Activity Long-Term Manager Responsibility Landowner Responsibility
Install woven wire fence along easement boundary, signage,
and gates on the at-grade crossings.
The steward will inspect the
easement fence and gates to ensure they are preventing cattle from accessing the
easement. Inspect for crossing integrity, easement encroachment and if signs need replacing
The landowner will keep gates closed and report any damage
to gates or boundary fencing to the long-term steward.
The site will be protected by a
recorded conservation easement.
Conduct annual visits to inspect the easement area. Identify problems if they occur and
correct the issues.
The landowner will abide by the recorded conservation easement and contact the long-term
steward if questions arise.

11.3 Funding Mechanism
Anticipated long-term management activities and their associated annual cost are listed in Table
19 below. The Sponsor will fund a stewardship endowment that will be managed by Southern
Conservation Trust. The endowment is designed to provide ongoing revenue to support long-
term management activities. The stewardship endowment is invested to provide recurring
revenue to cover the cost of annual activities, easement enforcement, and issues resulting from
violation.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 42
Table 19: Management Funding
Management Activity Hours Cost per Hour Anticipated
Frequency
Activity
Cost Annual Cost
Annual Requirements*
Annual Planning 10 $20 Annual $200 $200
Field Inspection and Reporting 20 $20 Annual $400 $400
Direct Expenses 1 Annual $500 $500
Adaptive Management
Fence Maintenance 10 As needed
Sign replacement/incidentals $100 $100
Trash Removal 8 As needed
Minor Violation 2 As needed $100 $200
Major Violation As needed
Staff Time 80 $20 $1,600
Legal Counsel 1 $10,000 $10,000
*SCT included all related costs in the cost breakdown. Total Annual Cost $1,400
Capitalization Rate 0.04
Major Violation Cost $11,600
Funding Amount $46,600
12.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Post construction the site will be monitored as described in Section 10.0. Minor corrective
actions are expected. These include but are not limited to: invasives treatment, fence repair, and
replanting. In the event that large scale instability occurs and threatens the success of the
project, an Adaptive Management Plan may be needed. The Sponsor will notify the NCIRT to
coordinate the best approach to fixing any major issues. An Adaptive Management Plan will be
submitted to the NCIRT for approval prior to the commencement of any work within the site.
The Sponsor will be responsible for funding any future work and securing all permits required to
complete the work. If the NCIRT determines the site is not meeting the performance standards
the NCIRT may suspend credit sales, utilize financial assurances, and/or terminate the banking
instrument.
An integral part of a successful compensatory mitigation project is early detection of problems
during implementation, determining the cause(s) of those problems, and attempting to correct
those problems so that the compensatory mitigation project achieves its objectives and
ecological performance standards. Interim performance standards are crucial to ensuring
compensatory mitigation performance follows a trajectory to attain final compensatory
mitigation success.
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the
necessary performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the
members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
Large scale corrective measures may require an Adaptive Management Plan. Large scale
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 43
corrective measures may include, but are not limited to, re-grading part of the mitigation site,
replanting more than 20% of the site to improve composition or species diversity, or the
addition of stabilization structures. The Adaptive Management Plan review will follow Section
332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, part of the streamlined review process, which requires
an IRT review period of 15 calendar days.
Once the Adaptive Management plan is prepared, the sponsor will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide Permit 27 general conditions.
2. Notify NCDWR if necessary for 401 conditions.
3. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary.
4. Obtain other permits as necessary.
5. Submit the Adaptive Management Plan for IRT review and approval.
6. Implement the Adaptive Management Plan.
7. Provide the IRT a Record Drawing/As-Built of corrective actions.
The Final Mitigation Plan should include:
1. Identify responsible parties who will identify problems.
2. Potential problems that may arise during the monitoring period, particularly if performance
standards are not met.
3. Potential causes of those problems.
4. Identify a process for determining measures to correct deficiencies in compensatory
mitigation projects, such as site modifications, design changes, revisions to maintenance
requirements, and revisions to monitoring requirements (see 33 CFR § 332.7(c)(3)).
Appendix H includes information about Project Risk and Uncertainties.
13.0 Determination of Credits
Final stream and wetland credits are shown in Table 20. The mitigation ratios follow the
Prospectus and conversations with the NCIRT during the on-site visit on January 26, 2020.
All stream buffers will be a minimum of 50 feet from the top of bank, with a few exceptions near
the beginning or end of the stream reach. The credit release schedule is in Appendix I.
Table 20: Project Assets Summary
Mitigation Credits Summary
Stream Riparian Wetland
Type Restoration Enhancement Restoration Enhancement
Totals 8,376 319 3.25 0.55
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 44
Table 21: Stream Assets
Project
Reach ID
Existing
Footage* (LF) Approach
Mitigation Type
(Restoration or Enhancement)
Restoration
Footage*# (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit SMUs+
LBF Reach 1 1,431 P1 Restoration 2,209 1:1 2,209
LBF Reach 2 1,019 P1 Restoration 575 1:1 575
LBF Reach 3 593 P1 Restoration 616 1:1 616
UT1 Reach 1 1,135 P1 Restoration 1,496 1:1 1,496
UT1 Reach 2a 259 P1 Restoration 280 1:1 280
UT1 Reach 2 959 P1 Restoration 1,095 1:1 1,095
UT1 Reach
2** 554 P1 Restoration 700 1.5:1 467
UT2 325 P1 Restoration 295 1:1 295
UT3 Reach 1 142 N/A Enhancement II 142 2.5:1 57
UT3 Reach 2 100 N/A Enhancement I 100 1.5:1 67
UT3 Reach 3 526 N/A Enhancement II 487 2.5:1 195
UT3 Reach 4 35 P1 Restoration 92 1:1 92
UT4 Reach 1 431 P1 Restoration 485 1:1 485
UT4 Reach 2 670 P1 Restoration 990 1.5:1 660
UT5 0^ P1 Restoration 106 1:1 106
Total 8,179 Total 9,668 Total 8,695
*Does not include easement breaks, #Lengths end at TOB of receiving waters, ^Stream is piped, estimated existing
footage is 105 lf, +No credits were lost due to the powerline easement along Norman Shoaf Road, ** Parallel portion
of UT1 Reach 2.
Table 22: Wetland Assets
Wetland ID Existing Acreage
(Ac)
Restoration (R) or Restoration
Equivalent (RE)
Restoration Acreage
(Ac)
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed Credits
WMUs*
Wetland 1 1.41 Rehabilitation 1.406 1.5:1 0.94
Wetland 2 (successional) 0.62 Enhancement 0.623 7.5:1 0.08
Wetland 2 (pasture) 0.18 Enhancement 0.189 2:1 0.09
Wetland 3 1.90 Enhancement 1.897 5:1 0.38
Wetland 4 0 Re-establishment 1.313 1:1 1.31
Wetland 5 0 Re-establishment 1.009 1:1 1.00
Total 3.80
14.0 Financial Assurances
Financial assurance in the form of a surety bond will be provided before the first credit release
and maintained over the operational life of the bank. The Sponsor shall provide financial
assurance sufficient to assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and
monitoring, and any adaptive management activities required pursuant to the Bank MBI. The
bond shall consist of a performance bond in a form substantially similar to the draft provided in
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 45
Appendix J underwritten by a surety company licensed to do business in North Carolina with a
Best’s current rating of not less than “A-“. The total value of such a bond shall be One-million
One-hundred thirty-three thousand.
The bond shall remain in full force and effect for a period of eight (8) years. The maximum
penal sum of this bond may be reduced by the USACE in its sole discretion based on its
approval of the applicable as-built or monitoring, by these scheduled amounts:
Table 23: Reduction of Penal Sum
Year Reduction Revised Penal Sum
1 $0 $1,133,000
2 $953,000 $180,000
3 $20,000 $160,000
4 $20,000 $140,000
5 $20,000 $120,000
6 $20,000 $100,000
7 $20,000 $80,000
8 $20,000 $60,000

USACE shall issue a full and final release of the bond when the seven-year monitoring period is
complete, all monitoring reports have been submitted and approved by the USACE, and the
success criteria identified in the FMP have been achieved and approved by the USACE. The
bond shall not be released in whole until the principal receives written verification from the
USACE that all conditions for release have been satisfied. Appendix J includes a breakdown of
the financial assurances.

Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 46
15.0 References

Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978 Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company.
New York.
Harman, W. A. and C. J. Jones. 2017. North Carolina Stream Quantification Tool: Spreadsheet
User Manual, NC SQT v3.0. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC.
Harman, W. A. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and
J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, and C. Miller. 2012. A
function-based framework for developing stream assessments, restoration goals,
performance standards and standard operating procedures. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watershed, Washington, DC.
Hey, Richard and Dave Rosgen, 1997. Fluvial Geomorphology for Engineers. Wildland Hydrology,
Pagosa Springs, CO.
Lowther, Brian. 2008. Stream Channel Geomorphology Relationships for North Carolina
Piedmont Reference Reaches – a thesis prepared in the Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department of North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2003. Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2007. Harrell Site Stream and Wetland
Restoration Plan.
North Carolina Division Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2009 Lower Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2016. Memorandum dated June 15,
2015, with title “Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and
Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration”.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2016. Undated memorandum with title
“A Review of Scientific Literature on Fecal Coliform Attenuation by Riparian Buffers”.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2019. Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan.
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 47
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2021. Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence
Database, Davidson County, NC.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 2021. Data Explorer. Department of Natural and
Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. Data Date July 2021.
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (NCOSBM). 2021. Project Population
Change in North Carolina Counties: 2020-2030.
https://files.nc.gov/ncosbm/demog/countygrowth_2030.html
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2016. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) User Manual, Version 5. 127pp., Appendices.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L. and Silvey, H.L., 2005. The Reference Reach Field Book. Wildland Hydrology Books,
Fort Collins, CO, 256 pp.
Rosgen, D.L. 2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS).
Second Edition. Wildland Hydrology, Fort Collins, CO.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth Approximation.
Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 208 pp.
Silvey, H. Lee, Leopold, Luna, and Rosgen, D.L. 1998. The Reference Reach Field Book. Wildland
Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 14(1):11-26.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2022. Natural Resources Conservation Service: National Water
and Climate Center. Davidson County: WETS Station: Lexington. http://agacis.rcc-
acis.org/?fips=37057
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Mitigation Plan
SAW-2019-02341 Page 48
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2021. Information and Planning Consultation (IPaC).
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
Walker, Alan. Unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve.

Figures

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community
Vicinity MapThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaJune 2021 ³ESRI Topo Basemap
2.5 0 2.51.25
Miles
5-mile Buffer
Natural Heritage Natural Areas
Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
Conservation Easement
Figure1
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community
Service Area MapThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaJune 2022 ³
7 0 73.5
Miles
Legend
Conservation Easement
Service Area Yadkin 03 (03040103)
Figure2
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, NCDOT GIS Unit,NCDOT STIP Unit
NCDOT 2020-2029 STIPThree Creeks Farm Mitigaiton BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaJune 2021 ³2018 ESRI Basemap
7 0 73.5
Miles
Yadkin 03 Watershed
2020-2029 STIP Lines
Project Type
Statewide Highway
Regional Highway
Division Highway
IM
CMAQ
Other Highway
Transition Highway
Transition Rail
Regional Public Transit
Division Bicycle And Pedestrian
Transition Bicycle And Pedestrian
Other Bicycle And Pedestrian
Figure3
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
Existing ConditionsThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023 ³2018 ESRI Basemap
400 0 400200
Feet
Figure4A
Wetland 2Successional
Wetland 1
UT 1 Reach 1
UT 2
UT 1 Reach 2
LBF Reach 3
Little Brushy Fork (LBF)Reach 1
UT 3 Reach 1
UT 4 Reach 1
UT 3 Reach 4
UT 3 Reach 3
Wetland 3
Wetland 2Field
UT 1 Reach 2a
UT 3 Reach 2
LBFReach 2
Wetland 4
Wetland 5
UT 5
Trib A
UT 4 Reach 2
Reference Wetland
Legend
!(Existing Groundwater Gauges
Data Forms
Clay Pipe
Swale/Ditch
Reach Breaks
Existing Streams
Conservation Easement
Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands
Drained Wetlands
Existing Crossing
Existing Crossing
Existing Crossing
NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
Existing Conditions-Channel StabilityThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023 ³2018 ESRI Basemap
400 0 400200
Feet
Figure4B
Wetland 2Successional
Wetland 1
UT 1 Reach 1
UT 2
UT 1 Reach 2
LBF Reach 3
Little Brushy Fork (LBF)Reach 1
UT 3 Reach 1
UT 4 Reach 1
UT 3 Reach 4
UT 3 Reach 3
Wetland 3
Wetland 2Field
UT 1 Reach 2a
UT 3 Reach 2
LBFReach 2
Wetland 4
Wetland 5
UT 4 Reach 2
Legend
Incised & Bank Failure
Incised & Scour
Incised & Scour/Bank Failure
Not Incised & No Erosion
Not Incised & Scour/Bank Failure
Reach Breaks
Conservation Easement
Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands
Drained Wetlands
Existing Crossing
Existing Crossing
Existing Crossing
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Topographic MapThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023 ³
700 0 700350
Feet
Legend
Conservation Easement
Figure5
ESRI USA Topo Map
Soil Survey MapThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023 ³1994 Soil Survey Map Sheet 2
700 0 700350
Feet
Conservation Easement
Figure6
Ch-Chewacla loam, frequently floodedPaD-Pacolet sandy loam, 8-15% slopesPaE-Pacolet sandy loam, 15-25% slopes
³
400 0 400200
Feet
Conservation Easement
Figure7A
Swale in the floodplain, similar conditions from 1955 to present.
1955 Historical AerialThree Creeks Farm Mitigaiton BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023
Little Brushy Fork (LBF)
UT4 along the eastern edge ofLBF floodplain.
³USGS 1965 Single Frame AerialAR1VBCC00040289
200 0 200100
Feet
Conservation Easement
Figure7B
Confluence of UT4 and LBF while it appears UT4 is still forested.
1955 Historical AerialThree Creeks Farm Mitigaiton BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community, NCCenter for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
³2018 ESRI BasemapNCDOT Davidson County Contours
400 0 400200
Feet
Conservation Easement
100-year Flood Zone (AE)
Figure8
FEMA Mapped AreasThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023
NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
Mitigation Areas
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank
Yadkin 03040103
Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2024 ³2018 ESRI Basemap
400 0 400200
Feet
Figure
9
Wetland 2
Successional
Wetland 1
UT 1 Reach 1
UT 2
UT 1 Reach 2
LBF Reach 3
Little Brushy Fork (LBF)
Reach 1
UT 3 Reach 1
UT 4 Reach 1
UT 3 Reach 4
UT 3 Reach 3
Wetland 3
Wetland 2
Pasture
UT 1 Reach 2a
UT 3 Reach 2
LBF
Reach 2
Wetland 4
Wetland 5
UT 5
Trib A
No Credit
UT 4 Reach 2
Internal Crossing
38 lf No Credit
Internal Crossing
24 lf No Credit
UT1 Reach 2
1.5:1 Credit Ratio
AccessRoad
Reach Break
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhacement I
Stream Enhancement II
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
UT1 Reach 2
1.5:1 Credit Ratio
NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
Monitoring Plan OverviewThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023 ³2018 ESRI Basemap
400 0 400200
Feet
Figure10A
Wetland 2Successional
Wetland 1
UT 1 Reach 1
UT 2
UT 1 Reach 2
LBF Reach 3
Little Brushy Fork (LBF)Reach 1
UT 3 Reach 1
UT 4 Reach 1
UT 3 Reach 4
UT 3 Reach 3
Wetland 3
Wetland 2Pasture
UT 1 Reach 2a
UT 3 Reach 2
LBFReach 2
Wetland 4
Wetland 5
UT 5
Trib A
Legend
Access Road
Reach Break
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
Figure 10D
Figure 10B
Figure 10C
UT 4 Reach 2
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
^_
^_
^_
^_
NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
Monitoring PlanThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023 ³2018 ESRI Basemap
200 0 200100
Feet
Figure10B
Wetland 2SuccessionalLittle Brushy Fork (LBF)Reach 1
UT 3 Reach 1
UT 4 Reach 1
UT 3 Reach 4
UT 3 Reach 3
Wetland 2Pasture
UT 3 Reach 2
LBFReach 2
Wetland 5
Legend
^_
^_
E
")
Crest Gauge
Flow Gauge/Camera
Photos
Vegetation Plot
Reach Break
Groundwater Gauge
Access Road
Cross Section
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
UT 4 Reach 2
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
^_
^_
^_
^_
NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
Monitoring PlanThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023 ³2018 ESRI Basemap
200 0 200100
Feet
Figure10C
Wetland 1
UT 2
UT 1 Reach 2
LBF Reach 3
Little Brushy Fork (LBF)Reach 2
UT 4 Reach 2
Wetland 4
UT 5
Legend
^_
^_
E
")
Crest Gauge
Flow Gauge/Camera
Photos
Groundwater Gauge
Vegetation Plot
Reach Break Access Road
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Cross Section
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland 3
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
^_
^_
^_
NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
Monitoring PlanThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023 ³2018 ESRI Basemap
200 0 200100
Feet
Figure10D
UT 1 Reach 1
UT 2
UT 1 Reach 2
UT 1 Reach 2a
Wetland 4
Trib A
N
o
r
m
a
n

S
h
o
a
f

R
d
.
Legend
^_Crest Gauge
^_Flow Gauge/Camera
E Photos
")Vegetation Plot
Reach Break
Groundwater Gauge
Access Road
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Cross Section
Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community
Drainage Area MapThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023 ³2018 NC Onemap AerialDrainage Areas from USGS StreamStats/Hand Digitized
2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Existing Streams
Conservation Easement
Little Brushy Fork Drainage Area 4.2 sq.mi.
Tributary 1 Drainage Area 2.4 sq.mi.
UT 2 Drainage Area 15acres
UT 3 Drainage Area 46 acres
UT 4 Drainage Area 205 acres
UT 5 Drainage Area 13 acres
Figure11
NC Center for Geographic Information & Anaylsis
LiDARThree Creeks Farm Mitigation BankYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaOctober 2023 ³QL2 LiDAR
380 0 380190
Feet
Figure12
Legend
Existing Streams
Conservation Easement
NC CGIA, Maxar, Microsoft
Powerline Easement along UT2
Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank
Yadkin 03040103
Davidson County, North Carolina
September 2023 ³2018 ESRI Basemap
30 0 3015
Feet
Figure
13
UT 2
Legend
Credit Centerline
Design TOB
Design Centerline
Powerline Easement
UT2 Design TOB 50-ft Buffer on Credit Length
Conservation Easement
UT 1

Appendix A. Conservation Easement Information and Southern Conservation
Trust Letter

1

Finalized Conservation Easement will be included in the FINAL mitigation plan.

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S
USE
PERMANENT CONSERVATION
EASEMENT

THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Conservation Easement”) made
this day _____ of _______________, 202_____ by _______________ and
between (“Grantor”) and _______________ (“Grantee”).

The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said
parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural,
masculine, feminine or neuter as required by context.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated,
lying and being in _______________ County, North Carolina, more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”);

WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not-for-profit or educational
corporation, association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of
2

the Internal Revenue Code, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq., the
purposes or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) – (d)
listed below;

(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open-space aspects of
real property;
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational,
educational, or open-space use;
(c) protecting natural resources;
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic,
natural, or aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes
the following natural communities: [add or delete as appropriate: coastal
wetlands, non-riparian wetlands, riparian wetlands, perennial and intermittent
streams and riparian buffers]. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to
maintain streams, wetlands and riparian resources and other natural values of
approximately acres, more or less, and being more particularly described in
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated fully herein by reference (the
“Conservation Easement Area”), and prevent the use or development of the
Conservation Easement Area for any purpose or in any manner that would
conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.

WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the
Conservation Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the _______________
Mitigation Bank, Department of the Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW-
_______________, entitled “Agreement to Establish the _______________
Mitigation Bank in the _______________ River Basin within the State of North
Carolina”, entered into by and between [enter Sponsor name] acting as the
Bank Sponsor and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in
consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The
_______________ Mitigation Site has been approved by the Corps for use as
a mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts
authorized by DA permits.

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third-party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (“Third-
Parties,” to include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through
the appropriate enforcement agencies of the United States and the State of
North Carolina, and that these rights are in addition to, and do not limit, the
rights of enforcement under the NCDWR Project ID # _______________ and
Department of the Army instrument number SAW-_______________
(“Mitigation Banking Instrument”), or any permit or certification issued by the
Third-Parties.

3

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and
representations contained herein and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, Grantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns, forever and in
perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the
extent hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area described
on Exhibit B, together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation
values thereof, as follows:

ARTICLE I.
DURATION OF EASEMENT

This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation
Easement is an easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by
Grantee against Grantor, Grantor’s personal representatives, heirs, successors
and assigns, lessees, agents and licensees.

ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent
with the purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The
Conservation Easement Area shall be preserved in its natural condition and
restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities
and uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated
hereunder:

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

B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building, mobile
home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display, antenna, utility
pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or permanent structure
or facility on or above the Conservation Easement Area.

C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential
and/or commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes
are prohibited.

D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing,
animal husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area
4

are prohibited.

E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction,
harming, cutting or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the
Conservation Easement Area except as provided in the Mitigation Plan.
Mowing of invasive and herbaceous vegetation for purposes of enhancing
planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved in the Mitigation Plan is
allowable once a year for no more than five consecutive years from the date on
page 1 of this Conservation Easement, except where mowing will negatively
impact vegetation or disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed by
[enter Sponsor name] and shall not violate any part of Item L of Article II.

F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or
walkways on the Conservation Easement Area; nor enlargement or
modification to existing roads, trails or walkways.

G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation
Easement Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying
the conservation values of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving
directions or proscribing rules and regulations for the use of the Conservation
Easement Area and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner of the
Conservation Easement Area.

H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes,
garbage, waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous
substances, or toxic or hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or
aboveground storage tanks or other materials on the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.

I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading,
filling, excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand,
gravel, rock, peat, minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography
of the land in any manner on the Conservation Easement Area, except to
restore natural topography or drainage patterns. For purposes of restoring and
enhancing streams and wetlands within the Conservation Easement Area,
[enter Sponsor name] is allowed to perform grading, filling, and excavation
associated with stream and wetland restoration and enhancement activities as
described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by Department of the Army
Nationwide Permit 27.

J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking,
draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related
activities, or altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or
disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns.
In addition, diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or
underground water into, within or out of the easement area by any means,
removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or
5

wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited.

K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been
encumbered or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be
transferred pursuant to a transferable development rights scheme or cluster
development arrangement or otherwise.

[Not required, but may be added if Grantor and Grantee agree:]
L. Subdivision. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the Conservation
Easement Area currently consists of _______________ within
_______________ separate parcels. The Grantor may not further subdivide the
Conservation Easement Area, except with the prior written consent of the
Grantee. If Grantor elects to further subdivide any portion of the Conservation
Easement Area, Grantor must provide the Grantee the name, address, and
telephone number of new owner(s) of all property within the Conservation
Easement Area, if different from Grantor. No subdivision of the Conservation
Easement Area shall limit the right of ingress and egress over and across the
Property for the purposes set forth herein. Further, in the event of any
subdivision of the Property (whether inside or outside of the Conservation
Easement Area) provision shall be made to preserve not only Grantee’s
perpetual rights of access to the Conservation Easement Area, as defined
herein, but also Grantee’s right of perpetual access to any conservation
easements on properties adjacent to the Property which form a part of or are
included in the Mitigation Plan. Creation of a condominium or any de facto
division of the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. Lot line adjustments
or lot consolidation without the prior written consent of the Grantee is
prohibited. The Grantor may convey undivided interests in the real property
underlying the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor shall notify the
Grantee immediately of the name, address, and telephone number of any
grantee of an undivided interest in any property within the Conservation
Easement Area.

M. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not
limited to, motorcycles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is
prohibited other than for temporary or occasional access by the [enter
Sponsor name], the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors,
assigns, NCDWR, and the Corps for purposes of constructing, maintaining
and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and preservation of streams,
wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation Easement Area. The
use of mechanized vehicles for monitoring purposes is limited to only
existing roads and trails as shown in the approved in the mitigation plan.

N. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the
Conservation Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the
purposes of this grant, the preservation of the Conservation Easement Area
substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental
systems, is prohibited.
6

ARTICLE III.
GRANTOR’S RESEVERED RIGHTS

The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation
Easement Area for all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the
Conservation Easement Area, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to
hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement Area, the right to sell,
transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement Area, in whole or
in part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms
of, and shall specifically reference, this Conservation Easement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, including [enter Sponsor name] acting as the Bank
Sponsor, the right to construct and perform activities related to the restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within
the Conservation Easement Area in accordance with the approved
_______________ Mitigation Plan, and the Mitigation Banking Instrument
described in the Recitals of this Conservation Easement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor,
its successors and assigns, the following rights in the areas labeled as “Internal
Crossing” on the plat [insert plat name and recorded plat book page number] in
the Conservation Easement Area: vehicular access, livestock access, irrigation
piping and piping of livestock waste. All Internal Crossings that allow livestock
access will be bounded by fencing and will be over a culvert.

ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE’S RIGHTS

The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns,
and the Corps, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation
Easement Area at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the
Conservation Easement Area to determine if the Grantor, or his personal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, is complying with the terms,
conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation Easement. The
Grantee, [enter Sponsor name], and its authorized representatives, successors
and assigns, and the Corps shall also have the right to enter and go upon the
Conservation Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational
observations and studies, and taking samples. The easement rights granted
herein do not include public access rights.

ARTICLE V.
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

7

A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, the Corps,
and NCDWR are allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation
Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to
require the restoration of such areas or features of the Conservation Easement
Area that may be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the
terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of
the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The
Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions
constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after 30 days, the
Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal
proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to
obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if the
breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly or
otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such
circumstances damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at
law will be inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided
hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and
remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
The costs of a breach, correction or restoration, including the Grantee’s
expenses, court costs, and attorneys’ fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided
Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps and the
NCDWR shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to
enforce the terms and conditions of this Conservation easement.

B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or
provision hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other
covenant, condition, or provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce
the same in the event of a subsequent breach or default.

C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be
construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or
change in the Conservation Easement Area resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor’s control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of
God or third parties, except Grantor’s lessees or invitees; or from any prudent
action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to the
Conservation Easement Area resulting from such causes.

ARTICLE VI.
MISCELLANEOUS

A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns
the Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the
Property which may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement
or that there are no outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other
8

interests in the Property which have not been expressly subordinated to this
Conservation Easement. Grantor further warrants that Grantee shall have the
use of and enjoy all the benefits derived from and arising out of this
Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the
Property against the claims of all persons.

B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms
of this Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that
transfers any interest in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area.
The Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60)
days prior to the date of the transfer. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the
terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and
easement interests in the Conservation Easement Area or any portion thereof
and shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior written
consent and approval of the Corps.

C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of
this Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however
that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or
assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will
be a qualified holder pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34
et seq. and § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the
Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or
assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to
continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.

D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The Mitigation Banking
Instrument: MBI with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation
Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations,
understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any
provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.

E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate
taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall
keep the Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations
incurred by Grantor, except those incurred after the date hereof, which are
expressly subject and subordinate to the Conservation Easement. Grantee shall
not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership,
operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as
expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits
that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.

F. Long-Term Management. Grantor is responsible for all long-term
management activities associated with fencing. These activities include the
9

maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures to ensure the aquatic
resource functions within the boundaries of the Protected Property are
sustained.

G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render
impossible the continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the
conservation purposes, this Conservation Easement may only be extinguished,
in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.

H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation
Easement Area is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to
substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by this Conservation
Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at the time of
such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and direct
damages due to the taking.

I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property
interest immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the
Conservation Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted
following an extinguishment or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall
be entitled to the fair market value of this Conservation Easement as
determined at the time of the extinguishment or condemnation.

J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other
communication required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by
registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such
address as may be hereafter specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):

To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Sponsor:

To the Corps:
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403

K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to
enforce this Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified
grantee, and if within a reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of
these events Grantee fails to make an assignment pursuant to this
Conservation Easement, then the Grantee’s interest shall become vested in
another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate proceeding in a
10

court of competent jurisdiction.

L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but
only in a writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment
does not affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of
the Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation
purposes of this grant.

M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The
wetlands, scenic, resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of
the Conservation Easement Area, and its current use and state of
improvement, are described in Section _____ of the Mitigation Plan, prepared
by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and Grantee to be complete and
accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies of this
report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes in the use
of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with the terms of this
Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the
use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the Conservation
Easement Area if there is a controversy over its use.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually
unto Grantee for the aforesaid purposes.

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

[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]
Mr. McIntyre,
It is the Southern Conservation Trust’s intent to serve as holder of a permanentconservation easement on approximately 41.20 acres in Davidson County, NorthCarolina as part of the Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank that you, Three CreeksMitigation LLC, sponsor. We understand that you are in the submittal phase of arevised mitigation plan for the project. We plan to work with you as the projectmoves forward and are ready to assume responsibility for holding the easementas soon as it is ready to be recorded. We are also agreeable to and intend to serveas the long-term stewards of this site upon project closeout.
We estimate we will need approximately $38,000 as a long-term endowment forthe responsibilities summarized in the mitigation plan revised January 2023.Please don't hesitate to reach out for discussion if adjustments need to be madeto meet new mitigation plan or third party requirements.
Our 501(c)(3) nonprofit land trust is a qualified easement holder and committedto elevating nature through exceptional stewardship. We hold conservationeasements and own and manage fee simple property throughout the state ofNorth Carolina, from mountains to coast. We are prepared and well-equipped tocarry out the long term responsibilities detailed in the plan you have proposed.
We look forward to working with you, the USACE and IRT, and landownerpartners on this important mitigation project in the Yadkin River Basin HUC03040103.
Please reach out to us at the contact information below. I'm available to answerany questions you may have or provide clarification.
March 22, 2024Three Creeks Mitigation LLCAttn: Adam V. McIntyre111 Main AvenueBrookings, SD 57006
Re: Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-02341
Regards,
Jesse Woodsmith
DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP
SOUTHERN CONSERVATION TRUST
E: [e-mail]
P: 770-486-7774 EXT. 2 - CONSERVATION
W: WWW.SCTLANDTRUST.ORG
Southern Conservation Trust, Inc.
305 Beauregard Blvd
Fayetteville, Georgia 30214

Appendix B. USACE Wetland Data Forms and Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination

Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont RegionSee ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
3
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Site is in an active cattle pasture. Very dry time of year.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Three Creeks Davidson
W1
7/18/19
Eco Terra NC
No
Section, Township, Range:H. Smith
0-2convexfloodplain
Datum:83-80.19176635.965417LRR P, MLRA 136
Not mappedNWI classification:Chewacla loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.X
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)9.1 m
=Total Cover
FACW
OBL
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
6
0
6
0
Multiply by:
80
1.87Prevalence Index = B/A =
40
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
9
11
23
9.1 m
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
45
No
Yes
5
1
Sagittaria latifolia
30Polygonum persicaria FACW
Juncus effusus 10
1
Salix nigra
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
No rooted trees
)Indicator StatusDominant Species?
No OBL
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute % Cover
100.0%Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
W1
2
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
86
0
46
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
M
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Color (moist)Matrix
C10YR 4/1
10YR 3/3
10YR 5/62-5
0-2
W1SOIL
5-12 10YR 4/2
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
80
Redox FeaturesDepth(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
10YR 5/6
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M20
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
C20
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont RegionSee ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
6
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Site is in an active cattle pasture. Very dry time of year.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Three Creeks Davidson
W2
7/18/19
Eco Terra NC
No
Section, Township, Range:H. Smith
2convexheadwater
Datum:83-80.19275335.969246LRR P, MLRA 136
Not mappedNWI classification:Chewacla loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)9.1 m
=Total Cover
FACW
OBL
No
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10
30
10
0
Multiply by:
100
2.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
50
Yes FAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
10
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACWNo
11
38
28
10
9.1 m
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
55
Cyperus esculentus
No
Yes
5
5
Diospyros virginiana
Sagittaria latifolia
30Polygonum persicaria FACW
Juncus effusus 10
15
Salix nigra
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
No rooted trees
)Indicator StatusDominant Species?
Yes
10
OBL
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute % Cover
100.0%Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
W2
3
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
140
0
70
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
85
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
90 C
Color (moist)Matrix
C10YR 5/1
10YR 4/1 10YR 5/6
10YR 5/64-12
0-4
W2SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M15
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
10 M
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Three Creeks Davidson
W3
1/27/2020
Eco Terra NC
No
Section, Township, Range:H. Smith
0-2convexfloodplain
Datum:8380.19216635.966506LRR P, MLRA 136
Not mappedNWI classification:Chewacla loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Site has a farm path and cattle activity. Clay pipes were seen discharging from the wetland into Little Brushy Fork
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont RegionSee ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
4
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
W3
2
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
220
0
65
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FACU
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute % Cover
66.7%Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
45
Ligustrum sinense
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
No rooted trees
)Indicator StatusDominant Species?
Yes
5
40
Quercus nigra
Juncus effusus 15
9.1 m
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
9.1 m )
Smilax rotundifolia
15
3
923
8
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
10
40
(A)
(B)
(A)
30
0
160
Multiply by:
30
3.38Prevalence Index = B/A =
15
No FAC
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)9.1 m
=Total Cover
FACWYes
13
=Total Cover5
5 Yes FAC
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M20
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
C20
W3SOIL
5-12 10YR 4/2
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
80
Redox FeaturesDepth(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
10YR 5/6
%Matrix
C10YR 4/1
10YR 3/3
10YR 5/62-5
0-2
Loc2
M
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
No X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:Three Creeks Drained Wetland 4 Davidson
Drained
7/18/19
Eco Terra NC
No
Section, Township, Range:H. Smith
0concavefloodplain
Datum:83-80.19520735.966637LRR P, MLRA 136
Not mappedNWI classification:Chewacla loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Wetland is drained by two ditches, one ditch conveys drainage underneath Norman Shoaf Rd. to Little Brushy Fork and the other originates within the site and drains into Little Brushy Fork. The soils have been compacted by cattle and the vegetation is altered due to use as a cattle pasture. The antecedent precipitation tool considered the area to have "Normal Conditions" during the site visit, 7/18/2019. The lack of hydrology during normal conditions indicates this area is being effectively drained by the two ditches.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont RegionSee ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.X
8.
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
Drained
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
30
0
20
Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute % Cover
0.0%Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
No roted shrubs
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
No rooted trees
)Indicator StatusDominant Species?
No
Yes
10Sagittaria latifolia
70Fescue sp.
Juncus effusus 10
9.1 m
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
90
1845
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
10
0
Multiply by:
20
1.50Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)9.1 m
=Total Cover
FACW
OBL
No
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M30
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
Distinct redox concentrations
30 M
DrainedSOIL
10YR 4/2
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
10
Redox FeaturesDepth(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%Matrix
C10YR 4/3
10YR 4/3 10YR 5/6
10YR 5/67-12
0-7
Loc2
60
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
70 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Three Creeks Mitigation Site, Davidson County
Site Photographs
UT 1 Upstream of Norman Shoaf Rd. UT 1 Downstream of Norman Shoaf Rd.
UT2 at Upstream End UT 2 Looking Downstream
Start of UT 3 Middle of UT 3
UT 4 at Cattle Crossing UT 4 at Cattle Crossing
Little Brushy Fork Little Brushy Fork
Wetland 1 Wetland 1

SAW-2019-02341
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. SAW-2019-02341 County: Davidson U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Midway

NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Requestor: Three Rivers Farm
Elizabeth White
Address: 1430 Norman Shoaf Road
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Telephone Number: 336-577-3359
E-mail: [e-mail]

Size (acres) ~32 Nearest Town Winston-Salem
Nearest Waterway Little Brushy Fork River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040103 Coordinates Latitude: 35.970173
Longitude: -80.197086
Location description: The review area is located on the east and west sides of Norman Shoaf Road; with the northern end of the
review area at 35.972006, -80.196286, the western edge at 35.966734, -80.200147, the eastern edge at 35.965464, -80.190837,
and the southern end at 35.964033, -80.195474. PINs: 6841-04-50-6383, 6840-02-79-0248, 6840-02-79-0248, 6840-02-56-4939,
and 6840-02-68-1081. Reference review area description shown in Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled
Figure 2, Parcel Map” and Printed Date of July 2019.

Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A.PreliminaryDetermination

There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated November 2019.
Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining
compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource
protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be
affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.

There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination

There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

SAW-2019-02341
We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.

The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Bryan Roden-Reynolds at 704-510-1440 or
[e-mail].

C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 2/25/2021.
D. Remarks: None.

E. Attention USDA Program Participants

This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.

F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)

This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:

US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shannin, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801

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

Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________
Bryan Roden-Reynolds
2021.02.25 08:56:50 -05'00'
SAW-2019-02341

Date of JD: 2/25/2021 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0

Copy furnished:

Agent: Eco Terra Partners, LLC
Heather Smith
Address: Venture 1, 940 Main Campus Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Telephone Number: 919-754-5019
E-mail: [e-mail]

Agent: Eco Terra Partners, LLC
Heather Smith
Address: Venture 1, 940 Main Campus Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Telephone Number: 919-754-5019
E-mail: [e-mail]

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Three Rivers Farm, Elizabeth White File Number: SAW-2019-02341 Date: 02/21/2020
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
x ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
x OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
x ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
x APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
x ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
x APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

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

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Bryan Roden-Reynolds
Charlotte Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262

If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.

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

For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:

District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Bryan Roden-Reynolds, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403

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

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

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 02/21/2020

B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Three Rivers Farm, Elizabeth White, 1430
Norman Shoaf Road, Winston-Salem, NC 27107

C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Three Creeks Farm Mitigation
Bank, SAW-2019-02341

D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located on the east and
west sides of Norman Shoaf Road; with the northern end of the review area at 35.972006, -80.196286, the western edge
at 35.966734, -80.200147, the eastern edge at 35.965464, -80.190837, and the southern end at 35.964033, -80.195474.
PINs: 6841-04-50-6383, 6840-02-79-0248, 6840-02-79-0248, 6840-02-56-4939, and 6840-02-68-1081. Reference
review area description shown in Jurisdictional Determination Request package entitled Figure 2, Parcel Map” and
Printed Date of July 2019.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Davidson City: Winston-Salem
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.970173 Longitude: -80.197086
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Brushy Fork
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 04/21/2020 Field Determination. Date(s): 01/27/2020
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.

Feature Latitude (decimal
degrees)
Longitude (decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount of
aquatic resources in
review area (acreage
and linear feet, if
applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic resource
“may be” subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or Section
10/404)
SEE ATTACHED TABLE

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or
requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has
not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or
different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than

accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant
can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD
constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,
signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such
jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD
or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual
permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over
aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the
review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)

Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Figures 1-4
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Figure 1, USGS Topographic Map (1:24,000 Midway,
NC)
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Figure 3, Soil Survey Map (Soil Survey of Davidson
County, Sheet 2 Dated 1994)
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): Figure 2, Parcel Map (Aerial Imagery from NC Onemap) and Figure 4,
Jurisdictional Resources (Dated November 2019)
or Other (Name & Date): Photographs 1-12
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Other information (please specify): NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms (Version 4.11) Dated 07/02/2019

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.

Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
2/25/2021

Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable) 1

1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.
Bryan Roden-
Reynolds
2021.02.25
08:56:24 -05'00'
Site
Number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable.
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section
10/404)
UT 1 35.965506 -80.199295 2,800 lf Non-wetland Section 404
UT 2 35.964370 -80.195533 310 lf Non-wetland Section 404
UT 3 35.969404 -80.193444 545 lf Non-wetland Section 404
UT 4 35.969522 -80.194708 1,020 Non-wetland Section 404
Little
Brushy
Fork (LBF)
35.969237 -80.195230 4,200 lf Non-wetland Section 404
Wetland 1 35.965417 -80.191766 1.4 Wetland Section 404
Wetland 2 35.969246 -80.192753 0.8 Wetland Section 404
Wetland 3 35.966506 -80.192166 1.9 Wetland Section 404
1&&HQWHUIRU*HRJUDSKLF,QIRUPDWLRQ $QD\OVLV6RXUFH(VUL'LJLWDO*OREH
*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,'
,*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
-XULVGLFWLRQDO5HVRXUFHV
7KUHH&UHHNV)DUP0LWLJDWLRQ6LWH
<DGNLQ
'DYLGVRQ&RXQW\1RUWK&DUROLQD
$SULO³(65,%DVHPDS
1&'27'DYLGVRQ&RXQW\&RQWRXUV
  
)HHW([LVWLQJ:HWODQG
3URSRVHG&RQVHUYDWLRQ(DVHPHQWDFUHV
([LVWLQJ6WUHDPV
)LJXUH

:HWODQG
6XFFHVVLRQDO
:HWODQG87
87
87
/%)5HDFK
/LWWOH%UXVK\)RUN/%)
5HDFK
87
87
:HWODQG
:HWODQG
)LHOG

Appendix C. NCDWR Stream Classification, NCWAM, and NCSAM Forms

               NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
 Total Points:
 Stream is at least intermittent
 if > 19 or perennial if  > 30*
Absent Weak Strong
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
01 3
01 3
1.5 1 0
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
32 0
32 0
01 3
01 3
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
  *perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:  
Sketch:
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance )
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
C.  Biology (Subtotal =      8.5       )
3.  In‐Channel structure:  ex. riffle‐pool, step‐pool
12. Presence of Baseflow
B.  Hydrology (Subtotal =     11.0      )
11. Second or greater order channel 
10. Natural valley 
9. Grade control
17. Soil‐based evidence of high water table
16. Organic debris lines or piles
15. Sediment on plants or debris
14. Leaf litter
2.  Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1a. Continuity of bed and bank
A.  Geomorphology (Subtotal =       22.0     )
26. Wetland plants in streambed
25. Algae
24. Amphibians
23. Crayfish
22. Fish
21. Aquatic Mollusks
8. Headcuts
7.  Recent alluvial deposits
6.  Depositional bars or benches
5.  Active/relic floodplain
4.  Particle size of stream substrate
     ripple‐pool sequence
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
 Date:              July 2, 2019
 Evaluator:  L. Sauls
41.5
Ephemeral      Intermittent     Perennial
Other           Little Brushy Fork
e.g. Quad Name:
  Latitude:   35.969237
  Longitude:  ‐80.195230
10
  Project/Site:             Three Creeks Farm
  County:    Davidson
Stream Determination (circle one)
32
Moderate
Yes = 3
1
1
2
2
0.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
FACW = 0.75    OBL = 1.5      Other = 0
No = 0 Yes = 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
No = 0
2
2
1
1
               NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
 Total Points:
 Stream is at least intermittent
 if > 19 or perennial if  > 30*
Absent Weak Strong
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
01 3
01 3
1.5 1 0
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
32 0
32 0
01 3
01 3
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
*perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:  
Sketch:
2
FACW = 0.75    OBL = 1.5      Other = 0
No = 0 Yes = 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
No = 0
2
2
1
1
32
Moderate
Yes = 3
1
1
2
2
0.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
  Project/Site:             Three Creeks Farm
  County:    Davidson
Stream Determination (circle one)
 Date:              July 2, 2019
 Evaluator:  L. Sauls
41.0
Ephemeral      Intermittent     Perennial
Other           Little Brushy Fork UT #1
e.g. Quad Name:
  Latitude:   35.965506
  Longitude:  ‐80.199295
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1a. Continuity of bed and bank
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =       22.0     )
26. Wetland plants in streambed
25. Algae
24. Amphibians
23. Crayfish
22. Fish
21. Aquatic Mollusks
8. Headcuts
7. Recent alluvial deposits
6. Depositional bars or benches
5. Active/relic floodplain
4. Particle size of stream substrate
ripple‐pool sequence
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance )
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
C. Biology (Subtotal =      8.0       )
3. In‐Channel structure:  ex. riffle‐pool, step‐pool
12. Presence of Baseflow
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =     11.0      )
11. Second or greater order channel 
10. Natural valley 
9. Grade control
17. Soil‐based evidence of high water table
16. Organic debris lines or piles
15. Sediment on plants or debris
14. Leaf litter
               NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
 Total Points:
 Stream is at least intermittent
 if > 19 or perennial if  > 30*
Absent Weak Strong
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
01 3
01 3
1.5 1 0
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
32 0
32 0
01 3
01 3
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
*perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:  
Sketch:
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance )
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
C. Biology (Subtotal =      5.5       )
3. In‐Channel structure:  ex. riffle‐pool, step‐pool
12. Presence of Baseflow
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =     8.5      )
11. Second or greater order channel 
10. Natural valley 
9. Grade control
17. Soil‐based evidence of high water table
16. Organic debris lines or piles
15. Sediment on plants or debris
14. Leaf litter
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1a. Continuity of bed and bank
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =      13.5     )
26. Wetland plants in streambed
25. Algae
24. Amphibians
23. Crayfish
22. Fish
21. Aquatic Mollusks
8. Headcuts
7. Recent alluvial deposits
6. Depositional bars or benches
5. Active/relic floodplain
4. Particle size of stream substrate
ripple‐pool sequence
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
 Date:              July 2, 2019
 Evaluator:  L. Sauls
27.5
Ephemeral      Intermittent     Perennial
Other           Little Brushy Fork UT #2
e.g. Quad Name:
  Latitude:   35.964370
  Longitude:  ‐80.195533
10
  Project/Site:             Three Creeks Farm
  County:    Davidson
Stream Determination (circle one)
32
Moderate
Yes = 3
1
1
2
2
0.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
FACW = 0.75    OBL = 1.5      Other = 0
No = 0 Yes = 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
No = 0
2
2
1
1
               NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
 Total Points:
 Stream is at least intermittent
 if > 19 or perennial if  > 30*
Absent Weak Strong
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
01 3
01 3
1.5 1 0
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
32 0
32 0
01 3
01 3
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
*perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:  
Sketch:
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance )
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
C. Biology (Subtotal =      6.25       )
3. In‐Channel structure:  ex. riffle‐pool, step‐pool
12. Presence of Baseflow
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =     10.0      )
11. Second or greater order channel 
10. Natural valley 
9. Grade control
17. Soil‐based evidence of high water table
16. Organic debris lines or piles
15. Sediment on plants or debris
14. Leaf litter
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1a. Continuity of bed and bank
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =      10.0     )
26. Wetland plants in streambed
25. Algae
24. Amphibians
23. Crayfish
22. Fish
21. Aquatic Mollusks
8. Headcuts
7. Recent alluvial deposits
6. Depositional bars or benches
5. Active/relic floodplain
4. Particle size of stream substrate
ripple‐pool sequence
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
 Date:              July 2, 2019
 Evaluator:  L. Sauls
26.3
Ephemeral      Intermittent     Perennial
Other           Little Brushy Fork UT #3
e.g. Quad Name:
  Latitude:   35.969404
  Longitude:  ‐80.193444
10
  Project/Site:             Three Creeks Farm
  County:    Davidson
Stream Determination (circle one)
32
Moderate
Yes = 3
1
1
2
2
0.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
FACW = 0.75    OBL = 1.5      Other = 0
No = 0 Yes = 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
No = 0
2
2
1
1
               NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
 Total Points:
 Stream is at least intermittent
 if > 19 or perennial if  > 30*
Absent Weak Strong
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
01 3
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
01 3
01 3
1.5 1 0
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
32 0
32 0
01 3
01 3
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
0 0.5 1.5
*perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:  
Sketch:
2
FACW = 0.75    OBL = 1.5      Other = 0
No = 0 Yes = 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
No = 0
2
2
1
1
32
Moderate
Yes = 3
1
1
2
2
0.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
  Project/Site:             Three Creeks Farm
  County:    Davidson
Stream Determination (circle one)
 Date:              July 2, 2019
 Evaluator:  L. Sauls
30.25
Ephemeral      Intermittent     Perennial
Other           Little Brushy Fork UT #4
e.g. Quad Name:
  Latitude:   35.969522
  Longitude:  ‐80.194708
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1a. Continuity of bed and bank
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =      14.0     )
26. Wetland plants in streambed
25. Algae
24. Amphibians
23. Crayfish
22. Fish
21. Aquatic Mollusks
8. Headcuts
7. Recent alluvial deposits
6. Depositional bars or benches
5. Active/relic floodplain
4. Particle size of stream substrate
ripple‐pool sequence
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance )
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
C. Biology (Subtotal =      6.75       )
3. In‐Channel structure:  ex. riffle‐pool, step‐pool
12. Presence of Baseflow
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =     9.5      )
11. Second or greater order channel 
10. Natural valley 
9. Grade control
17. Soil‐based evidence of high water table
16. Organic debris lines or piles
15. Sediment on plants or debris
14. Leaf litter
USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lunar Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
35.970173/-80.197086
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Little Brushy Fork
H. Smith/VHB
Wetland 1
7/2019Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Level III Ecoregion
0304103
AshevilleNCDWR RegionCounty
Yadkin-PeeDee
Davidson
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Eco Terra LLC
Three Creeks
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
Forest only)
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16.Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
Well
WC
Loosely
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c.Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20.Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
AA WT
Notes
Ca
n
o
p
y
Mi
d
-
S
t
o
r
y
Sh
r
u
b
He
r
b
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
LOW
LOW
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Wetland 1
H. Smith/VHBBottomland Hardwood Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/2019
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
LOW
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
LOW
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lunar Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Eco Terra LLC
Three Creeks
0304103
AshevilleNCDWR RegionCounty
Yadkin-PeeDee
Davidson
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Little Brushy Fork
H. Smith/VHB
Wetland 2-Pasture
7/2019Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Level III Ecoregion
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
35.970173/-80.197086
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
Forest only)
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16.Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
Well
WC
Loosely
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c.Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20.Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
AA WT
Notes
Ca
n
o
p
y
Mi
d
-
S
t
o
r
y
Sh
r
u
b
He
r
b
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NA
YES
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
YES
LOW
NA
HIGH
LOW
LOW
Rating
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
YES
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Wetland 2-Pasture
H. Smith/VHBHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/2019
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
LOW
LOW
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
USACE AID#: NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lu Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Eco Terra LLC
Three Creeks
0304103
AshevilleNCDWR RegionCounty
Yadkin-PeeDee
Davidson
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Little Brushy Fork
H. Smith/VHB
Wetland 2-Successional
7/2019Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Level III Ecoregion
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
35.970173/-80.197086
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
Forest only)
9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
KKK< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16.Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
Well
WC
Loosely
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c.Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A BCD
22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
AA WT
Notes
Ca
n
o
p
y
Mi
d
-
S
t
o
r
y
Sh
r
u
b
He
r
b
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NA
YES
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
YES
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NA
HIGH
LOW
LOW
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
YES
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Wetland 2-Successional
H. Smith/VHBHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/2019
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
HIGH
LOW
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
USACE AID#: NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lu Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Eco Terra LLC
Three Creeks
0304103
AshevilleNCDWR RegionCounty
Yadkin-PeeDee
Davidson
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Little Brushy Fork
H. Smith/VHB
Wetland 3
7/2019Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Level III Ecoregion
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
35.970173/-80.197086
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
Forest only)
9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
KKK< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16.Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
Well
WC
Loosely
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c.Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A BCD
22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
AA WT
Notes
Ca
n
o
p
y
Mi
d
-
S
t
o
r
y
Sh
r
u
b
He
r
b
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
NA
NO
NA
NO
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
MEDIUM
NO
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Wetland 3
H. Smith/VHBBottomland Hardwood Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/2019
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
MEDIUM
LOW
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Three Creeks 7/2019
35.969237, -80.195230
Little Brushy Fork 50
Eco Terra, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Heather Smith/VHB
Davidson
Yadkin Little Brushy Fork
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
6'
15'
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l
Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s
on
l
y
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Three Creeks Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Heather Smith/VHB
7/2019
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pa3
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Three Creeks 7/2019
35.965506, -80.199295
UT 1 50
Eco Terra, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Heather Smith/VHB
Davidson
Yadkin UT 1
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
5
15'
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l
Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s
on
l
y
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Three Creeks Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Heather Smith/VHB
7/2019
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pa3
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Three Creeks 7/2019
35.964370, -80.195533
UT 2 50
Eco Terra, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Heather Smith/VHB
Davidson
Yadkin UT 2
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
4
6
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l
Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s
on
l
y
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name Three Creeks Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Heather Smith/VHB
7/2019
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
1
3
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
Three Creeks 7/2019
35.964370, -80.195533
UT 3 50
Eco Terra, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Heather Smith/VHB
Davidson
Yadkin UT 3
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l
Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s
on
l
y
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Heather Smith/VHB
7/2019
NO
NO
NO
Intermittent
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb1
Stream Site Name
MEDIUM
NA
Three Creeks Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Three Creeks 7/2019
35.969522, -80.194708
UT 4 50
Eco Terra, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Heather Smith/VHB
Davidson
Yadkin UT 4
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
0.5
4
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l
Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s
on
l
y
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
HIGH
Stream Site Name Three Creeks Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Heather Smith/VHB
7/2019
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pa2
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
1
3
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
Three Creeks 7/2019
35.966142, -80.191029
UT 5 50
Eco Terra, LLC 4. Assessor name/organization: Heather Smith/VHB
Davidson
Yadkin UT 5
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l
Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s
on
l
y
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
This was conducted on the portion upstream of the piped reach with some consideration that the project stream is piped.
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Heather Smith/VHB
7/2019
YES
NO
YES
Intermittent
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pa1
Stream Site Name
LOW
NA
Three Creeks Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
LOW
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
NA
YES
NA
NA
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
YES
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM

Appendix D. 60% Design Plans

Rd.
Wildwood Ln.
Salem
Point
Ch
Shady
Ln.
S
h
a
d
y
Ln
.
DogwoodDr.
Gail Ln.
Essie Rd.
Evergreen
Dr.
Te
rrie Dr.
Rd.
Dr.
Rd.
N
o
r
m
a
n
Shoaf
R
d
.
Bathaney
To
m
L
iv
e
n
g
o
o
d
S
p
r
y
R
d.ConcretePipe
V
a
lle
y
D
r
.
R
a
lp
h
C
r
a
v
e
n
R
d
.
Lickskillet
Rd.
Disher
Rd.
Clodfe
lter
R
d.
J.E.Perryman
Rd.
R
id
g
e
R
d
.
G
a
r
d
n
e
r
C
t
.
Eastwood
Dr.
Knoll
Rd.
Bradley-Tysinger
R
d
.
West
Ln.
Tro-Tod
Dr.
Ju-Lenor Dr.
Dixieanna
Dr.
H
aileySt.
H
ill
S
t
.
Ridgeway
Lane
Craver
D
r.
Eastwood
Dr.
R
o
c
k
a
w
a
y
D
r
.
Noralin
Dr.
Valley Dr.
O
ld

N
C

8
O
ld
N
C 8
W
e
a
v
il
R
d.
Windrift
St.
Woodtree
Lane
Shady
Rd.
Dr.
Farmstead
Rd.
Shady
Rd.
Country Ln
Country Ln
Midway School Rd
Midway School Rd
Midway School Rd
Crotts Ln
.
G
a
rd
e
n
V
alley
Dr
Bent Oak Dr
Loblolly Ln
1811
1802
1804
1805
2937
1802
1720
2955
2908
1715
1716
1721
1722
2920
1716
1715
3252
3251
2910
1943
1937
1937
1911
1939
2950
2953
2952
1910
2932
1910
1713
1711
1714
2971
1803
1945
1990
1810
2821
3013
3012
3014
1528
1802
3051
3052
3052
3053
3054
2910
Midway
Baptist
RAILROAD
B
u
s
h
yMidway
P356
1813
Brooks
Temple
1802
2983
1988
1720
1719
Midway
Christian
Church
C113
1998
2909
Maloy2969
1989
1940
1938
1802
110
2937
2907
ELEVATION =747.5' TO 747.0'
M ORE THAN 6". FILL/EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION SHALL BE NO
ACCORDING TO GRADING PLAN.
FILL EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCHES
EST 55 CY DDESLOPE=0.02 FT/FTSEE DETAIL WC1WETLAND CONVEYANCE
B
E
R
M
C
R-
G
C
C
R-
W
C
R-
M
PL
C
R-
G
C
C
R-
MPL
C
R-
MPL
C
R-
MP
L
C
R-
G
C
C
R-
MPL
CR-
MPL
CR-M
PL
CR-GC
CR-MPL
C
R-
MPL
CR-GC
CR-M PL
CR-M PL
C
R-
W
C
R-
W
C
R-
MP
L
CR-GC
C
R-
GC
C
R-G
C
C
R-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-MPL
CR-M PL
C
R-
G
C
C
R-
W
C
R-
G
C
CR-GC
C
R-
GC
C
R-G
C
CR-M
PL
AG
A
G
AG
AG
CROSSING38' WIDE NON-CREDIT STREAM CROSSING DETAIL SEE PERMANENT CULVERTED
BURIED 6"36" CAAP
STA. 10+00 -UT2-BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 13+49 -UT2-END CONSTRUCTION
S
T
A. 19
+
27 -
U
T3-
E
N
D
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
STA. 12+00 -UT3-BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 10+00 -
UT5-
BEGIN
CO
N
STRU
CTI
O
N
REM
OVE
RE
MO
VE
R
EMO
VE
RETAIN
RETAIN
RETAI
N
RETAIN
N
O
T S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
DIR
E
C
TIO
N
O
N
L
Y
15"
H
DPE
REMOVE
STA. 10+85 -TRIBA-END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 10+00 -TRIBA-BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
RETAIN
ABANDON
REM
OVE OR
O
N
U
T3
12" R
CP
R
E
M
O
V
E
#1 SEE DETAILHOLE STABILIZATIONBANK AND SCOUR
1
0
+
0
0
15+00
20+00
2
5+00
30+00
35+00
40+00
4
5
+0
0
10
+
0
0
10+00
15+00
20+00 25+00 30+00
35+
00
40+
00
45+00
10+00
10+00
15+00
10+00
15
+00
2
0+0
0
10+00
3
0" HDPE
SEE DETAIL HCR #1HEAD CUT REPAIRRSPSEE DETAIL
S
T
A.
1
0
+
0
7

-
L
B
F
-

R
1
B
E
G
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
S
T
A.
1
0
+
0
0
-
U
T
4
-

R
1
B
E
G
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
S
T
A. 24
+
96 -
U
T4-
R2
E
N
D
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
S
T
A.
1
4
+
7
5

-
U
T
4
-
B
E
G
I
N
R
E
A
C
H
2
S
T
A. 33
+
25 -
L
B
F-
B
E
GI
N
R
E
A
C
H
2
STA. 47+96 -
UT1-
R2
EN
D
CO
N
STRU
CTI
O
N
STA. 11+10 -
U
T5-
STA. 45+16 -
LBF-
R3
EN
D
CO
N
STRU
CTIO
N
STA.
39+00 -
LBF-
BEGI
N
REA
CH
3
S
T
A. 10+00 -
UT1-
R1
BE
GI
N
C
O
NS
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
STA. 25+45 -UT1-BEGIN REACH 2A
STA. 29+20 -UT1-BEGIN REACH 2
CROSSING24' WIDE NON-CREDIT
Inv= 741.33'
8" DIP
Inv= 739.64'
farm ro
ad
GATE
14" RCP
12" RCP
12" CPP
8.
5'X6.0'
CMP
A
RCH
8.5'X6.0'
C
MP
ARC
H
12" CMP
Inv= 751.72'4" PVC PIPEInv= 748.63'
GATE
GATE
gravel30" C
MP
TEL
gravel
30" CMP
GATE
GATE
12
"
R
CP
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
12" RCP
GA
TE
12"
R
CP
Approximate location of
12" RCP. Upstream endof pipe not located.
privetpat
c
h
402
764.84
CONTROL
403
763.16
PK
1432
763.59
HUB
1433
754.45
HUB
1434
7
4
8.2
1
H
U
B
PK
794.02
404
1431
798.54
HUB
1428
818.14
HUB
1
4
2
9
7
6
6
.
7
7
H
U
B
811.61
RBR
R
B
R
3
4
5
1
7
6
9
.
0
2
3457
766.95
RBR
INVERT OUT: 747.6'INVERT IN: 748.1'
INVE
R
T
OU
T:
7
5
6.
1'
I
N
V
ER
T
IN:
7
5
6.3'
INVERT
O
UT:
7
5
5.
9'
INVE
R
T
IN:
7
5
5.
9'
INVERT OUT: 759.6'
1
5
9.
4
9'
C
C
c
475.39'
54.32'
164.61'
DB 2564 PG 1306
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 1
9171#RSDAORDOOGNEVILMOT
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
DB 2564 PG 1306
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 1
DB 2570 PG 2469
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 5F
PB 80 PG 62
DB 2525 PG 1041
STACY S. GAGE
TAX LOT 5
DB 506 PG 275
PEGGY SHOAF
TAX LOT 1A
163.09'
1
9
9.
6
8'
208.57'
115.20'
2
1
4
.
6
7
'
19
3
.3
2
'
222.12'
E=1645109.26
N=808123.88
E=1647170.07
N=808356.86
sheet 1
sheet 1
C
C
match
match
tie line
tie line
KNOLL ROAD SR# 1989
N
O
R
M
A
N
S
H
O
A
F
R
O
A
D
S
R
#
1
7
1
5
136.60'
94.81'214.31'
172.13'
267.98'
3
7
0.8
4'
PB 10 PG 37
DB 311 PG 57
MRS NORMAN SHOAF
TAX LOT 17
DB 2564 PG 1306
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 2
TAX LOT 43*
DB 578 PG 409
JOHN A. HIATT, Jr
TAX LOT 16*
T
A
X

LO
T
4
3
*
TA
X
LO
T

16
*
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
c
19
3
.3
8
'
188.13'146.04'
17
1.4
4
'
70.87'
129.13'
165.40'
15
0
.7
8
'
142.14'
13
7
.2
8
'
204.16'
124.21'
211.19'
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
1:
0
5
:
5
7

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
1
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
1
25 10050050
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
UT 4
UT 5
LBF
TRIB A
N

O

R
T
H
M

A

G

N

E
T
I
C
SITE
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. 1.800.632.4949
CONSTRUCTION CANNOT BEGIN UNTIL UTILITIES ARE PROTECTED.
**IMPORTANT**
TOWN OF MIDWAY
DAVIDSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DEVELOPMENT REFERENCE
OWNER/DEVELOPER
APPLICANT:
CIVIL ENGINEER:
SURVEYS:

DAVID B. COE
COE FORESTRY & SURVERYING
6638-A NC HWY 109
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27107
[phone]
TOM LIVENGOOD ROAD
N
O
R
M
A
N
S
H
O
A
F
R
O
A
D
[phone]
ECO TERRA PARTNERS, LLC
1328 DEKALB AVE NE
ATLANTA, GA 30307
BOUNDARY
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
BOUNDARY
PROPERTY
THREE CREEKS
VHB ENGINEERING NC, P.C.
940 MAIN CAMPUS DR. SUITE 500
RALEIGH, NC 27606
[phone]
REID B. ROBOL, PE
VICINITY MAP
MICHAEL BEINENSON
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
60% PLANS
THREE CREEKS FARM MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR:
24 HOUR CONTACT:
NORTON WEBSTER
ECO TERRA, LLC
PHONE: [phone]
TOTAL PROPOSED LENGTH: 9,668 LF
TOTAL STREAM ENHANCMENT: 729 LF
TOTAL STREAM RESTORATION: 8,939 LF
UT 3: 729 LF
STREAM ENHANCEMENT:
3,400 LFLBF:
106 LFUT 5:
1,475 LFUT 4:
92 LFUT 3:
295 LFUT 2:
3,571 LFUT 1:
STREAM RESTORATION:
PROJECT PROPOSED LENGTHS
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
T
I
T
L
E

S
H
E
E
T
747.4
747.5
747.4
747.5
747.3
747.2
747.1
747.0
747.6
747.7 747.8 747.9 748.0
748.0 747.9
747.8
747.7 747.6
747.5
747.0747.1747.2 747.3
747.5747.6 747.7
748.0 747.9747.8
748.0 747.7 747.6747.5747.8
747.9
FLAT
RETAIN
RETAIN
R
E
T
A
I
N
R
E
T
A
I
N
N
O
T
S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
DIR
E
C
TI
O
N
O
N
L
Y
15"
H
D
P
E
REMOVE
RETAIN
ABANDO
N
REM
OVE
OR
#1 SEE DETAILHOLE STABILIZATIONBANK AND SCOUR
1
0
+
0
0
15+00
20
+00
2
5
+
0
0
30+00
35
+00
40+00
4
5
+
0
0
10
+
0
0
10+00
15+00
20+00 25+00 30+00
3
5+
0
0
40+
00
45+00
10+00
10+
00
15+00
10
+
0
0
15
+
0
0
2
0
+
0
0
10+00
3
0"
HDPE
SEE DETAIL HCR #1HEAD CUT REPAIRRSPSEE DETAIL
CROSSING24' WIDE NON-CREDIT
Inv= 741.33'
8
"
DIP
Inv= 739.64'
fa
r
m r
o
a
d
GATE
14" RCP
12" RCP
12" CPP
8
.
5'
X
6
.
0'
C
M
P

A
R
C
H
8
.
5'
X
6
.
0'
C
M
P
A
R
C
H
12" C
MP
Inv= 751.72'4" PVC PIPEInv= 748.63'
G
A
T
E
G
A
T
E
gravel30"
C
MP
TEL
gravel
30" CMP
GATE
GATE
1
2
"

R
C
P
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
12" RCP
G
A
T
E
1
2
"
R
C
P
Approximate location of
12" RCP. Upstream end
of pipe not located.
pri
vetp
at
c
h
INVERT OUT: 747.6'
INVERT IN: 748.1'
I
N
V
E
R
T
O
U
T:

7
5
6
.
1'
I
N
V
E
R
T
I
N
:

7
5
6
.
3'
I
N
V
E
R
T
O
U
T:

7
5
5
.
9'
I
N
V
E
R
T
I
N:

7
5
5
.
9'
IN
VE
RT O
U
T: 759.6'
1
5
9.
4
9'
C
C
c
475.39'
54.32'
164.61'
DB 2564 PG 1306
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 1
9171#RSDAORDOOGNEVILMOT
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
DB 2564 PG 1306
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 1
DB 2570 PG 2469
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 5F
PB 80 PG 62
DB 2525 PG 1041
STACY S. GAGE
TAX LOT 5
DB 506 PG 275
PEGGY SHOAF
TAX LOT 1A
163.09'
1
9
9.
6
8'
208.57'
115.20'
2
1
4
.
6
7
'
1
9
3
.3
2
'
222.12'
E=1645109.26
N=808123.88
E=1647170.07
N=808356.86
sheet 1
sheet 1
C
C
match
match
tie line
tie line
KNOLL ROAD SR# 1989
N
O
R
M
A
N
S
H
O
A
F
R
O
A
D
S
R
#
1
7
1
5
136.60'
94.81'214.31'
172.13'
267.98'
3
7
0.8
4'
PB 10 PG 37
DB 311 PG 57
MRS NORMAN SHOAF
TAX LOT 17
DB 2564 PG 1306
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 2
TAX LOT 43*
DB 578 PG 409
JOHN A. HIATT, Jr
TAX LOT 16*
T
A
X

L
O
T

4
3
*
T
A
X

L
O
T

1
6
*
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
c
1
9
3
.3
8
'
188.13'146.04'
1
7
1
.4
4
'
70.87'
129.13'
165.40'
1
5
0
.7
8
'
142.14'
13
7
.2
8
'
204.16'
124.21'
211.19'
1:
0
6
:
4
3

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
1
.
a
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
07 09
0
4
0
5
0
6
10
08
N

O

R

T
H
M

A

G

N

E

T
I
C

TOM LIVENGOOD ROAD
N
O
R
M
A
N
S
H
O
A
F
R
O
A
D
THREE CREEKS PLANSHEET LAYOUT
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
1
.
a
UT 1
BOUNDARY
PROPERTY
THREE CREEKS
TRIB A
UT 2
UT 5
UT 3
UT 4
LBF
BOUNDARY
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N
S
H
E
E
T

L
A
Y
O
U
T
Existing Edge of Pavement
Existing Curb
Existing Right of Way Line
HYDROLOGY:
Flow Arrow z
Pipe Culvert
UTILITIES:
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES:
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pole
P
Existing Joint Use Pole
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Existing Telephone Pole
Proposed Telephone Pole
Telephone Pedestal
R
Q
b
POWER:
TELEPHONE:
WATER:
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole O
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY:
Property Line
Existing Fence Line
Existing Wetland Boundary
VEGETATION:
Single Tree X
YSingle Shrub
Woods Line
FLOWBEXISTING STRUCTURES:
WLB
R
W
R
W
R
W
Existing Wetland
C
A
U/G Power Line LOS B (S.U.E.*)P
U/G Telephone Cable LOS B (S.U.E.*)T
U/G Water Line LOS B (S.U.E*)W
New Right of Way Line
Concrete or Granite R/W Marker
New Right of Way Line with
Concrete C/A Marker
New Control of Access Line with
RIGHT OF WAY & PROJECT CONTROL:
New Right of Way Line with Pin and Cap
LEGEND
Rock Crossvane
Constructed Riffle
Root Wad
STREAM STRUCTURES:
Impervious Dike
PROPOSED STREAM WORK:
EROSION CONTROL FEATURES:
PLANTING ZONES:
Log Vane
Sediment Barrier/Silt Fence
Filter Ring
Check Dam
Double Log Drop
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
1
.
b
Uplands
Computed Property Corner
Entrance/ Exit
Temporary Construction
Streamside
Proposed Conservation Easement
Limits Of Disturbance
Grading Limits
Stream Plug
Head Cut Repair
At Grade Crossing
Existing Ditch Fill
Log Vane J Hook
Stream or Body of Water
CE
Brush Toe Stabilization
Proposed Wire Woven Fence
Proposed Wire Woven Fence Gate
Rock J-Hook
Rock Step Pool
Bank and Scour Hole Stabilization
100-YR Floodplain
Tree Protection Fencing
KRe-established Wetland
Floodplain Depression
Wetland
Wetland Conveyance
Fencing For Owner
6ft Gate For Owner
18ft Gate For Owner
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
1:
0
6
:
4
7

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
1
.
b
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
a
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
1:
0
6
:
5
1
P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
A
-
F
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
(STATIONS 10+40 TO 33+25)
10:1
4:1
2:
1 2:1
8:1 8:1
16.0'VAR.
5.1'
15.0'
0.6'
NG
Dmax=2.1'
W=16.0'
A=22.4 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
NG
10:1
4:1
2:
1 2:1
4:1
2.0'
VAR.4.0'
20.0'
8.0'
2.0'
4:1
10:1
2:1
2:
1
4
:1
4.0'
20.0'
8.0'
4.0'
Dmax=4.0'
W=20.0'
A=36.0 SQ. FT.
POOL LEFT
Dmax=4.0'
W=20.0'
A=36.0 SQ. FT.
POOL RIGHT
2.9'
1.5'
15.0'
1.5'
REACH 1 & 2
LITTLE BRUSHY FORK
50:14:1
NG
10:1
4:14:1
10:1
2:
1 2:1
8:1 8:1
16.0'VAR.
VAR.
5.1'
15.0'
0.6'
NG
NG
10:1
4:14:1
10:1
2:
1 2:1
4:1
2.0'
VAR.4.0'
20.0'
8.0'
2.0'
4.0'
10:1
4:1 4:1
10:1
2:1
2:
1
4
:12.0'
VAR.4.0'
20.0'
8.0'
2.0'
4.0'
Dmax=4.0'
W=20.0'
A=36.0 SQ. FT.
POOL LEFT
Dmax=4.0'
W=20.0'
A=36.0 SQ. FT.
POOL RIGHT
2.9'
1.5'
1.5'
1.5'
15.0'
15.0'
1.5'
NG
NG
SEE PLANVIEW FOR VARIABLE FLOODPLAIN BENCH AND GRADING LIMITS*
(STATIONS 33+25 TO 39+00)
NG
4:1 50:1
2.0'
2.0'
15.0'
VAR
VAR*
*
NG
4:1 50:1
VAR
VAR*
*
VAR
VAR*
*
NG NG NG
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
b
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
1:
0
6
:
5
1
P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
A
-
F
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
REACH 3
LITTLE BRUSHY FORK
(STATIONS 39+00 TO END CONSTRUCTION)
NG
10:1
4:1
2:
1
2:1
4:1
3.0'
VAR.6.0'
30.0'
12.0'
3.0'
Dmax=6.0'
W=30.0'
A=81.0 SQ. FT.
POOL LEFT
4:110:1
2:1
2:
1
4
:1 VAR.
6.0'
30.0'
12.0'
3.0'
6.0'
Dmax=6.0'
W=30.0'
A=81.0 SQ. FT.
POOL RIGHT
1.5'
15.0'
10:1
4:1
2:
1 2:1
12:1 12:1
25.0'VAR.
7.6'
4.9'
15.0'
0.6'
2.5'
Dmax=3.1'
W=25.0'
A=54.3 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
50:1
4:1
NG
VAR*
VAR*
6.0'
50:1
4:1
NG
VAR*
*VAR
3.0'
50:1
4:1
NG
VAR*
*VAR
SEE PLANVIEW FOR VARIABLE FLOODPLAIN BENCH AND GRADING LIMITS*
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
c
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
1:
0
6
:
5
1
P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
A
-
F
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
10:1 10:1
0.8'
2:
1
4:1 NG
4:1
14.0'
1.5'
REACH 1
UT 1
REACH 2a
UT 1
2:12:
1
2:
1
Dmax=1.8'
W=14'
A=16.9 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
Dmax=2.3
W=21'
A=32.6 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
7.5'4.5'
0.6'1.3'
18.0'
8.0'
3.0'
1.5'
3.5'
4:1
2:
1 2:1
18.0'
8.0'
3.0'
2.0'
1.5'
3.5'
Dmax=3.5'
W=18.0'
A=28.5 SQ. FT.
POOL RIGHT
4
:1 2:1
2:
1
2:
1
2:1
4:1
Dmax=5.0'
W=25.0'
A=56.3 SQ. FT.
POOL LEFT
5.0'
25.0'
10.0'
2.5'
5.0'
2:1
2:
1
4
:1
Dmax=5.0'
W=25.0'
A=56.3 SQ. FT.
POOL RIGHT
5.0'
25.0'
10.0'
2.5'
5.0'
2:1
2.5'
(STATIONS 10+00 TO 25+45)(STATIONS 25+45 TO 28+59)
8
:1 8:1
21.0'21.0'
Dmax=3.5'
W=18.0'
A=28.5 SQ. FT.
POOL LEFT
VAR
*
*
*
50:150:1
VAR*
VAR
NG
50:14:1
NG
VAR*
50:1
*VAR*
NG4:1
VAR
2.0'
50:1
*VAR*
NG 4:1
VAR
50:1 4:1
NG
VAR*
3.0'
50:1
VAR*
VAR*
NG4:1
NG
4:1 50:1
VAR*
2.5'
50:150:14:1
VAR*
NG
*VARVAR*
4:1
50:1 4:1
VAR*
NGNG
VAR**VAR
50:14:1
SEE PLANVIEW FOR VARIABLE FLOODPLAIN BENCH AND GRADING LIMITS *SEE PLANVIEW FOR VARIABLE FLOODPLAIN BENCH AND GRADING LIMITS
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
d
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
1:
0
6
:
5
2

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
A
-
F
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
REACH 2
UT 1
10:1 10:1
3.3'
1.6'0.7'
2:12:
1
2:
1
2:1
4:1
Dmax=5.0'
W=25.0'
A=56.3 SQ. FT.
POOL LEFT
5.0'
25.0'
10.0'
2.5'
5.0'
2:14
:1
Dmax=5.00'
W=25.0'
A=56.3 SQ. FT.
POOL RIGHT
5.0'
25.0'
10.0'
2.5'
5.0'
6.8'
(STATIONS 29+20 TO END CONSTRUCTION)
Dmax=2.3'
W=20'
A=31.8 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
2:
1
20.0'
50:14:1
NG
VAR
50:1
VAR*
VAR*
NG4:1
2.5'
50:1 4:1 NG
VAR*
VAR*
*SEE PLANVIEW FOR VARIABLE FLOODPLAIN BENCH AND GRADING LIMITS
4:1
NG
VAR
50:1
*
4:1
NG
VAR*
50:1 50:1 4:1 NG
VAR*
VAR*
*
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
e
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
1:
0
6
:
5
2

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
A
-
F
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
10:1
4:1
NG
4:1
10:1
5.00'VAR.
VAR.
10.0'
0.83'
Dmax=0.8'
W=5.0'
A=2.1 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
3:
1 3:1
1.00'2.50'
NG
4:1
UT 2 TRIBUTARY A
Dmax=3.5'
W=23.0'
A=53.5 SQ. FT.
NG
5.6'
5.9'10.0'
VAR
0.6'
2.9'
1.0'
VAR
23.0'
10:1
4:1
NG
4:1
10:1
8.00'VAR.
VAR.
10.0'
2.0'
4.0'
1.0'
10:1
4:1
NG
4:1
10:1
5.0'VAR.
VAR.
10.0'
1.0'
1.0'
2.5:12.
5:
1
10:1
4:1
NG
4:1
10:1
8.0'VAR.
VAR.
10.0'
2.0'2:
1 2:1
4.0'
1.0'
Dmax=1.0'
W=5.0'
A=2.5 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
(STATIONS 12+00 TO 13+00)
2.5'
Dmax=2.0'
W=8.0'
A=8.0 SQ. FT.
POOL
(STATIONS 10+00 TO END CONSTRUCTION)
NG
(STATIONS 18+25.9 TO END CONSTRUCTION)
UT 3 - REACH 1 UT 3 - REACH 3
10:1 10:1
2:
1 2:1
Dmax=2.0'
W=8.0'
A=8.0 SQ. FT.
POOL
2:
1 2:1
1.5'
1.0'
VAR
VAR
Dmax=1.0 FT.
W=3.0 FT.
A=1.5 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
NG
6.00'
3.0'
Dmax=2.0 FT.
W=6.0 FT.
A=6.0 SQ. FT.
POOL
4:14:1
2.0'
VAR
VAR
4:1
3.0'
1.
5:
1 1.5:1
1.5:
1 1.5:1
10:1 10:1
4:1
(STATIONS 10+00 TO 10+85)
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
f
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L

S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
1:
0
6
:
5
3

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
A
-
F
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
9.0'
3.1'
1.4'
10:1
4:1
NG
4:1
10:1
6.0'
VAR.
VAR.
5.0'
3.0'0.9'
Dmax=0.9'
W=6.0'
A=2.6 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
0.5'
(STATIONS 10+00 TO END OF CONSTRUCTION)
UT 5
3
.
5
:1
3.5:1
2:
1
10:1
NG
10:1
4:1
2:1
4.0'
Dmax=2.0 FT.
W=8.0 FT.
A=8.0 SQ. FT.
POOL
VAR.
10.0'
2.0'
1.0'VAR.
2:1
6.00'
Dmax=3.0 FT.
W=12.0 FT.
A=18.0 SQ. FT.
POOL
10:1 10:1
2.
5:
1 2.5:1
8:1 8:1
2:
1 2:1
10:1
4:1
NG
4:1
10:1
10.0'VAR.
VAR.
2.0'
3.0'
10.0'
1.2'0.2'
1.0'
(STATIONS 14+85 TO END OF CONSTRUCTION)
Dmax=1.4'
W=10.0'
A=8.8 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
10:1
NG
10:1
4:1
2:1
6.0'
Dmax=3.0 FT.
W=12.0 FT.
A=18.0 SQ. FT.
POOL
VAR.
10.0'
3.0'
1.0'VAR.
UT 4 - REACH 1
UT 4 - REACH 2
(STATIONS 10+00 TO 14+85)
Dmax=1.1'
W=9.0'
A=6.6 SQ. FT.
RIFFLE
2:
1
2:
1
12.0'
8.0'
12.0'
4:1
4:1
3.0'
4:1
NG
50:1
VAR *
0.4'0.7'
50:1
VAR*
VAR*
NG4:1
50:1
VAR*
VAR*
NG4:150:14:1
NG
VAR *
*SEE PLANVIEW FOR VARIABLE FLOODPLAIN BENCH AND GRADING LIMITS
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
g
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE - MICRO POOL LOG
CR-MPL
B
Log Section B-B'
STREAM BED
SHALL BE 12" BELOW THE
TOP END OF LOG STRUCTURE
B'
T
O
E

O
F

S
LO
P
E
Plan View
Profile View A-A'B
FLO
W
F
L
O
W
A'
A
RIFFLE DEPTH = 18"
IMPORTED RIFFLE STREAMBED MATERIAL
LOG
FLOW
BANKFULL WIDTH
STREAM BED =6" INCHES
MAXIMUM PROTRUSION FROM
RIFFLE ELEVATION
OF CHANNEL AT FINISHED
AT APPROXIMATE CENTER
LOG STRUCTURE EXPOSED
BURY LOG INTO BANK 4' MIN. (TYP)
BANKFULL
6" DEEP MICRO POOL
BURY INTO BANK 4' MIN. (TYP)
LOG
LOG
ROCK
ANCHOR
10" LOG
6" TO
AS SPECIFIED
NATIVE TREES/SHRUBS
COIR MATTING
9" THICK WITH
SALVAGED TOPSOIL
TIE-OUT (TYP)
VARIABLE DISTANCE
CONTROL POINT
BEGIN OF RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
END OF RIFFLE
CONTROL POINT
BEGIN OF RIFFLE
BANKFULL
FLOW
A
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
B'
Plan View
B
Profile A-A'
Section B-B'
PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS
RIFFLE INVERT SEE STREAM
RIFFLE DEPTH =18"
IMPORTED MATERIAL
RIFFLE STREAMBED
A'
TYPICAL SECTIONS
WIDTH PER
RIFFLE BOTTOM
CONTROL POINT
END OF RIFFLE
VIEW FOR RIFFLE LENGTH
SEE PLAN AND PROFILE
BANKFULL WIDTHTIE-OUT (TYP)
VARIABLE DISTANCE
CONTROL POINT
BEGIN OF RIFFLE
PROFILE SHEETS
SEE PLAN AND
CONTROL POINT
BEGIN OF RIFFLE
BANKFULL (TYP)
(TYP)
5' MIN.
REACH STONE SIZE
TABLE 1 - RIFFLE MATERIAL
NATIVE
#1
BANKFULL (TYP)
CONTROL POINT
END OF RIFFLE
CR-GC
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE - GRADE CONTROL
FLOW
A
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
B'
B
Profile A-A'
Section B-B'
PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS
RIFFLE INVERT SEE STREAM
A'
TYPICAL SECTIONS
WIDTH PER
RIFFLE BOTTOM
VIEW FOR RIFFLE LENGTH
SEE PLAN AND PROFILE
BANKFULL WIDTH
PROFILE SHEETS
SEE PLAN AND
CONTROL POINT
BEGIN OF RIFFLE
BANKFULL (TYP)
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE - WOODY
CR-W
REACH STONE SIZE
TABLE 2 - RIFFLE MATERIAL
CONTROL POINT
END OF RIFFLE
60
40
20 -30
o o
20 -30
o o
20 -30
o o
2%-4%
BANKFULL
1/2 TO 2/3
ROCK
ANCHOR
BANKFULL
1/2 TO 2/3
UT1, UT4, LBF
NATIVE
#3
40
60
(%)SILL MIN. DIMENSIONS
UT1 & LBF = 4'X3'X2'
UT4 = 2'X2'X1'
GEOTEXTILE
GEOTEXTILE
GEOTEXTILE
1' MIN.
COIR MATTING
9" THICK WITH
SALVAGED TOPSOIL
NATIVE
WOODY DEBRIS
#3
25
25
50
(%)
RIFFLE DEPTH =18"
IMPORTED MATERIAL
RIFFLE STREAMBED
BANKFULL
1/2 TO 2/3
SILL MIN. DIMENSIONS
VANE, ETC.)
ANOTHER IN-STREAM STRUCTURE (J-HOOK, CROSS
6. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO
AND 1.0' INTO BED (DEPTH).
5. KEY END SILLS A MINIMUM OF 3.0' INTO BANKS
SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION.
GENERALLY MATCH THE GEOMETRY AND DIMENSIONS
CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL
OR DOWNSTREAM RUN AND POOLS. THE CONSTRUCTED
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN UPSTREAM POOL AND GLIDES
A SMOOTH PROFILE AND SHALL NOT CREATE ABRUPT
BANKS AND BED. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL CREATE
4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM
MATERIAL TABLE
ABANDONDED CHANNEL SECTIONS PER RIFFLE
EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND REUSED FROM
3. IF NATIVE MATERIAL IS CALLED FOR, IT SHALL BE
4" IN DIAMETER.
LOGS, BRANCHES, AND BRUSH NO GREATER THAN
PER TABLE 2. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF
2. RIFFLE MATERAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF MATERIAL
RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF +/- 0.2'.
POINTS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE
PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL
AND END OF RIFFLE SECTIONS TO ESTABLISH
1. CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT BEGIN
NOTES:
CONTROL POINT
END OF RIFFLECONTROL POINT
BEGIN OF RIFFLE
(TYP)
5' MIN.
GEOTEXTILE
1' MIN.
GEOTEXTILE
GEOTEXTILE
MINIMUM OF 3' (TYP)
INTO BANKS A
RIFFLE MATERIAL
KEY END SILLS AND
MINIMUM OF 3' (TYP)
INTO BANKS A
RIFFLE MATERIAL
KEY END SILLS AND
ROCK
ANCHOR
ROCK
ANCHOR
POOL
MICRO
6" DEEP
ROCK
ANCHOR
POOL
MICRO
6" DEEP
1' MIN.
MINIMUM OF 3' (TYP)
INTO BANKS A
KEY RIFFLE MATERIAL
REACH STONE SIZE
TABLE 3 - RIFFLE MATERIAL
NATIVE
#1 60
40
(%)
UT1 & LBF = 4'X3'X2'UT1, LBF
MINIMUM OF 3' (TYP)
INTO BANKS A
KEY END SILLS
SILL AND ANCHOR ROCK MIN. DIMENSIONS
UT4
UT3, UT5 UT3 & UT5 = 2'X2'X1'
UT4 = 2'X2'X1'
VANE, ETC.)
ANOTHER IN-STREAM STRUCTURE (J-HOOK, CROSS
9. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO
AND 1.0' INTO BED (DEPTH).
8. KEY END SILLS A MINIMUM OF 3.0' INTO BANKS
ANCHOR MATTING TO GROUND
STAPLES (11 GAUGE MIN. 6IN TO 12IN LONG) TO
7. COIR MATTING ANCHORED WITH U SHAPED WIRE
SITE CONDITIONS OR AS DESIGNATED BY THE DESIGNER.
DIMENSIONS OF MICROPOOL WILL VARY BASED ON
PROVIDE A MINIMUM 6" DEPRESSION BELOW LOG.
CONSTRUCTED WITH SPECIFIED RIFFLE MATERIAL AND
DOWNSTREAM OF THE LOGS. MICROPOOLS SHALL BE
6. MICROPOOLS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IMMEDIATELY
12 FEET IN LENGTH AND 6 TO 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER.
WITH BOULDERS. LOGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF
EQUALLY AND ANCHORD TO THE CHANNEL BED
ON LOG AVAILBILITY. LOGS SHOULD BE SPACED
BASED ON RIFFLE LENGTH AND MY VARY BASED
5. SPACING AND NUMBER OF LOGS SHOULD BE
TYPICAL SECTION.
GEOMETRY AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE
OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE
RUN AND POOLS. THE CONSTRUCTED CROSS SECTION
BETWEEN UPSTREAM POOL AND GLIDES OR DOWNSTREAM
PROFILE AND SHALL NOT CREATE ABRUPT TRANSITIONS
ON DETAIL. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL CREATE A SMOOTH
BANKS A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET AND BED AS SHOWN
4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM
MATERIAL TABLE
ABANDONDED CHANNEL SECTIONS PER RIFFLE
EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND REUSED FROM
3. IF NATIVE MATERIAL IS CALLED FOR, IT SHALL BE
PER TABLE 3.
2. RIFFLE MATERAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF MATERIAL
OF +/- 0.2'.
ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE
POINTS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH
PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL
AND END OF RIFFLE SECTIONS TO ESTABLISH
1. CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT BEGIN
NOTES:
VANE, ETC.)
ANOTHER IN-STREAM STRUCTURE (J-HOOK, CROSS
7. THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO
AND 1.0' INTO BED (DEPTH).
6. KEY END SILLS A MINIMUM OF 3.0' INTO BANKS
ANCHOR MATTING TO GROUND
STAPLES (11 GAUGE MIN. 6IN TO 12IN LONG) TO
5. COIR MATTING ANCHORED WITH U SHAPED WIRE
SECTION.
AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL
MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE GEOMETRY
CONSTRUCTED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE
OR DOWNSTREAM RUN AND POOLS. THE
TRANSITIONS BETWEEN UPSTREAM POOL AND GLIDES
A SMOOTH PROFILE AND SHALL NOT CREATE ABRUPT
BANKS AND BED. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL CREATE
4. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM
MATERIAL TABLE
ABANDONDED CHANNEL SECTIONS PER RIFFLE
EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND REUSED FROM
3. IF NATIVE MATERIAL IS CALLED FOR, IT SHALL BE
PER TABLE 1.
2. RIFFLE MATERAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF MATERIAL
OF +/- 0.2'.
ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE
POINTS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH
PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL
AND END OF RIFFLE SECTIONS TO ESTABLISH
1. CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT BEGIN
NOTES:
Plan View
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
1:
0
7
:
11
P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
G
-
P
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
hGEOTEXTILE FABRIC
OFF STREAMBANK
20 - 30 DEGREES
BOULDERS
SILL
SHRUB PLANTINGS
W bkf FOOTER LOG
OPTIONAL
WE
B
KFL
W E
BK F L
A
A'
FLOW
SECTION A-A'
SECTION B-B'
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
PLAN VIEW
STREAM BED
FLOW
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
NOTES:
TOP LOG
FOOTER LOG
BOULDERS
SHRUB PLANTINGS
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
LVLOG VANE
A
A'
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
FLOW
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
MATTING
TOE OF SLOPE
TOPSOIL
4"-6" DIAMETER
BASE LOGS
CHANNEL BANKFULL WIDTH
EXTEND MORE THAN 20% OF
AND BASE LOGS SHALL NOT
EXPOSED BRUSH MATERIAL
4' MIN
BTSBRUSH TOE STABILIZATION
3'
TOE OF SLOPE
TOPSOIL
3'
FOR UT4
Section A-A'
FOR LBF & UT1
Section A-A'
DEBRIS LAYERS
AND BRUSH/WOODY
STREAMBED MATERIAL
SOIL/SALVAGED
ALTERNATING
SOIL LIFT
KEYED IN 1-FT
700 COIR FIBER MATTING
CUTTINGS
CUTTINGS
SOIL LIFT
CUTTINGS
SOIL LIFET
SOIL LIFT
MATERIAL
FILLER
ROCK
ANCHOR
BASE LOGS
Plan View
SOIL LIFT
CUTTINGS
CUTTINGS
SOIL LIFT
CUTTINGS
SOIL LIFET
SOIL LIFT
KEYED IN 1-FT
700 COIR FIBER MATTING
LAYER A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES
KEY IN BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS
(LBF & UT1)
ANCHOR ROCKS
BOULDER
ANCHOR
F
LO
W
BOULDER
ANCHOR
2' MINMATERIAL
BED
WITH STABLE
BACKFILL
ON SITE DESIGNER.
DESIGNER. FABRIC SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH 3" STONE OR SUITABLE MATERIAL AS DETERMINED BY
SITE DESIGNER. FABRIC SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 6 FEET OR AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE
IS COMPLETE. FABRIC SHALL BE BURIED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 FEET OR AS DIRECTED BY ON
APART. FABRIC IS TO BE SECURED IN A MANNER WHEREBY IT IS NOT VISIBLE ONCE THE STRUCTURE
TO LOG VIA MINIMUM 1-1/2" LONG ROOFING NAILS WITH PLASTIC WASHERS, NO GREATER THAN 16"
5. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG. FABRIC SHOULD BE SECURED
THE ON SITE DESIGNER WILL MAKE FINAL DETERMINATION.
4. AN OPTIONAL BOULDER MAY BE USED TO SECURE END OF LOG BELOW CHANNEL OR STREAMBANK.
SPACES/ VOIDS.
3. IF OPTIONAL FOOTER LOG IS USED, IT SHOULD FIT TIGHTLY AGAINST TOP LOG WITH MINIMAL
WITH THE FOLLOWING DIMENSION: AVERAGE SIZE IS 4' x 3' x 2' (APPROX. 3600 LBS.)
2. BOULDERS SHOULD BE NATIVE QUARRIED ROCK OR LOCALLY SHOT ROCK, ANGULAR AND OBLONG
LENGTH IS 12 FEET.
1. LOGS SHOULD BE FROM NATIVE TREES WITH DIAMETER NO LESS THAN 12 INCHES. MINIMUM
4' MINIMUM
4 - 10 % SLOPE
B'
B'
FLOW
BANKFULL
BOULDER
ANCHOR
EXCAVATED POOL
BED
MORE THATN 12" ABOVE POOL INVERT
BE INSTALLED TO AN ELEVATION NO
BASE LOGS AND FILLER MATERIAL SHALL
TOPSOIL AND KEY INTO EXISTING BANK
10. PREPARE SEEDBED, APPLY SEED, AND WRAP COIR FIBER MATTING OVER THE FINISHED
9. INSTALL TOPSOIL OVER FINAL SOIL LIFT LAYER TO ACHIEVE FINISHED GRADE.
AMOUNT OF MATTING OVERHANING TO WRAP OVER THE TOPSOIL LAYER ONCE IT IS PLACED.
8. INSTALL 700 COIR FIBER MATTING OVER THE FINAL SOIL LIFT WITH AN AMPLE
7. INSTALL SOIL LIFTS A MINIMUM OF 8" THICK AFTER COMPACTION TO WITHIN 8" OF BANKFULL ELEVATION.
DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE INVERT ELEVATION. THE NUMBER OF LIFTS WILL VARY BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS.
6. INSTALL ALTERNATING SOIL LIFTS AND LIVE CUTTING LAYER TO AN ELEVATION 6 INCHES ABOVE
DEBRIS. THIS LAYER SHOULD BE A MINIMIUM OF 3 INCHES THICK.
INCLUDE EASY TO ROOT SPECIES SUCH AS WILLOW, DOGWOOD, AND POPLAR BRUSHY/WOODY
5. INSTALL A LAYER OF LIVE CUTTINGS WHICH CONSISTS OF FACINES BUNDLES/LIVE CUTTINGS THAT
ANCHOR MATTING.
A MINIMUM OF 8 INCHES THICK. USE 2' WOODEN STAKES OR U SHAPED WIRE TO
HEAVY COMPACTION TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE BASE LOGS. FINISHED SOIL LIFT SHALL BE
12-16 INCHES OF SOIL. TAMP SOIL MATERIAL AND USE A FORM TO DEVELOP SOIL LIFT. AVOID
4. TOP FILLER MATERIAL WITH 700 COIR FIBER MATTING, WITH JUTE MATTING UNDERNEATH, AND
PERPENDICULAR TO BANK ON TOP OF THE BASE LOGS.
3. INSTALL FILLER MATERIAL WHICH CONSISTS OF SMALL LOGS, LIMBS, TREE TOPS AND BRUSH
UTILIZE ANCHOR ROCKS TO TO HOLD BASE LOGS IN PLACE.
MEASURED FROM THE CONVERGENCE OF BANK TANGENT TO THE INSIDE OF LOG TANGENT.
AN ANGLE OF 15-25 DEGREES BETWEEN THE BANK AND INSIDE OF THE PROTRUDING LOG
A MINIMUM OF 4' AND HAVE A DIAMETER OF 4"-6". LOGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH
2. INSTALL BASE LOGS IN A CRISS CROSS PATTERN,DRIVING THEM INTO THE EXISTING BANK
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK(BANKFULL).
NOTES FOR LBF AND UT1:
POOL INVERT
MORE THAN 8" ABOVE
TO AN ELEVATION NO
LAYER SHALL BE INSTALLED
BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS
TOPSOIL AND KEY INTO EXISTING BANK
9. PREPARE SEEDBED, APPLY SEED, AND WRAP COIR FIBER MATTING OVER THE FINISHED
8. INSTALL TOPSOIL OVER FINAL SOIL LIFT LAYER TO ACHIEVE FINISHED GRADE.
AMOUNT OF MATTING OVERHANING TO WRAP OVER THE TOPSOIL LAYER ONCE IT IS PLACED.
7. INSTALL 700 COIR FIBER MATTING OVER THE FINAL SOIL LIFT WITH AN AMPLE
BANKFULL ELEVATION.
6. INSTALL SOIL LIFTS A MINIMUM OF 6" THICK AFTER COMPACTION TO WITHIN 8" OF
ON SITE CONDITIONS.
ABOVE DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE INVERT ELEVATION. THE NUMBER OF LIFTS WILL VARY BASED
5. INSTALL ALTERNATING SOIL LIFTS AND LIVE CUTTING LAYER TO AN ELEVATION 6 INCHES
BRUSHY/WOODY DEBRIS. THIS LAYER SHOULD BE A MINIMIUM OF 3 INCHES THICK.
THAT INCLUDE EASY TO ROOT SPECIES SUCH AS WILLOW, DOGWOOD, AND POPLAR
4. INSTALL A LAYER OF LIVE CUTTINGS WHICH CONSISTS OF FACINES BUNDLES/LIVE CUTTINGS
WIRE TO ANCHOR MATTING.
LIFT SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES THICK. USE 2' WOODEN STAKES OR U SHAPED
HEAVY COMPACTION TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS. FINISHED SOIL
SOIL. TAMP SOIL MATERIAL AND WRAP WITH MATTING TO DEVELOP SOIL LIFT. AVOID
3. TOP BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER WITH 700 COIR FIBER MATTING AND 8-12 INCHES OF
NO MORE THAN 8" ABOVE THE POOL INVERT AND A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES THICK.
BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER. THIS LAYER SHALL BE INSTALLED TO AN ELEVATION
SMALL LOGS, LIMBS, TREE TOPS AND BRUSH COLLECTED ON-SITE LIGHLY COMPACT
2. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK(BANKFULL).
NOTES FOR UT4
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
1:
0
7
:
13

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
G
-
P
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
POOL
POOL
AA
A
AAA
A'
B
B
B
BB'
C
C
C
C
C
C'
C
D
D
BBB
C CC
C
C
B B
B
C
C
C

A
2
-1
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
INVERT (THALWEG)
PROPOSED CHANNEL
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
VAR
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
PLAN VIEW
FLOW
A
A
B
B
6 IN. MIN
MESH
MATTING W/BIODEGRADABLE
SOIL REINFORCEMENT

W/BIODEGRADABLE MESH
SOIL REINFORCEMENT MATTING
THEY SHOULD BE ANCHORED TO ONE ANOTHER VIA NO. 4 REBAR BY DRILLING AND HAMMERING.
1. LOGS MAY BE NOTCHED TO ALLOW FOR PROPER CONNECTION.

5. H = MIN. OF 0.2", UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY ON-SITE DESIGNER.
NOTES:
SECTION D-D'SECTION C-C'SECTION B-B'
PLAN VIEW
BANKFULL
REBAR
NO. 4
LOG #1
FLOW
LOG #2
POOL
BANKFULLLOG #1
POOL
LOG #2
REBAR
NO. 4
FLOW
SHRUB PLANTINGS
LOG #2
LOG #1
WATER SURFACE
EXISTINGPOOL
NO. 4 REBAR
2' MIN
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE
LOG #1
H=1.0' MAX
SURFACE
WATER
FOOTER ROCK
OPTIONAL
RIFFLE
HEAD OF DOWNSTREAM
GRADE CONTROL AT
BOULDER USED FOR
THALWEG
LOG #2
SECTION A-A'
FLOW
OF LOG #1
LOW END
BOULDERS
FOOTER ROCK
DEGREES
50-60
OF LOG #2
HIGH END
FOOTER ROCK
TOP OF BANK
WATER'S EDGE

WATER'S EDGE
TOP OF BANK
ROOTWAD
OPTIONAL
FOOTER ROCK
OF LOG #1
HIGH END
NO. 4 REBAR
OF LOG #2
LOW END
DEGREES
50-60
NOTES:
OR EXCEED THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS.
1. CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE FABRIC TO MEET
NEEDLE-PUNCHED FABRIC.
WITH A POLYPROPYLENE NONWOVEN
2. THE BELOW SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT
FABRIC FOR USE WITH VANE STRUCTURES.
3. ENGINEER RECOMMENDS GRAY OR BLACK-COLORED
PHYSICAL SPECIFICATION (ROLL)
PROPERTY
GRAB TENSILE
GRAB ELONGATION
MULLEN BURST
PUNCTURE
TRAPEZOIDAL TEAR
UV RESISTANCE
AOS
PERMITTIVITY
FLOW RATE 110 GAL./MIN./FT.
1.5 SEC.
70 SIEVE
65 LBS.
90 LBS.
315 PSI
50%
160 LBS.
MIN5'
1-2%SLOPE
1-
2
%
S
LO
P
E
70% AT 500 HRS
ROLL VALUE
MIN. AVERAGE
STREAM PLUG FLOODPLAIN INTERCEPTOR
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
i
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
DLD
SP FI
OTHERWISE BY ON-SITE DESIGNER. MINIMUM DIAMETER OF LOGS IS 8 INCHES.
APPROPRIATE. THEY SHOULD CONSIST OF NATIVE HARDWOOD MATERIAL, UNLESS DIRECTED
2. LOGS SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM ON-SITE RESOURCES, WHEN
OR OBLONG WITH THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS: 2' x 2' x 1' (0.5 TONS) OR LARGER.
3. BOULDERS SHOULD BE NATIVE QUARRIED ROCK, OR LOCAL SHOT ROCK, ANGULAR
V
A
R
GROUND ELEVATION
ADJACENT NATURAL

INVERT
CHANNEL
FLOW
PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.
AS SPECIFIED IN
SHALL BE TREATED
NEW STREAMBANK
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
10'5' Min.
1.5'

1.5:1 SIDE SLOPE
MATERIAL
BACKFILL
COMPACTED
DOUBLE LOG DROP
OR THE APPROPRIATE STREAM BED COMPOSITION, AS DIRECTED BY ON-SITE DESIGNER.
FEET, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ON-SITE DESIGNER. FABRIC SHOULD BE BACKFILLED WITH NATIVE STONE,
BY THE ON-SITE DESIGNER. FABRIC SHOULD EXTEND UPSTREAM A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 6.0
COMPLETED. FABRIC SHOULD BE BURIED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2.0 FEET, OR AS DIRECTED
ONE HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE LOG SO THAT IT REMAINS UNSEEN ONCE THE STRUCTURE IS
SPACED NO GREATER THAN 16 INCHES APART. THE ATTACHMENT POINT SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY
ATTACHED TO THE LOGS VIA 1-1/2 INCH LONG MINIMUM ROOFING NAILS WITH PLASTIC WASHERS
4. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOGS. FABRIC SHOULD BE
WITH APPROVAL FROM ENGINEER AND MAINTAINING DESIGNED PROFILE AND CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
6. DLD DETAIL MAY BE REPLACED WITH HEADWATER CHANNEL DETAIL (PSH-02.q) AT CONTRACTOR'S DISCRECTION
OF 1 FT.
KEY IN MATTING A MINIMUM
D*
MIN MAX
19+60LBF 3.0'
3.0'7.5'17+10UT4
STREAM
10.0'
STATION
D*
GROUND
EXISTING
APPROVED FABRIC
MATERIAL IN
WRAP BACKFILL
7. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
6. GEOTEXTILE MAY BE OMITTED IF CLAY MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR CORE MATERIAL.
5. KEY THE CHANNEL PLUG INTO THE BED AND BANK A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT.
4. THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN ON PLANS OR AS DIRECTED BY ONSITE ENGINEER.
WETLANDS
OUTSIDE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLAND AREAS, PERVIOUS FABRIC SHALL BE USED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS AND
3. WRAP THE COMPACTED BACKFILL MATERIAL IN APPROVED FABRIC. GEOTEXTILE MAY BE USED
SECTION IN THAT LOCATION.
2. SIDE SLOPE THAT IS ADJACENT TO NEW CHANNEL NEEDS TO MATCH PROPOSED CROSS-
AS NOTED BY THE DESIGNER.
1. CHANNEL PLUGS TO BE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND AT OTHER LOCATIONS
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
1:
0
7
:
14

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
G
-
P
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
CHANNEL
STREAM
25 FT. MIN.
TOP OF BANK
25 FT. MIN.
TOP OF BANK
PLAN VIEW
PROFILE VIEW
NOTES:
SECTION B-B
THE CROSSING FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 30 FEET.
5. ALIGN ROAD APPROACHES WITH THE CENTER LINE OF

THE STREAM FLOW.
4. KEEP STREAM CROSSINGS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO

SITE ONTO UNDISTURBED AREAS ADJOINING THE STREAM.
3. DIVERT ALL SURFACE RUNOFF FROM THE CONSTRUCTION

AND APPOACH SECTIONS TO A MINIMUM.
2. KEEP CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAM BANKS, BED,

1. STONE APPROACH SECTION 10:1, SLOPE ON ROAD.
TO THE INSTALLATION.
MAKE ALL REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE
OF BANKS, CHANNEL SCOUR, STONE DISPLACEMENT, OR PIPING.
RAINS TO CHECK FOR BLOCKAGE IN CHANNEL, EROSION
8. INSPECT STREAM CROSSINGS AFTER RUNOFF-PRODUCING

STREAMBANKS SHOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 2:1.
7. SIDE SLOPES WHERE CROSSING CONNECTS TO EXISTING

WATER, INCLUDING PLANNED OVERFLOW AREAS.
6. STABILIZE ALL DISTURBED AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOWING
PERMANENT AT GRADE STREAM CROSSING
GEOTEXTILE
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
j
D
( Not to Scale)
B
d
*When B is < 6.0'
Ground
Natural
Ground
Natural
Type of Liner= COIR FIBER MATTING
3:
1 3:1
B= 20 FT
Max. d= 1.0 FT
Min. D= 0.5 FT
AG
IS GREATER
OR 18 IN. WHICHEVER
DIAMETER OF PIPE2
1•
FLOW
STONE
CLASS B
6" DEEP
#5 OR #57 STONE
OR #57 STONE
TOPPED WITH #5
CLASS B STONE
OR FLATTER
6H:1V
NATURAL GROUND
TO DEPTH SPECIFIED ON PLANS.
STREAMBED WITH NATIVE MATERIAL
CAAP WILL BE EMBEDDED INTO
BEFORE INSTALLING PIPE
OF ROCK FILL IN BOTTOM
PLACE GEOTEXTILE AND 3"-6"
PERMANENT CULVERTED STREAM CROSSING
D* = 36" CAAP ON UT3
D*GROUND
NATURAL
GROUND
NATURAL
MATCH APPROACHING STREAM BASE WIDTH
18" MIN.BOULDERS
10:1 OR FLATTER
1
0
:1
O
R

F
LA
T
T
E
R
BOULDERS MIN 3'
GEOTEXTILE - KEY INTO
4" DEEP (TYP)
#5 OR #57 STONE
BANKFULL FLOW
PROFILE VIEW
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
FOOTER ROCKS MIN
6'
STONE - 12" DEEP
CLASS A
BETWEEN BOULDERS
TO FILL VOID AREAS
#5 OR #57 STONE
WATERS EDGE
24 FT. MIN.
TOP OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED STREAM BANK
B B
BOULDERS
GATE
#5 OR #57 STONE
TOPPED WITH
CLASS A STONE
FENCE
FENCE
GATE
1
WETLAND CONVEYANCE
WETLAND CONVEYANCE
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
WC1
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
Y
S
T
IM
E
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
D
G
N
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
U
S
E
R
N
A
M
E
$
$
$
$
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
PHYSICAL SPECIFICATION (ROLL)
MATRIX
WIDTH
LENGTH
(AVG. MONTHS)
BLANKET LIFE
0.35 INCH
24-36
X
XXXXXX X X X X X
MIN. 1' OVERLAP
6' 6" TYPICAL
FLOW
3' TYP.
3' TYP.
3' TYP.
12" MIN. DEPTH
FLOW
MIN. 1' OVERLAP
X X X X X
X X X X X
X
X X X X X X
FOR PARALLEL ROLLS
MIN. 6" OVERLAP
NOTES:
MIN 6.5 FEET
MIN 165 FEET

COCONUT 700 GRAM BLANKET
COMPOSITION 100% COCONUT FIBERS
DRY - 40 LBS
WET - 55 LBS
(1488 MD x 1032 CD)
TENSILE STRENGTH
ELONGATION (WET)35% x 38%
OPEN AREA 48%
THICKNESS
SLOPE
RECOMMENDED > 1:1
FLOW
RECOMMENDED 12 FPS
SHEAR STRESS
RECOMMENDED 4.5 LBS/SQ. FT.
COIR FIBER 700 GRAM MATTING
ALONG EDGES
3' SPACING
X XX X
X
X X X X X
WOODEN STAKES
MATTING SHALL BE MINIMUM OF 3' APART.
MATTING FIRMLY. STAKES OCCURING ALONG THE TOE AND THROUGHOUT THE
GALVANIZED NAIL PLACED IN TOP END OF STAKE AND BENT OVER TO SECURE
4. LOWER ROLL SHALL BE STAKED USING MIN. 24" WOODEN STAKES WITH SMALL
FROM SHEET FLOWS FROM SLOPE.
3. UPPER ROLL SHALL BE KEYED IN ALONG TERRACE TO PREVENT UNDERMINING
TOE OF TERRACE SLOPE (ABOVE BANKFULL BENCH).
LOWER ROLL). LAP UPPERMOST ROLL AT LEAST 1/2 ROLL WIDTH BEYOND
2. PLACE PARALLEL ROLLS IN SHINGLE FASHION (UPPER ROLL LAPS OVER
1. INSTALL COIR BLANKET ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S GUIDELINES.
STAKING PATTERN
SPECIFICATIONS
THE SLOPE.
STAKES SHALL BE USED ALONG THE TOE OF
BE USED TO SECURE COIR MATTING. 24" WOODEN
WOODEN STAKES NOT SHORTER THAN 12" SHALL
2. STAKES:
OR EXCEED THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS.
1. CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE MATTING TO MEET
COIR FIBER MATTING
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
k
CF
F
LO
W
NOTES:
ELEVATION
BANKFULL
6" MIN
COIR MATTING CROSS SECTIONTYPICAL MATTING LOCATION
THE CHANNEL IN TANGENT AREAS.
OUTSIDE BANK OF ALL BENDS AND ALONG BOTH SIDES OF
COIR FIBER MATTING SHALL BE PLACED ALONG THE
STRAW MULCH
1 FT. MIN.
COIR FIBER MATTING
ELEVATION
WATER SURFACE
PROPOSED
BEYOND BANKFULL
TO MINIMUM 1 FT.
FROM TOE OF CHANNEL
COIR FIBER MATTING
BACKFILL
OVERLAP
6" MIN
NOTES:
ELEVATION
BANKFULL
PROPOSED

WATER
NORMAL
A
B
B
NATIVE PLANTINGS
2' MIN.
WE
WE
BKFL
BKFL
A
6'
SECTION B-B
FOOTER ROCKS
STREAM CHANNEL
OFF STREAMBANK
20-30 DEGREES
FLOW
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE
NATIVE PLANTINGS
BOULDERS
POOL
FOOTER ROCKS
VANE WING
PROJECTED TOP OF
SLOPE= 2-7%FLOW
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE FOOTER ROCKS
PLAN VIEW
SECTION A-A
STREAM BANK
USED TO KEY INTO
LARGER BOULDERS
BOULDERS
NOTES:
STREAM BANK
USED TO KEY INTO
LARGER BOULDERS
AVERAGE SIZE IS 4'X3'X2' (APPROX. 3600 LB)
2. ROCKS SHOULD FIT TIGHTLY WITH MINIMAL SPACES/VOIDS.
THE FOLLOWING DIMENSION:
OR LOCALLY SHOT ROCK, ANGULAR AND OBLONG WITH
1. BOULDERS SHOULD BE NATIVE QUARRIED ROCK
NOTCH
WEIR
DEPTH
BANKFULL
ROCK CROSS VANE
RCV
RIFFLE DETAIL.
CONSTRUCTED
ON APPROPRIATE
SPECIFIED
MATERIAL AS
SUITABLE BED
DETAIL OR AS DETERMINED BY ON SITE DESIGNER.
SUITABLE MATERIAL SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
DESIGNER. FABRIC SHOULD BE BACKFILLED WITH
LENGTH OF OF 6 FT. OR AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE
FABRIC SHOULD EXTEND UPSTREAM A MINIMUM
DEPTH OF 2 FT. OR AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE DESIGNER.
EXPOSED BOULDERS AND BURIED TO A MINIMUM
SIDE OF BOULDERS. FABRIC SHOULD BE OVERLAIN ON
3. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED ON UPSTREAM
#1 or #3 STONE
BACKFILLED WITH EXCAVATED MATERIAL.
WITH MATTING LAID FLAT AND STAKED. TRENCH TO BE
3. MINIMUM 1' WIDE, 6" DEEP TRENCH OVER TOP OF BANK
DIRECTED BY MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
2. USE 12" WOODEN STAKES ON 5' CENTERS OR AS
UT3,UT4,UT5)
#1 OR #3 STONE (#1 FOR LBF AND UT1; #3 FOR
FROM WORKING OFF OF STAKE. THEN LINE TOE WITH
WITH GALVANIZED NAIL BENT TO PROHIBIT MATTING
1. SECURE TOE OF MATTING WITH 24" WOODEN STAKES
OR LOG AT CONTRACTOR'S DISCRETION WITH APPROVAL FROM ENGINEER.
4. ARMS OF STRUCTURE MAY BE REPLACED WITH BRUSH TOE
5. MAX BANKFULL DROP = 1.0 FT
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
1:
0
7
:
17

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
G
-
P
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
10:1 1
0:
1
Ground
Natural
0.5'
ACCESS ROAD TO LBF STREAM CROSSING
NOT TO SCALE
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
l
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
AR
BSHS
PLAN
F
C
C SECTION
2:1
2:
1
Wo
CULVERT
2:1+
APRON
2:1
CL
2
:1
2:
1+
G
DISSIPATOR POOL APRON
2:
1
E
2:1
CULVERT
A
Wo
D
FI
L
L
S
L
OP
E
L
CL
GROUND
NATURAL
GEOTEXTILE
ROCK NOT SHOWN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
(ft)
DIM.
B
STREAMBED MATERIAL
ROCK/COBBLE
BANK RUN GRAVEL
DESCRIPTION
(inches)
PARTICLE SIZE
0.08 - 2.5"2
3
BUCKETS PERCENT
NOTES:
BCHS #
1 2
THE CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSED SOURCE PRIOR TO BEING PLACED IN THE BSHS CHANNEL.
THE COBBLE-GRAVEL BED MATERIAL SPECIFIED BELOW MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER AT
CLASS II RIPRAP (12 - 18" DIA)
COBBLE AND SHALL HAVE NATURAL COLOR (BROWN, TAN, YELLOW, OR WHITE)
BANK RUN GRAVEL MAY INCLUDE UP TO 5% CLAY, SILT, AND/OR SAND, AND UP TO 25%
CRUSHED STONE SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.
SIMILAR IN COLOR AND APPEARANCE TO IN-SITU MATERIALS.
ALL IMPORTED BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF FIELD STONE OR NATURAL RIVER ROCK
THICKNESS)
BED (18" MIN.
COBBLE-GRAVEL
NOTES:
GEOTEXTILE
FICFILL IN EXISTING CHANNEL
EXISTING GROUND
S
L
O
PE
A
T
3:
1
O
R
FL
A
T
T
E
R
(
T
Y
P)
3.0'
FD
FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION
EXISTING NATURAL
EXISTING GROUND
4:12.0' (MAX)
PER PLANTING PLANS
ELEVATION. SEED AND PLANT AS
THE NATURAL FLOODPLAIN
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF 2.0' BELOW
POOLS AS SHOWN ON PLANS TO A
AT 4:1 SLOPES TO CONSTRUCT VERNAL
SLOPE EXISTING CHANNEL BANKS
EXISTING CHANNEL
EXISTING CHANNEL
PER PLANTING PLANS.
SEED AND PLANT AS
AND COMPACT MATERIAL,
ELEVATION
NATURAL GROUND
CHANNEL 3' ABOVE
FILL IN EXISTING
(SEE GRADING PLAN)
COMPACTED BERM
1.0' (MIN)
GRADE CROSSING
PERMANENT AT
TIE WITH LBF
1
0:
1
30' (MIN)
4
:
1 O
R

F
LA
T
T
E
R
CHANNEL
LOCATIONS, OR PROPOSED
EXISTING BANKS, RAISED FLOODPLAIN
EXCAVATED MATERIAL FROM SLOPING
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL WITH
2.0'
1.5'
4.0'
3.0'
10.0'
25.0'
20.0'
2.0'
2.0'
4.0'
3.0'
20.0'
16.0'
ALL DIMENSIONS APPROXIMATE
30.0'
PLANS
AS SHOWN ON
ROCK J HOOK
OPTIONAL
PLANS
AS SHOWN ON
ROCK J HOOK
OPTIONAL
D
( Not to Scale)
B
d
*When B is < 6.0'
Ground
Natural
Ground
Natural
Type of Liner= COIR FIBER MATTING
3:
1 3:1
B= 2.0 FT
Max. d= 1.0 FT
Min. D= 0.5 FT
FLOODPLAIN DEPRESSION
WETLAND CONVEYANCE DETAIL
WETLAND CONVEYANCE
30" HDPE (OR ALT)
7. HDPE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH ALTERNATE MATERIAL TYPES BASED ON AVAILABILITY.
6. TIE INTO LBF PERMANENT AT GRADE STREAM CROSSING.
PERMANENT AT GRADE STREAM CROSSING.
5. ALIGN ROAD APPROACHES WITH EXISTING FARM PATH AND LBF

WATER, INCLUDING PLANNED OVERFLOW AREAS.
4. STABILIZE ALL DISTURBED AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOWING

3. INSTALL 30" HDPE AS SHOWN ON PLANS

RIP RAP (5"-12" DIA) AND TOPPED WITH 6" OF #5 OR #57 STONE.
AND LINE WITH GEOTEXTILE AND PLACE CLASS B
2. EXCAVATE NATURAL GROUND +/-6" AT ACCESS ROAD LOCATION

1. STONE APPROACH SECTION SHALL BE 10:1 OR FLATTER TO TOP OF ROAD.
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
WC2
2
BANK & SCOUR HOLE STABILIZATION
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
Y
S
T
IM
E
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
D
G
N
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
U
S
E
R
N
A
M
E
$
$
$
$
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
BOULDERS
EXISTING GROUND
OF POOL = 3 FT
OF CASCADE TO BOTTOM
MAX HEIGHT FROM TOP
CASCADE
POOL CROSS SECTION
A'A'
B'B'
C'
C'
PLAN VIEW
SECTION A-A'SECTION B-B'
(PROFILE VIEW)
SECTION C-C'
NOT TO SCALE
HEAD CUT REPAIR
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
m
HCR
(18" MIN. THICKNESS)
COBBLE-GRAVEL BED
Z
X
YTHE CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSED SOURCE PRIOR TO BEING PLACED IN THE HCR CHANNEL.
THE COBBLE-GRAVEL BED MATERIAL SPECIFIED BELOW MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER AT
STREAMBED MATERIAL
ROCK/COBBLE
BANK RUN GRAVEL
DESCRIPTION
CLASS B RIPRAP (6 - 10" DIA)
(inches)
PARTICLE SIZE
0.08 - 2.5"2
3
BUCKETS PERCENT
LEAF/BARK MULCH, 25% MINERAL SILT OR FINER MATERIAL
TOPSOIL SHALL BE 50% SIFTED, UNWASHED COURSE SAND (FINES ALLOWED), 24% COMPOSTED
COBBLE AND SHALL HAVE NATURAL COLOR (BROWN, TAN, YELLOW, OR WHITE)
BANK RUN GRAVEL MAY INCLUDE UP TO 5% CLAY, SILT, AND/OR SAND, AND UP TO 25%
CRUSHED STONE SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.
SIMILAR IN COLOR AND APPEARANCE TO IN-SITU MATERIALS.
ALL IMPORTED BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF FIELD STONE OR NATURAL RIVER ROCK
NOTES:
FOLLOWS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER: ***
*** MINIMUM X-Y-Z DIMENSIONS FOR ALL STRUCTURE STONES SHALL BE AS
ROCK
FOOTER ROCKS
1.5' - 3'1' - 2.5'
DIMENSION
9" (MIN)
SALVAGED TOPSOIL
BANKFULL WIDTH
COBBLE-GRAVEL BED MATERIAL ROCK AXIS DETAIL
(MIN. 18" THICKNESS)
COBBLE-GRAVEL BED MATERIAL
GEOTEXTILE
SCOUR
POOL
OF STREAM BED MATERIAL
BOULDERS AND FIRST 18"
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER
OF STREAM BED MATERIAL
BOULDERS AND FIRST 18"
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDER
C
A
B
B
CL
C B
A
MIN. INTO BANK
KEY STONES 2'
A
STRUCTURE TYPE X Y Z
RIFFLE WEIR CROSS SECTION THROUGH COBBLES/GRAVEL
(AS SHOWN)
FOOTER(S) MAY BE REQUIRED
MAX POOL DEPTH. ADDITIONAL
A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET BELOW
FOOTER BOULDERS EXTEND
UPSTREAM UT 2
D
E
F
G
1 2
7.0'
BOULDERS
HCR #
D
POOL = 3 FT
BOTTOM OF
CASCADE TO
FROM TOP OF
MAX HEIGHT
CASCADE
NG NG
S
EE
TYPI
CAL
4:
1
O
R
F
LATTER SEE TYPICAL
4:1 OR FLATTER
KEYED IN 9" (MIN)
OF ROCK
EXTEND 3'(MIN.) FROM EDGE
COIR MATTING
NG
S
EE
TYPI
CAL
4:
1
O
R
F
LATTER
NG
SEE TYPICAL
4:1 OR FLATTER
E (POOL #1)
BANKFULL WIDTH
F (POOLS #2-#4)G (POOL #5)
12" MIN
4.0'
NA
NA
BED/ PIPE OUTLET (UT2)
EXISTING STREAM
12.0'
2' - 3'
FILL MATERIAL
ROCK/COBBLE
BANK RUN GRAVEL
DESCRIPTION
CLASS I RIPRAP (8 - 12" DIA)
(inches)
PARTICLE SIZE
0.08 - 2.5"2
3
BUCKETS PERCENT
FILL MATERIAL
FILL MATERIAL
CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSED SOURCE PRIOR TO BEING PLACED IN THE HCR.
THE FILL MATERIAL SPECIFIED BELOW MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER AT THE
H
I
2 FT DROP (MAX)
J
TIE-IN
C= POINT ON THE CENTER DOWNSTREAM EDGE OF BANKFULL
TIE-IN
B= POINT ON THE CENTER DOWNSTREAM EDGE OF BANKFULL
RESIST SLIDING OR ROLLING DOWNSLOPE
PARAMETERS TO CREATE AN INTERLOCKING WEIR THAT WILL
THE VARIABILITY IN STONE SIZE WITHIN THE DESIGN
TO POOL HEADSTONE SHOULD BE KEYED INTO PLACE USING
THAN 1 FOOT TO CREATE VARIATION IN FLOW PATTERN POOL
PLAN ALIGNMENT OR SHIFTED TO EITHER SIDE BY NO MORE
TOLERANCE OF +/-0.2'. HEAD STONE MAY BE CENTERED ON
ELEVATION OF INVERT SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN A
A= POINT ON CENTER DOWNSTREAM EDGE OF HEAD STONE.
PROPOSED CHANNEL IS ON NEW LOCATION.
5. HCR #2 WILL NOT CONTAIN FILL MATERIAL SINCE
CONDITIONS AND DIRECTION OF ON-SITE DESIGNER.
4. NUMBER OF BOULDERS WILL VARY DEPENDING ON SITE
HCR #2 AND #3
3. G DIMENSION REPRESENTS POOLS #2-#4 FOR
WITH STRUCTURES TABLE.
HEIGHT SEE STREAM PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET ALONG
LENGTH, DEPTH, NUMBER OF DROPS, AND STEP
2. PROFILE VIEW SHOWN MAY VARY IN FIELD. FOR POOL
COORDINATE POINT LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS
1. SEE STREAM PLAN FORM AND PROFILE SHEETS FOR
NOTES:
H 12.0'
I NA 12.0'
J NA 16.0'
3.0'
1.
5:
1
O
R
FLA
TTER
2:1 (T Y P)
FLA
TTER (
TY
P)
1.
5:
1
O
R
16.0'
16.0'
16.0'
UT 3
(ft)
DIM.
PROFILE
DIMENSIONS.
DESIGNED PROFILE AND CHANNEL
FROM ENGINEER AND MAINTAINING
DISCRECTION WITH APPROVAL
(PSH-02.q) AT CONTRACTOR'S
WITH HEADWATER CHANNEL DETAIL
**HCR DETAIL MAY BE REPLACED
*ALL DIMENSIONS APPROXIMATE
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
1:
0
7
:
19

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
G
-
P
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
WE
BK F L W E
B
KFL
SECTION A-A
PLAN VIEW
CROSS SECTION
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
MIN
6'
FLOW
bkfW
SHRUB PLANTINGS
SILL
A
A
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
OFF STREAMBANK
20 - 30 DEGREES
BOULDERS
2' MIN FLOW
STREAM BED
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
SHRUB PLANTINGS
BOULDERS
FOOTER LOG
FLOW
FROM THE CHANNEL.
AGAINST THE LOG ON THE SIDE AWAY
FOOTER LOG SO THAT THEY ARE LEANING
THE DOWNSTREAM END OF EACH
BOULDERS ARE TO BE PLACED ON INVERT ELEV.)
(PLACE 2/3 DIA. BELOW
FOOTER LOG
ELEV.
INVERT
( VARIES )
ELEVATION
BANKFULL
BOULDERS
SHRUB PLANTINGS
MATERIAL
BED
WITH STABLE
BACKFILL
h
POOL
SCOUR
B
'
C'
LOG
FOOTER
OPTIONAL
FLOW
BED MATERIAL
BACKFILL WITH
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE
SECTION B-B'
SHRUB PLANTINGS
0.9 dmax
2' MIN
ROCK
FOOTER
LOW FLOW
6h FOR SAND
3h FOR COBBLE/GRAVEL,
HOLE
SCOUR
OF VANE LENGTH)
(MAX DEPTH AT 0.9
1 VANE LENGTH
SECTION C-C'
NOTES:
3. ROCKS SHOULD FIT TIGHTLY WITH MINIMAL SPACES.
2. AVERAGE SIZE IS 4'X3'X2' (APPROX. 3600 LB)

OF 3 TIMES 'H' IN GRAVEL BED STREAMS.
4. FOOTER ROCKS SHOULD BE A MINIMUM
DESIGNER. FABRIC SHOULD BE BACKFILLED WITH 3" STONE.
LENGTH OF OF 6 FT. OR AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE
FABRIC SHOULD EXTEND UPSTREAM A MINIMUM
DEPTH OF 2 FT. OR AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE DESIGNER.
EXPOSED BOULDERS AND BURIED TO A MINIMUM
SIDE OF BOULDERS. FABRIC SHOULD BE OVERLAIN ON
5. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED ON UPSTREAM
THE FOLLOWING DIMENSION:
OR LOCALLY SHOT ROCK, ANGULAR AND OBLONG WITH
1. BOULDERS SHOULD BE NATIVE QUARRIED ROCK
STREAM BED
LV-J
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
n
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
LOG VANE WITH ROCK J-HOOK
TOP LOG
TO INVERT
NEGATIVE SLOPE
HORIZONTAL OR AT
LOG PLACED
BOULDERS TO MAKE J-HOOK
WITH ROCK J-HOOK
WITH 3" STONE OR SUITABLE MATERIAL AS DETERMINED BY ON SITE DESIGNER.
DESIGNER. FABRIC SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 6 FEET OR AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE DESIGNER. FABRIC SHALL BE BACKFILLED
VISIBLE ONCE THE STRUCTURE IS COMPLETE. FABRIC SHALL BE BURIED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 FEET OR AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE
ROOFING NAILS WITH PLASTIC WASHERS, NO GREATER THAN 16" APART. FABRIC IS TO BE SECURED IN A MANNER WHEREBY IT IS NOT
5. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG. FABRIC SHOULD BE SECURED TO LOG VIA MINIMUM 1" LONG
FINAL DETERMINATION.
4. AN OPTIONAL BOULDER MAY BE USED TO SECURE END OF LOG BELOW CHANNEL OR STREAMBANK. THE ON SITE DESIGNER WILL MAKE
3. IF OPTIONAL FOOTER LOG IS USED, IT SHOULD FIT TIGHTLY AGAINST TOP LOG WITH MINIMAL SPACES/ VOIDS.
AVERAGE SIZE IS 4' x 3' x 2' (APPROX. 3600 LBS.)
2. BOULDERS SHOULD BE NATIVE QUARRIED ROCK OR LOCALLY SHOT ROCK, ANGULAR AND OBLONG WITH THE FOLLOWING DIMENSION:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE FROM NATIVE TREES WITH DIAMETER NO LESS THAN 12 INCHES. MINIMUM LENGTH IS 12 FEET.
TOP LOG
C'
6. H = MIN. OF 0.5'
4 - 10 % SLOPE
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
1:
0
7
:
2
0

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
G
-
P
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
o
h
NOTES:
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE
STREAM BED
BED MATERIAL
BACKFILL WITH
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE
2' MIN
FLOW
SECTION B-B'
0.9 dmax
ROCK
FOOTER
SILL
CUT OFF
SECTION C-C'
0.9 d
SECTION A-A'
SECTION D-D'
D
'
C
'
A
A
'
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILEPOOL
SCOUR
GAPS
NO
F
L
O
W
D C
B'
B
SHRUB PLANTINGS
FLOW
H
LOW FLOW
6h FOR SAND
3h FOR COBBLE/GRAVEL,
HOLE
SCOUR
ROCK
FOOTER
OF VANE LENGTH)
(MAX DEPTH AT 0.9
1 VANE LENGTH
ROCK DIAMETER
2
1 TO 4
1
GAP SPACING=
PLANTINGS
SHRUB
20 - 30
o o
B
K
F
L
bkf
R-J
ROCK J-HOOK
4-10%
FROM ENGINEER.
OR LOG AT CONTRACTOR'S DISCRETION WITH APPROVAL
6. ARMS OF STRUCTURE MAY BE REPLACED WITH BRUSH TOE
5. H = MIN. OF 0.5'
DESIGNER. FABRIC SHOULD BE BACKFILLED WITH 3" STONE.
LENGTH OF OF 6 FT. OR AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE
FABRIC SHOULD EXTEND UPSTREAM A MINIMUM
DEPTH OF 2 FT. OR AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE DESIGNER.
EXPOSED BOULDERS AND BURIED TO A MINIMUM
SIDE OF BOULDERS. FABRIC SHOULD BE OVERLAIN ON
4. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED ON UPSTREAM
OF 6 TIMES 'H' IN SAND BED STREAMS.
3. FOOTER ROCKS SHOULD BE A MINIMUM
2. ROCKS SHOULD FIT TIGHTLY WITH MINIMAL SPACES.
THE FOLLOWING DIMENSION: 4'X3'X2' (APPROX. 3600 LB)
OR LOCALLY SHOT ROCK, ANGULAR AND OBLONG WITH
1. BOULDERS SHOULD BE NATIVE QUARRIED ROCK
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
1:
0
7
:
2
1
P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
G
-
P
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
A'A'
NATIVE PLANTINGS
BOULDERS
FOOTER ROCKS
H
2' MIN.
PROJECTED TOP OF VANE WING
SLOPE= 2-7%
6.0'
pool
pool
pool
FOOTER ROCKS
BOULDERS
TRANSPLANTS
B'
B'
C'
C'
D'
D'
SECTION A'-A'
PLAN VIEW
OFF STREAMBANK
20-30 DEGREES
NOTES:
BKFL
BKFL
WE
WE
FLOW
DESIGNER.
SUITABLE MATERIAL, AS DETERMINED BY ON SITE
FABRIC SHOULD BE BACKFILLED WITH 3" STONE OR
OF 6 FT. OR AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE DESIGNER.
SHOULD EXTEND UPSTREAM A MINIMUM LENGTH OF
DEPTH AS DIRECTED BY ON SITE DESIGNER. FABRIC
EXPOSED BOULDERS AND BURIED TO A MINIMUM
SIDE OF BOULDERS. FABRIC SHOULD BE OVERLAIN ON
4. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE PLACED ON UPSTREAM
2. ROCKS SHOULD FIT TIGHTLY WITH MINIMAL SPACES/ VOIDS.
FOOTER ROCKS
STREAM CHANNEL
DEPTH
BANKFULL
LOW FLOW
FOOTER ROCKS
STREAM CHANNEL
DEPTH
BANKFULL
LOW FLOW
FOOTER ROCKSSTREAM CHANNEL
DEPTH
BANKFULL
LOW FLOW
SECTION B'-B'
SECTION D'-D'
SECTION C'-C'
Width
Bankfull
1/3
Approx.
Width
Bankfull
1/3
Approx.
Width
Bankfull
1/3
Approx.
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
6. MAXIMUM DROP PER STEP IS 2.0'
5. H = 0.3'
ROCK STEP POOL
RSP
APPROXIMATE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF 2' X 2' X 1'.
OR LOCALLY SHOT ROCK, ANGULAR AND OBLONG WITH
1. BOULDERS SHOULD BE NATIVE QUARRIED ROCK
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
p
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
DESIGNER WILL MAKE FINAL DETERMINATION.
6 TIMES 'H' FOR SAND BED STREAMS. ON SITE
OF 3 TIMES 'H' IN GRAVEL BED STREAMS AND
3. FOOTER ROCKS SHOULD BE A MINIMUM
PROFILE AND CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
APPROVAL FROM ENGINEER AND MAINTAINING DESIGNED
DETAIL (PSH-02.q) AT CONTRACTOR'S DISCRECTION WITH
7. RSP DETAIL MAY BE REPLACED WITH HEAD WATER CHANNEL
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
1:
0
7
:
2
1
P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
G
-
P
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
2
.
q
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
HEADWATER CHANNEL
NOT TO SCALE
PROFILE
5 SEE TABLE 2C
POCKET POOL
ANCHOR LOG
POCKET POOL
ANCHOR LOGLO
G

I
N
V
E
R
T
LO
G

IN
V
E
R
T
PROFILE
SUBGRADE
(SEE TABLE 2C)
BED MATERIAL
BRUSH/COBBLE
CLAY LINER
COMPACTED
MINIMUM 6"
HEADWATER CHANNEL
NOT TO SCALE
SECTION B-B
NATURAL GROUND
NATURAL GROUND
4:
1(M
A
X
)
8:1
6
:1 6:1 8:1
DESIGN BED MATERIAL SEE
TABLE 2C ELEVATION
SUB-GRADE
EX GROUND (TYP)
MINIMUM 6" COMPACTED
CLAY BASE
EXTEND 2' BEYOND
BANKFULL
1'
O
F

B
A
N
K
T
O
EO
F

B
A
N
K
T
O
P
NOTES:
SUBGRADE ELEVATION
IN 6" LIFTS, UP TO PROPOSED
TO BE FILLED WITH CLAY, COMPACTED
FLOODPLAIN, THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS
RECONNECTED WITH THE ADJACENT
CHANNEL IS BEING RAISED AND
IN LOCATIONS WHERE THE PROPOSED
TABLE 2C
FOR THE LIGHT TREATMENT SPECIFIED IN
(2) 12" LOGS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED
NOT AVAILABLE A COMBINATION OF THE TWO
IN THE EVENT WHEN AN 18" DIA LOG IS
ARE FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES ONLY
DEPTHS IN PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS
SPECIFIED IN TABLE 2C MATERIAL
INSTALL MATERIAL BASED ON DEPTHS
1
2
3
4
FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
F
LO
W
S SEE TABLE 2C S SEE TABLE 2C
1
%
S
L
O
P
E
1%
SLO
PE
1
%SL
OPE
LO
G

IN
V
E
R
T
LO
G

IN
V
E
R
T
LO
G

IN
V
E
R
T
POCKET POOL (TYP)
POCKET POOL
POCKET POOL (TYP)
TOE OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
INTO BANK 3 FT MIN (TYP)
BURY END OF LOG
ANCHOR LOG
SEE TABLE 4
BRUSH/COBBLE BED MATERIAL
(TABLE 2C) UNDERLAIN BY
6" COMPACTED CLAY
PLAN
HEADWATER CHANNEL
NOT TO SCALE
B'
B'
TABLE 2C
MIX TYPE
MODERATE
LIGHT
HEAVY
Wbkf
Wbed
Wbench
2" STONE 6" STONE MIN LOG DIAMETER (in)SLOPE SOIL 12" STONEBRUSH
3%-8%
8
12
16
24
18
181.5
1.5
2.030%
-
-
30%
50%
20%20%
-
-30%
40%
50%
10%
10%
10%
>8%
<3%
POOL
POOL
POOL
LOG SPACING S (ft)MIN DEPTH (ft)
AS DIRECTED BY THE ONSITE ENGINEER.
BE FIELD FIT TO MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE,
ALIGNMENT NEAR SENSITIVE AREAS IS TO
THEY CAN BE AVOIDED. THE FINAL
NOT TO DISTURB MATURE TREES IF
CONTRACTOR IS TO MAKE SPECIAL CARE
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT BUT THE
THE LAYOUT SHALL FOLLOW THE
ALL REACHES SHOWN ON THE PLANS
HEADWATER CHANNEL IS TO OCCUR IN
FLOW PATH WILL VARY.
THALWEG PILOT CHANNEL. CHANNEL
SEC B-B, CHANNEL WILL HAVE A
FLOW WILL VARY ACROSS TYPICAL
HWC
HEADWATER CHANNEL
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
I
N
-
S
T
R
E
A
M

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
1:
0
7
:
2
2

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
2
G
-
P
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
3
.
a
MORPHOLOGICAL DATA
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
M
O
R
P
H
O
L
O
G
Y

T
A
B
L
E
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
Y
S
T
IM
E
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
D
G
N
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
U
S
E
R
N
A
M
E
$
$
$
$
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
3
.
b
MORPHOLOGICAL DATA
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
M
O
R
P
H
O
L
O
G
Y

T
A
B
L
E
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
Y
S
T
IM
E
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
D
G
N
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
U
S
E
R
N
A
M
E
$
$
$
$
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
3
.
c
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E

T
A
B
L
E
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
Y
S
T
IM
E
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
D
G
N
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
U
S
E
R
N
A
M
E
$
$
$
$
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
3
.
d
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
Q
U
A
N
T
I
T
I
E
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
Y
S
T
IM
E
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
D
G
N
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
U
S
E
R
N
A
M
E
$
$
$
$
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
3
.
e
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
L

N
O
T
E
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
Y
S
T
IM
E
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
D
G
N
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
U
S
E
R
N
A
M
E
$
$
$
$
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
3
.
f
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E
3
:
5
3
:
3
5

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
C
o
n
s
t
.

S
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
3
.
g
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E
3
:
5
3
:
5
7

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
C
o
n
s
t
.

S
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
3
.
h
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E
3
:
5
4
:
16

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
C
o
n
s
t
.

S
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
-LBF-
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00
-UT4-
15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00
25 10050050
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
4
770 770
760
750
740
760
750
740
760
750
740
730
760
750
740
730
SEE SHEET PSH-05
STA. 22+00 -LBF-
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET PSH-05
STA. 18+00 -UT4-
MATCHLINE
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
1:
0
7
:
3
7

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
4
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755755
755
7
5
5
755 755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7 5 5
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0760
760
7
6
0
7 6 0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
760
760
760
7
6
0
760
760
7
60
760
7
6
0
760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
7
6
0
7607
6
0
760
7
6
0
760 7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
07
6
0
7
6
0
7 6 5
7
6
5
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
765
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
770
770
770
7
7
0
770
770
770
770
770
770
775
775 7
7
5
775
780 780
785
CR-GC
CR-W
CR-MPL
CR-GC
CR-MPL
CR-MPL
CR-W
CR-W
CRO
S
S
IN
G
38
' W
ID
E
N
O
N
-
C
RED
IT
STREA
M

C
RO
S
S
IN
G

D
ETA
IL
SEE
P
ERM
A
N
EN
T
C
U
LVERTED

BU
RIED

6
"
3
6
"

C
A
A
P
REMOVE
REMOVE
RETAIN
RETAIN
GRADING LIMITS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
THREE CREEKS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
LIMITS
GRADING
RETAIN
T
O
M

L
I
V
E
N
G
O
O
D

R
O
A
D
SEE DETAIL
FLOODPLAIN INTERCEPTOR
SEE DETAIL
FLOODPLAIN INTERCEPTOR
10+00
15
+
0
0
20+00
10
+00
15+00
EXISTING FARM PATH
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
SEE DETAIL FD
DEPRESSION LOCATION
APPROXIMATE FLOODPLAIN
STA. 10+07 -LBF- R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 10+00 -UT4- R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 14+75 -UT4-
BEGIN REACH 2
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHED
farm road G
A
T
E
1
4
"

R
C
P
1
2
"
R
C
P
12" CPP
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
12" CMP
In
v=

7
5
1.7
2
'
4" PVC PIPE
In
v=

7
4
8
.6
3
'
1429
766.77
HUB
RBR
3451
769.02
INVERT OUT: 756.1'
INVERT IN: 756.3'
INVERT OUT: 755.9'
INVERT IN: 755.9'
5
4
.3
2
'
1
6
4
.6
1
'
9
1
7
1
#
R
S
D
A
O
R
D
O
O
G
N
E
V
I
L
M
O
T
D
B

2
5
6
4

P
G

1
3
0
6
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H

S
.
W
H
IT
E
M
A
C
K

T
.
S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X

L
O
T

1
D
B

2
5
7
0

P
G

2
4
6
9
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H

S
.
W
H
IT
E
M
A
C
K

T
.
S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X

L
O
T

5
F
1
6
3
.
0
9
'
199.68'
E
l

=

7
5
4
.4
8
'
B
E
G
I
N

G
R
A
D
E

10
+
0
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
4
.8
0
'
THAWEG
PROPOSED
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
NATURAL GROUND ALONG
P
I

=
10
+
4
0
.0
0
P
I

=
10
+
9
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
4
.0
8
'
P
I

=
11+
4
3
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
3
.6
6
'
P
I
=
11+
9
7
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
3
.2
2
'
P
I

=
12
+
5
8
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
2
.7
4
'
P
I

=
13
+
11.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
2
.7
4
'
P
I

=
13
+
6
7
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
1.8
6
'
P
I

=
14
+
3
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
1.3
6
'
P
I

=
14
+
7
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
1.0
0
'
P
I

=
15
+
4
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
1.0
0
'
P
I

=
15
+
9
3
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
0
.2
9
'
P
I

=
16
+
5
6
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
0
.0
7
'
P
I

=
17
+
11.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.8
7
'
P
I

=
17
+
7
3
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.6
6
'
REACH 2=0.0035 FT/FT
BANKFULL SLOPE
PROPOSED
REACH 1=0.0080 FT/FT
BANKFULL SLOPE
PROPOSED
B
E
G
I
N

G
R
A
D
E

10
+
4
0
.0
0
P
I

=
10
+
5
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
5
.7
0
'
E
l

=

7
5
3
.15
'THAWEG
PROPOSED
REACH 1=0.0039 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL SLOPEP
I

=
11+
5
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
5
.3
1'
CENTERLINE
ALONG PROPOSED
NATURAL GROUND
P
I

=
12
+
6
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
4
.8
6
'
P
I

=
13
+
3
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
4
.5
9
'
P
I

=
14
+
6
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
4
.0
8
'
P
I

=
16
+
0
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
3
.5
4
'
P
I

=
16
+
9
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
3
.2
0
'
P
I

=
18
+
0
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
2
.2
6
'
P
I

=
19
+
0
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
1.8
9
'
P
I

=
2
0
+
10
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
0
.9
6
'
P
I

=
2
1+
0
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
0
.6
1'
P
I

=
2
1+
9
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
0
.2
5
'
C
F
F
C
C FCC
C
C
C
F
F
C
C
CCF
F F
F
C
F
C
C
C
F
F
C F
C
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
F
F
C
C
F
F
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
F C
C C F C
C
C F C F
C
F
C
C
C
-LBF-
22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00
-UT4-
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H-
0
4
-
L
B
F-
M
A
T
C
H
LI
N
E
S
T
A.
2
2
+
0
0
SEE SHEET PSH-04-UT4-
MATCHLINE STA. 18+00
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
5
25 10050050
SE
E
SH
E
E
T
PSH-
10
-
U
T
3-
ST
A
18+00
760
750
740
730
760
750
740
730
NOT SURVEYED
DIRECTION ONLY
15"HDPE
18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00
760
750
740
730
760
750
740
730
25+00
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

P
S
H
-
0
6
S
T
A
.

3
4
+
0
0

-
L
B
F
-
M
A
T
C
H
L
IN
E

18+00 19+00
760
750
740
730
760
750
740
730
-UT3-WETLAND GRADING PLAN
NOTE: SEE PSH-11 FOR
EST 55 CY DDE
SLOPE=0.02 FT/FT
SEE DETAIL WC1
WETLAND CONVEYANCE
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
AREA
NON-CREDIT
1:
0
7
:
4
5

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
5
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
745
745
745
745
745
745
7
4
5
745
745
745
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750750
750
7
5
0
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
7
5
5
755
7 5 5
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
760
7
6
0
760
760
760
760
760
760
765
765
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
7
0
7
7
0
77
0
770
7
70
7
7
0
7
7
5
775
775
7
7
5
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
780
7
8
0
7
8
0
780
780
780
7
8
5
7
8
5
785
7
8
5
7
8
5
790
790
790
7
9
0
7
9
5
7
9
5
795
7
9
5
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
800
8
0
5
805
8
0
5
805
8
1
0
810
8
10
810
810
810
8
1
5
8
1
5
815
BERM
CR-MPL
CR-GC
CR-MPL
CR-W
CR-MPL
CR-GC
CR-GC
AG
STA. 19+27 -UT3-
END CONSTRUCTION
GRADING LIMITS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
REM
O
VE
ABANDONREMOVE OR
ON UT3
12" RCP
REMOVE
25+00
30+00
20
+00
COULD NOT LOCATE
POSSIBLE CLAY PIPE
30" HDPE
EXISTING FARM PATH
SEE DETAIL AR
ACCESS ROAD
SEE DETAIL FD
DEPRESSION LOCATION
APPROXIMATE FLOODPLAIN
SEE DETAIL FD
DEPRESSION LOCATION
APPROXIMATE FLOODPLAIN
EST 2 CY DDE
SLOPE=0.007 FT/FT
SEE DETAIL WC2
WETLAND CONVEYANCE
STA. 24+96 -UT4- R2
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 33+25 -LBF-
BEGIN REACH 2
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHED
A
pproxim
ate location of
12" R
C
P
. U
pstream
end
of pipe not located.
1434
748.21
HUB
D
B
2
5
6
4
P
G
13
0
6
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H
S
. WH
IT
E
MA
C
K
T
. S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X
L
O
T
1
sheet 1
C
C
m
atch
tie line
tie line
T
A
X
L
O
T
1
MA
C
K
T
. S
H
O
A
F
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H
S
. WH
IT
E
D
B
2
5
6
4
P
G
13
0
6
C
C
C
7
0.8
7
'
12
9
.13
'
1
6
5
.
4
0
'
211.19'
P
I

=
2
7
+
8
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
7
.4
5
'
E
l

=

7
4
4
.9
9
'
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
NATURAL GROUND ALONG
THAWEG
PROPOSED
REACH 2=0.0057 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL SLOPE
REACH 1=0.0039 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL SLOPE
E
l

=

7
4
7
.0
4
'
P
I

=
2
8
+
8
6
.6
0
U
T
4

C
O
N
F
L
U
E
N
C
E
P
I

=
2
3
+
15
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.2
7
'
P
I
=
2
4
+
2
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
8
.8
6
'
P
I

=
2
5
+
10
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
8
.5
1'
P
I

=
2
5
+
9
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
8
.17
'
P
I

=
2
6
+
7
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
7
.8
8
'
P
I

=
2
9
+
8
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
6
.5
0
'
P
I

=
2
9
+
8
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
6
.5
0
'
P
I

=
3
2
+
4
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
4
.3
4
'
P
I

=
3
3
+
6
0
.0
0
E
N
D

G
R
A
D
E

2
4
+
9
6
.3
4
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
NATURAL GROUND ALONG
THAWEG
PROPOSED
P
I

=
18
+
4
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.4
0
'
P
I

=
18
+
9
1.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.2
4
'
P
I

=
19
+
5
2
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.0
3
'
P
I

=
19
+
9
7
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
8
.8
7
'
P
I

=
2
0
+
6
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
8
.6
3
'
P
I
=
2
1+
2
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
8
.4
2
'
P
I
=
2
1+
8
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
8
.2
2
'
P
I

=
2
2
+
5
2
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
7
.9
8
'
P
I

=
2
3
+
15
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
7
.7
6
'
P
I

=
2
4
+
0
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
7
.4
5
'
P
I

=
2
4
+
5
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
7
.2
9
'
E
l

=

7
4
7
.0
4
'
2
8
+
8
6
.6
0

-
L
B
F
-

SLOPE REACH 2=0.0035 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL
E
N
D

G
R
A
D
E

19
+
2
7
.2
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.10
'
E
l

=

7
4
9
.9
0
'
B
E
G
I
N

G
R
A
D
E

18
+
2
5
.9
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.6
5
'
THAWEG
PROPOSED
SLOPE=0.0079 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL
P
I

=
18
+
8
5
.0
0
P
I

=
19
+
10
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.4
3
'
C F
F
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
C CC
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
CF
C
C
C
C
F
F
C C
F
C F
F
F
C
FF
F
C
C
C
C
-LBF-
34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00
10+00 11+00
-UT5-
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
6
730
740
750
760
730
740
750
760
750
740
730
720
750
740
730
720
S E E SH
E E T P SH
-0 5
S TA
. 3 4 +0 0 -LB
F -
MA
TC
H
L IN
E
NOTE: SEE PSH-09 FOR PROFILE OF -UT1- SECTION
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T

P
S
H
-
0
9
S
T
A.
4
1
+
2
5

-
U
T
1-
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
1:
0
7
:
5
2

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
6
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
740
740740
740
740
740
740 740
740
740
740 740
7
4
0
740
740
740
740740
7
4
5
7457
4
5
7
4
5
745
745
7
4
5
745
7
4
5
745745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
7
4
5
745
745
745
745
745
745
745 745 745 745
7
4
5
745
7 4 5
745745
745 745
745 745
745
7
4
5
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
7
4
5
745
745
745
745
7
4
5
7
4
5
7
4
5
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745 745
7
5
0
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
75
0
750750
750
750
7
50
7
5
0
750
750
750 750
7
5
0
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
7
5
0
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755755 755
755
7
6
0760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
760
760
760
7
6
0
760
760
7
6
0760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
765
770
7
70
770
770
770
770
770
770
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
775
780
780
780 785
CR-MPL
CR-MPL
CR-GC
CR-MPL
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-MPL
STA. 10+00 -UT5-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
REMOVE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
THREE CREEKS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
35+00
4
0
+
0
0
45+00
45+00
10
+
0
0
GRADING LIMITS
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED.
FROM ENGINEER. BANKFULL PROFILE AND CHANNEL
CONTRACTORS DISCRETION WITH APPROVAL
NOTE: UT5 METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION MAY BE AT
SEE DETAIL FD
DEPRESSION LOCATION
APPROXIMATE FLOODPLAIN
STA. 47+96 -UT1- R2
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 11+10 -UT5-
STA. 45+16 -LBF- R3
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 39+00 -LBF-
BEGIN REACH 3
Inv= 741.33'
8" DIP
Inv= 739.64'
privet
patch
E=1647170.07
N=808356.86 T
A
X
L
O
T
4
3
*
T
A
X
L
O
T
1
6
*
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
2
0
4.
1
6'
124.21'
P
I

=
3
7
+
3
6
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
2
.7
7
'
E
l

=

7
4
2
.2
6
'
P
I

=
3
9
+
0
0
.0
0
E
N
D

G
R
A
D
E

4
5
+
16
.0
0
E
l

=

7
3
9
.0
5
'
E
l

=

7
4
1.2
6
'
THAWEG
PROPOSED
REACH 3=0.0022 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL SLOPEREACH 2=0.0057 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL SLOPE
P
I

=
3
9
+
3
3
.4
0
U
T
1
C
O
N
F
L
U
E
N
C
E
E
l

=

7
4
1.3
3
'
E
l

=

7
4
0
.0
8
'
E
l

=

7
3
9
.5
2
'
E
l

=

7
3
9
.2
5
'
P
I

=
3
4
+
4
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
3
.8
8
'
P
I

=
3
5
+
3
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
3
.3
7
'
P
I

=
3
6
+
3
5
.0
0
P
I

=
4
0
+
15
.0
0
E
l

=

7
3
9
.7
7
'
P
I

=
4
1+
5
5
.0
0
P
I
=
4
2
+
7
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
3
9
.3
7
'
P
I

=
4
3
+
8
0
.0
0
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
NATURAL GROUND ALONG
P
I

=
4
4
+
7
5
.0
0
P
I

=
10
+
8
5
.0
0
P
I

=
11+
0
0
.0
0
B
E
G
I
N

G
R
A
D
E

10
+
0
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
2
.0
0
'
E
l

=

7
3
9
.8
1'
E
N
D

G
R
A
D
E

11+
10
.0
0
CENTERLINE
ALONG PROPOSED
NATURAL GROUND
THAWEG
PROPOSED
SLOPE=0.046 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL
SLOPE=0.005 FT/FT
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
S
T
A

=
10
+
3
5
.0
0 S
T
A

=
10
+
7
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
1.8
3
'
E
l

=

7
4
1.6
5
'
E
l

=

7
4
0
.9
6
'
E
l

=

7
4
0
.6
7
'
C
F
C C F F
C
C
C C
C
F
FC
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
F F
C
F F
C
-UT1-
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
7
25 10050050
770
760
750
740
770
760
750
740
SEE SHEET PSH-08
-UT1-
MATCHLINE STA. 22+00
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
1:
0
7
:
5
8

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
7
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
7
5
5
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
55
75
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5 7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5755
755
755
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
76
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
765
765
7
6
5
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
765
7
6
5
765
765
765
7
7
0
770
770
770
770
770
770
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
7
7
0
770
770
77
0
770
770
770
770
770
7
7
5
775
775
775
775
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
7
7
5
7
7
5
7
7
5
7
7
5
775
775 7
8
0
780
780
7
8
0
780
780
7
8
0
780
780
7
8
0
780
780
785
7
8
5
785 785
790 790
790
7
9
5
7
9
5
7
9
5
8
00
800
8
0
5
8
0
5
810
CR-MPL
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
AG
GRADING LIMITS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
THREE CREEKS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
1
0
+
0
0
15+00
2
0
+
0
0
EXISTING FARM PATH
FLOODPLAIN BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN BENCH LIMIT
STA. 10+00 -UT1- R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 25+45 -UT1-BEGIN REACH 2A
159.49'
C
C
E=1645109.26
N=808123.88
267.98'
3
7
0.
8
4'
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
1
9
3.3
8'
188
.13
'
1
4
6
.
0
4
'
1
7
1.
4
4'
E
l

=

7
5
1.5
4
'
P
I

=
13
+
8
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
3
.2
4
'
E
l

=

7
5
1.8
4
'
P
I

=
2
1+
7
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
0
.7
6
'
B
E
G
I
N

G
R
A
D
E

10
+
0
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
4
.5
0
'
THAWEG
PROPOSED
REACH 1=0.0031 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL SLOPE
P
I
=
10
+
4
3
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
4
.3
0
'
P
I

=
11+
9
4
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
3
.8
3
'
P
I

=
12
+
8
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
3
.5
6
'
P
I

=
14
+
8
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
2
.9
3
'
E
l

=

7
5
2
.6
9
'
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
NATURAL GROUND ALONG
P
I

=
15
+
5
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
2
.4
3
'
P
I

=
16
+
4
0
.0
0
P
I

=
17
+
2
7
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
2
.15
'
P
I

=
18
+
2
5
.0
0
P
I

=
19
+
0
2
.0
0
P
I

=
19
+
9
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
1.3
3
'
P
I

=
2
0
+
6
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
1.11'
C
F
C
C
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
C
F FC
F
C
C
F
C
C
-UT1-
22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00
10+00 11+00
-UT2-
-TRIBA-
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

P
S
H
-
0
9
-
U
T
1-
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A
.

3
4
+
0
0
SEE SHEET PSH-07
-UT1-MATCHLINE STA. 22+00
25 10050050
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
8
760
750
740
730
760
750
740
730
770
760
750
740
770
760
750
740
760
750
740
730
760
750
740
730
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
AREA
NON-CREDIT
1:
0
8
:
0
3

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
8
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
7
5
0
7 5 0
750
7
5
0
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
55
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
760
760
760
7
6
0
760
760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
60
760
760
760
760
760
760
765765
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765 765
765
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
7
7
0
770
7
7
07
7
0
770
770
770
7
7
5
775
775
7
7
5 7
7
5
780
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-GC
CR-MPL
AG
AG
STA. 10+00 -UT2-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 13+49 -UT2-
END CONSTRUCTION
RETAIN
RETAIN
GRADING LIMITS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
THREE CREEKS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
STA. 10+85 -TRIBA-
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 10+00 -TRIBA-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
N
O
R
M
A
N

S
H
O
A
F

R
O
A
D
#1 SEE DETAIL
HOLE STABILIZATION
BANK AND SCOUR
10
+
0
0
25+00 30+00
10+00
EXISTING FARM PATH
TO AVOID TREE
STEEPEN CUT SLOPE
SEE DETAIL HCR #1
HEAD CUT REPAIR
RSP
SEE DETAIL
FLOODPLAIN BENCH LIMIT
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
CULVERT
EXISTING
TIE TO
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED.
FROM ENGINEER. BANKFULL PROFILE AND CHANNEL
CONTRACTORS DISCRETION WITH APPROVAL
NOTE: UT2 METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION MAY BE AT
STA. 25+45 -UT1-
BEGIN REACH 2A
STA. 29+20 -UT1-
BEGIN REACH 2
CROSSING
24' WIDE NON-CREDIT
gravel
3
0
"
C
M
P
TEL
30" CMP
G
A
T
E
1
2
"

R
C
P
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
12"
RCP
G
A
T
E
1433
754.45
HUB
INVERT OUT: 747.6'INVERT IN: 748.1'
I
N
V
E
R
T
O
U
T:
7
5
9.
6'
KNOLL ROAD SR# 1989
N
O
R
M
A
N

S
H
O
A
F

R
O
A
D

S
R
#

1
7
1
5
136.60'
94.81'2
1
4
.
3
1'
1
7
2
.
1
3'
PB
10
PG
37
DB
311
PG
57
MRS
NORMAN
SHOAF
TAX
LOT
17
MACK
T
. SHOAF
TAX
LOT
2
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
1
5
0
.7
8
'
142.14'
13
7
.2
8
'
B
E
G
I
N

G
R
A
D
E

10
+
0
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
9
.6
0
'
E
N
D

G
R
A
D
E

13
+
4
9
.4
0
E
l

=

7
4
6
.9
0
'
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
NATURAL GROUND ALONG
THAWEG
PROPOSED
SLOPE=0.0245 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL
P
I

=
10
+
14
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
9
.10
'P
I

=
10
+
2
8
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
8
.6
0
'
P
I

=
10
+
5
6
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
7
.9
1'
P
I

=
10
+
8
4
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
7
.2
3
'
P
I

=
11+
11.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
5
.5
6
'
P
I

=
11+
2
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
6
.2
2
'
P
I

=
11+
3
9
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
5
.8
8
'
P
I

=
11+
5
2
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
5
.5
6
'
P
I
=
11+
7
9
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
4
.9
0
'
P
I

=
12
+
0
7
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
4
.2
1'
P
I

=
12
+
3
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
3
.5
2
'
P
I

=
12
+
6
1.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
2
.8
9
'
P
I

=
12
+
8
9
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
1.8
9
'
P
I

=
13
+
0
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
0
.3
9
'
P
I

=
13
+
17
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
8
.5
9
'
P
I

=
13
+
3
3
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
7
.2
3
'
P
I

=
12
+
9
7
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
1.3
0
'
P
I

=
13
+
13
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.4
9
'
SLOPE=0.1129 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL
B
E
G
I
N

G
R
A
D
E

10
+
0
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.5
0
'
E
l

=

7
4
8
.8
3
'
E
N
D

G
R
A
D
E

10
+
8
5
.0
1
E
l

=

7
4
8
.8
3
'
E
l

=

7
4
6
.9
0
'
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
NATURAL GROUND ALONG
THAWEG
PROPOSED
REACH 2=0.0032 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL SLOPE
REACH 1=0.0031 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL SLOPE
REACH 2a=0.0029 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL SLOPE
P
I

=
2
9
+
2
7
.0
0
U
T
2

C
O
N
F
L
U
E
N
C
E
CMP ARCH
EXISTING 8.5' X 6.0'
E
l

=

7
4
7
.0
3
'
E
l

=

7
4
6
.7
3
'
E
l

=

7
4
6
.4
5
'
E
l

=

7
4
5
.9
9
'
E
l

=

7
4
9
.8
5
'
P
I

=
2
2
+
8
1.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
0
.4
1'
P
I

=
2
3
+
8
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
5
0
.10
'
P
I

=
2
4
+
6
0
.0
0
P
I
=
2
5
+
4
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
9
.11'
P
I

=
2
5
+
9
3
.2
0
T
R
I
B
A

C
O
N
F
L
U
E
N
C
E

P
I

=
2
6
+
5
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
8
.8
0
'
P
I

=
2
7
+
6
9
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
8
.4
6
'
P
I

=
2
9
+
5
6
.0
0
CULVERT
EXISTING
TIE TO
P
I

=
3
0
+
5
0
.0
0
P
I
=
3
1+
3
9
.0
0
P
I

=
3
2
+
8
3
.0
0
F F
C
F
F
F
F
C
C
C
C
C F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F C
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
-UT1-
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-0
8
-U
T
1-
MA
T
C
H
L
IN
E
S
T
A
. 3
4
+
0
0
47+00
740
750
760
730
740
750
760
730
-UT1-
48+00
34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00
740
750
760
730
740
750
760
730
SEE SHEET PSH-06
STA. 41+25 -UT1-
MATCHLINE
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
0
9
NOTE: SEE PSH-11 FOR WETLAND GRADING PLAN
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
1:
0
8
:
0
8

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
0
9
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
750
750
7
5
0
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
765
7
6
5
765765
765
765
765
770
7
7
0
770
770
7
7
5
775
775
780
CR-MPLCR-MPL
CR-MPL
EXISTING FARM PATH
35+00
40+00
EXISTING FARM PATH
EXISTING FARM PATH
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
FLOODPLAIN BENCH LIMIT
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
LIMITS
GRADING
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHED
C
C
P
I

=
4
2
+
0
5
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
2
.7
7
'
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
NATURAL GROUND ALONG
THAWEG
PROPOSED REACH 2=0.0032 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL SLOPE
E
l

=

7
4
5
.17
'
E
l

=

7
4
4
.8
4
'
E
l

=

7
4
4
.4
3
'
E
l

=

7
4
4
.12
'
P
I

=
4
3
+
16
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
2
.7
3
'
P
I

=
4
4
+
0
3
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
2
.4
5
'
E
l

=

7
4
2
.10
'
E
l

=

7
4
1.8
2
'
E
l

=

7
4
5
.5
6
'
P
I
=
3
4
+
2
0
.0
0
P
I

=
3
5
+
4
2
.0
0
P
I

=
3
6
+
4
7
.0
0
P
I
=
3
7
+
7
8
.0
0
P
I

=
3
8
+
7
6
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
3
.8
3
'
P
I

=
3
9
+
6
6
.0
0
E
l

=

7
4
3
.5
6
'
P
I

=
4
0
+
5
2
.0
0
P
I
=
4
5
+
16
.0
0
P
I

=
4
6
+
0
4
.0
0
E
N
D

G
R
A
D
E

4
7
+
9
6
.4
0

=
E
l

=

7
4
1.2
6
'
3
9
+
3
3
.4
0

-
L
B
F
-

E
l

=

7
4
1.8
2
'
P
I

=
4
7
+
5
5
.0
0
C
F C F
F
C F
C
F
C
C
F
C
C
C
C
F
C
-UT3-
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
1
0
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

P
S
H
-
0
5
-
U
T
3
-

S
T
A

18
+
0
0
780
770
760
750
780
770
760
750
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N

A
N
D

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
1:
0
8
:
13

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
S
H
1
0
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0760
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
760
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
765
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
770
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
770
7
7
5
775
775
775
7
7
5
775
775
775
775
7
7
5
775
7
8
0
7 8 0
780
780
7
8
0
7
8
0
780
780
780
780
7
8
0
7
8
0
780
7
8
5
785
785
7
8
5
785
785
785
785
785
785
785
785
7
8
5
7
9
0
790
7
9
0
7
9
0
7
9
0
7
9
0
790
7
9
0
790
790
790
7
9
0
790
790
790
795
7
95
7
9
5
795
795
795
7
9
5
795
795
7
9
5
795
7
9
5
795
795
7
9
5
795
7
9
5
795795
795
795
795
795
795
795
795
8
0
0
800
800
800
800
800
800
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
00
800
800
800
805
8
0
5
8
0
5
805
8
0
5
8
0
5
805
8
0
5
8
0
5
805
805
805
805
805
805
805
805 805
805
805
810
8
10
8 10
8
1
0
810
810
8
15
8
15
815
CROSSING
38' WIDE NON-CREDIT
STREAM CROSSING DETAIL
SEE PERMANENT CULVERTED
BURIED 6"
36" CAAP
S
T
A.
1
9
+
2
7
-
U
T
3
-
E
N
D
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
STA. 12+00 -UT3-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
10
+0
0
15
+
0
0
GRADING LIMITS
SEE DETAIL HCR #2
HEAD CUT REPAIR
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED.
FROM ENGINEER. BANKFULL PROFILE AND CHANNEL
CONTRACTORS DISCRETION WITH APPROVAL
NOTE: UT3 METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION MAY BE AT
Approxima
te
location of
12" RCP
. Upstream
end
208.57'
115
.20
'
2
1
4
.
6
7
'
1
9
3
.3
2
'
222.12'
750
760
770
780
790
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
NATURAL GROUND ALONG
THAWEG
PROPOSED
SLOPE=0.098 FT/FT
PROPOSED BANKFULL E
l

=

7
7
2
.3
0
'
E
N
D

G
R
A
D
E

13
+
0
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
6
2
.5
0
'E
l

=

7
7
0
.3
0
'
B
E
G
I
N

G
R
A
D
E

12
+
0
0
.0
0
P
I
=

12
+
2
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
6
8
.4
0
'
P
I
=

12
+
4
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
6
6
.4
0
'
P
I
=

12
+
6
0
.0
0
E
l

=

7
6
4
.5
0
'
P
I
=

12
+
8
0
.0
0
BURIED 6"
36" CAAP
F
C
C
C
C
FC
C
C
7
4
3
7
4
3
7
4
3
7
4
3
7
4
4
7
4
4
7
4
4
744
7
4
4
744
744
744
7
4
4
7
4
4
744
744
744
7
4
5
7
4
5
7
4
57
4
5
7
4
5
7
4
5
7
4
57457
4
5
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745 7
4
5
745
745
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
67467
4
6
746
746
746
746
746
746
746
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
746
746 746
746
7
4
6
746
746
746746
746
746
746
746
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
6
7
4
7
7
4
7
7
4
7
7
4
7
7
4
7
7
4
7
7
4
7
7
4
7
7
4
7
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
747
7
4
7
747
747
747
747
747
7477
4
7
747
747
747
7
4
7
7
4
7
7
4
7
747
7
4
7
748
7
4
8
7
4
8
7
4
8
748
7
4
8
7
4
8
748
748
7
4
8
7
4
8
748
7
4
8748
7
4
8748
7 4 8
748
748
7
4
8
7
4
8
748
748
748
748
748
748
748
748 748
748
748
748
748
748
748
748
748
748
7
4
8
7
4
8
748
748
7
4
8
7
4
8
748
7
4
8
748
748
7
4
8
7
4
8
7
4
8 7
4
8
7
4
8
7
4
9
749
749 749
749
749
749
749
7
4
9
7
4
9
749
749
749
7
4
9
7
4
9
7 4 9
749
749
749
749
749
749
749
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
749
749
7
4
9
7
4
97
4
9
749
7
4
9
749
749
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
749
7
4
9
749
7
4
9
7
4
9
749
749
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
4
9
7
5
0
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
7
5
0
7
5
0
750
750 7
5
0
750
750
750
750
75
0
7
5
0
7
5
0
7
5
0
7
5
1
7
5
1
751
751
751
751
7
5
1
751
7
5
1
7 5 1
751
751
751
751
7
5
1
7
5
1
751
751
7
5
2
752
752
752
752
752
7
5
2
752
7
5
2
752
752
752
752
752
7
5
2
7
5
2
7
5
2
7
5
3
7
5
3
753
753
753
753
7
5
3
753
753
7
5
3
7
5
3
753
753
753
753
7
5
3
7
5
4
754
7
5
4
754
754
754
754
754
754
7
5
4
7
5
4
7
5
4
754
754
754
7
5
4
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
75 5
7
5
5 755
755 7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
6
756
7
5
6
756
756
756
756
756
756
7
5
6
7
5
6
7
5
6
756
756
756
7
5
6
7
5
6
7
5
7
757
757
757
757
7
5
7
7 5 7
7 5 7
7 5 7
757
7
5
7
757
757
7 5 8
758
758
758
7
5
8
758
7
5
8
7
5
8
7
5
8
7
5
8
758
758
759
759
759
759
7
5
9
759
7
5
9
7
5
9
759
7
5
9
759
759
7
6
0
760
760
760
7 6 0
760
7
6
0760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7 6 1
761
761
761
761
761
761
7
6
1
7 6 1
7
6
1
761
761
762
762
762
762
762
762
7
6
2
762
7
6
2
762
762
762
763
763
763
763
7 6 3
763
7
6
3
763
763
7
6
3763
764
764
764
7
6
4
764
764
7
6
4764
7
6
4
7
6
4
7
6
4
7
6
4
7
6
4
7
6
4
7
6
4
7
6
4
765
765
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
7 6 6
766
766
766766
7
6
6766
766
766
7
6
6
767
767
767
7
6
7
767
767
7
6
7
767
7
6
7
767
768
7
6
8
768
768
768
7
6
8
768
7
6
8
7
6
8
769
769
7
6
9
769
7697
6
9
769
770
770
770
7 7 0
770
770
7
7
0
771
7 7 1
771
7
7
1
771
772
772
7
7
2
772
773
773
773
774
7
7
4
774
7
7
5
775
7
7
6
776
7
7
6
7
7
7
777
7
7
8
778
779
779780
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
Y
S
T
IM
E
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
D
G
N
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
U
S
E
R
N
A
M
E
$
$
$
$
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
7
4
7
.
4
747.5
747
.4
747.5
7
4
7
.
3
7
4
7
.
2
7
4
7
.
1
7
4
7
.
0
747.6 747.7 747.8 747.9 748.0
748.0 747.9 747.8 747.7 747.6
747.5
747
.0
747.1 747.2 747.3
747.5 747.6 747.7
748.0 747.9 747.8748.0
747.7 747.6 747.5
747.8
747
.9
FLAT
RETA
IN
REMOVE
A
B
A
N
D
O
N
RE
M
O
VE
O
R
3
0
+
0
0
35+00
40+00
30"
H
DPE
S
T
A
.

3
3
+
2
5

-
L
B
F
-
B
E
G
I
N

R
E
A
C
H

2
C
R
O
S
S
IN
G
2
4' W
ID
E
N
O
N
-
C
R
E
D
IT
G
A
T
EG
A
T
E
TEL
g
rave
l
30"
CMP
G
A
TE
1
2
"

R
C
P
7
6
4.
8
4
C
O
N
TR
O
L
7
6
3.
1
6
P
K
7
6
3.
5
9
H
U
B
7
4
8
.
2
1
H
U
B
s
h
e
et
1
C
m
at
c
h
ti
e li
n
e
N
O
R
M
A
N

S
H
O
A
F

R
O
A
D

S
R
#

1
7
1
5
C
C
C
C
C
C
7
0.
8
7'
165.40'150.78'2
0
4
.
1
6'
A
B
A
N
D
O
N
RE
M
O
VE
O
R
A
A
B B
C
C
GRADING LIMITS
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
CHANNELS
FILL EXISTING
3.75'
20 8040040
EXISTING CONTOURS
PROPOSED CONTOURS
SECTION A-A DETAIL SECTION C-C DETAIL
EXISTING GROUND
(NOT TO SCALE)
CHANNELS
FILL EXISTING
(NOT TO SCALE)
SECTION B-B DETAIL
GROUND
EXISTING
ELEVATION
GROUND TO SPECIFIED
THAN 6" OF EXISTING
EXCAVATE NO MORE
ELEVATIONS
TO SPECIFED
FILL LOW AREAS 20:120:120:11
0:1
(NOT TO SCALE)
ELEVATION
GROUND TO SPECIFIED
THAN 6" OF EXISTING
EXCAVATE NO MORE
GROUND
EXISTING
CHANNEL
FILL EXISTING
UT1 GRADING
TIE WITH
NOTE: 0.1' CONTOURS
S
H
E
E
T
P
S
H
-
1
1
LBF AT BANKFULL
BASE DITCH TO TIE
CONSTRUCT STANDARD
BERM
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
CONSERVATION
NOT SURVEYED
DIRECTION ONLY
15"HDPE
EST 2 CY DDE
SLOPE=0.007 FT/FT
SEE DETAIL WC2
WETLAND CONVEYANCE
EST 55 CY DDE
SLOPE=0.02 FT/FT
SEE DETAIL WC1
WETLAND CONVEYANCE
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
W
E
T
L
A
N
D

G
R
A
D
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
AREA
NON-CREDIT
C
C
F
F
C
C
F C
F
F
C
F
C
F
C
C
F
C
C
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
Rd.
Wildwood Ln.
Salem
Point
Ch
Shady
Ln.
S
h
a
d
y
Ln
.
DogwoodDr.
Gail Ln.
Essie Rd.
Evergreen
Dr.
Te
rrie Dr.
Rd.
Dr.
Rd.
N
o
r
m
a
n
Shoaf
R
d
.
Bathaney
To
m
L
iv
e
n
g
o
o
d
S
p
r
y
R
d.ConcretePipe
V
a
lle
y
D
r
.
R
a
lp
h
C
r
a
v
e
n
R
d
.
Lickskillet
Rd.
Disher
Rd.
Clodfe
lter
R
d.
J.E.Perryman
Rd.
R
id
g
e
R
d
.
G
a
r
d
n
e
r
C
t
.
Eastwood
Dr.
Knoll
Rd.
Bradley-Tysinger
R
d
.
West
Ln.
Tro-Tod
Dr.
Ju-Lenor Dr.
Dixieanna
Dr.
H
aileySt.
H
ill
S
t
.
Ridgeway
Lane
Craver
D
r.
Eastwood
Dr.
R
o
c
k
a
w
a
y
D
r
.
Noralin
Dr.
Valley Dr.
O
ld

N
C

8
O
ld
N
C 8
W
e
a
v
il
R
d.
Windrift
St.
Woodtree
Lane
Shady
Rd.
Dr.
Farmstead
Rd.
Shady
Rd.
Country Ln
Country Ln
Midway School Rd
Midway School Rd
Midway School Rd
Crotts Ln
.
G
a
rd
e
n
V
alley
Dr
Bent Oak Dr
Loblolly Ln
1811
1802
1804
1805
2937
1802
1720
2955
2908
1715
1716
1721
1722
2920
1716
1715
3252
3251
2910
1943
1937
1937
1911
1939
2950
2953
2952
1910
2932
1910
1713
1711
1714
2971
1803
1945
1990
1810
2821
3013
3012
3014
1528
1802
3051
3052
3052
3053
3054
2910
Midway
Baptist
RAILROAD
B
u
s
h
yMidway
P356
1813
Brooks
Temple
1802
2983
1988
1720
1719
Midway
Christian
Church
C113
1998
2909
Maloy2969
1989
1940
1938
1802
110
2937
2907
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
ELEVATION =747.5' TO 747.0'
M ORE THAN 6". FILL/EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION SHALL BE NO
ACCORDING TO GRADING PLAN.
FILL EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCHES
747.4
747.5
747.4
747.5
747.3
747.2
747.1
747.0
747.6
747.7 747.8 747.9 748.0
748.0 747.9 747.8 747.7 747.6
747.5
747.0747.1747.2747.3
747.5747.6747.7
748.0747.9747.8
748.0 747.7747.6747.5747.8
747.9
FLAT
EST 55 CY DDESLOPE=0.02 FT/FTSEE DETAIL WC1WETLAND CONVEYANCE
CROSSING38' WIDE NON-CREDIT STREAM CROSSING DETAIL SEE PERMANENT CULVERTED
BURIED 6"36" CAAP
STA. 10+00 -UT2-BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 13+49 -UT2-END CONSTRUCTION
S
T
A. 19
+
27 -
U
T3-
E
N
D
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
STA. 12+00 -UT3-BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 10+00 -
UT5-
BEGIN
CO
N
STRU
CTI
O
N
REM
OVE
RE
MO
VE
R
EMO
VE
RETAIN
RETAIN
RETAI
N
RETAIN
EXISTING FARM PATH
GR
ADING
LIMITS
C
ONSERVATIO
N E
ASE
MENT BO
U
ND
AR
Y
TH
REE
C
REEKS P
R
OPE
RT
Y BOU
ND
AR
Y
GRADING LIMITS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
THREE CREEKS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
CONSERVATION
EASEM
ENT BOUNDARY
THREE CREEKS PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
G
R
A
DI
N
G
LIMITS
C
O
N
SE
R
V
A
TI
O
N
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
G
RA
DIN
G
LIM
I
T
S
C
O
N
S
E
R
VA
TI
O
N
EAS
EM
EN
T
B
O
UN
D
ARY
TH
REE
C
REEKS
PRO
P
E
RT
Y
BO
U
N
DARY
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
LI
MI
TS
G
R
AD
I
N
G
N
O
T S
U
R
V
E
Y
E
D
DIR
E
C
TIO
N
O
N
L
Y
15"
H
DPE
REMOVE
STA. 10+85 -TRIBA-END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 10+00 -TRIBA-BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
N
O
R
M
A
N
S
H
O
A
F
RO
AD
RETAIN
TOM LIVENGOOD ROAD
ABANDON
REM
OVE OR
O
N
U
T3
12" R
CP
R
E
M
O
V
E
#1 SEE DETAILHOLE STABILIZATIONBANK AND SCOUR
SEE
D
ETAIL
F
LO
O
D
P
LAI
N
IN
TERC
EP
TO
R
S
EE
D
ET
AI
L
F
LO
O
D
P
LAIN
I
N
TERC
E
P
TO
R
1
0
+
0
0
15+00
20+00
2
5+00
30+00
35+00
40+00
4
5
+0
0
10
+
0
0
10+00
15+00
20+00 25+00 30+00
35+
00
40+
00
45+00
10+00
10+00
15+00
10+00
15
+00
2
0+0
0
10+00
C
O
U
L
D
N
O
T
L
O
C
A
TE
P
O
SSIB
LE
C
L
A
Y PIPE
3
0" HDPE
EXISTING F
ARM P
ATH
EXISTING FARM PATH
EXISTING FARM PATH
EXISTING FARM PATH
E
XIS
TI
N
G
F
A
R
M
P
A
T
H
EXIS
TI
N
G
F
ARM
P
ATH
GRADING
LIMITS
SE
E
D
E
T
AIL
A
R
A
C
C
ESS
R
O
A
D
GRADING LIMITS
TO AVOID TREESTEEPEN CUT SLOPE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
SEE DETAIL HCR #1HEAD CUT REPAIR
SEE DETAIL HCR #2 HEAD CUT REPAIR
RSPSEE DETAIL
FL
O
O
DPLAIN
BEN
C
H LIMIT
FLOO
DPL
AIN
BE
NC
H
LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN BENCH LIMIT
BENCH LIMITFLOODPLAIN
FLOODPLAIN BENCH LIMIT
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
LIMITSGRADING
BENCH
LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
BENCH
LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
BEN
C
H
LI
MI
T
F
LO
O
D
P
LAIN
B
EN
C
H
LIMIT
F
LO
O
D
P
LAI
N
CULVERTEXISTING TIE TO
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED.
FROM
ENGINEER. BANKFULL PROFILE AND
CHANNEL
CONTRACTORS DISCRETION
WITH
APPROVAL
NO
TE: UT5
M
ETHOD
O
F CONSTRUCTIO
N
M
AY BE
AT
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED.
FROM ENGINEER. BANKFULL PROFILE AND CHANNEL
CONTRACTORS DISCRETION WITH APPROVAL
NOTE: UT2 METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION MAY BE AT
SE
E
D
ET
AIL F
D
D
EP
RESSI
O
N
L
O
C
A
TIO
N
APP
R
O
XIM
A
TE F
L
O
O
DP
L
AIN
S
EE
D
E
T
AI
L
F
D
D
E
P
RE
S
SIO
N
LO
C
ATI
O
N
AP
P
RO
XIM
A
T
E
FLO
O
D
PLAI
N
SE
E
D
ET
AIL F
D
D
EP
R
ESSIO
N
L
O
C
A
TIO
N
APP
R
O
XIM
A
TE F
L
O
O
D
PL
AIN
SEE DETAIL FD
DEPRESSION
LOCATION
APPROXIMATE FLOODPLAIN
EST 2
C
Y
D
D
E
SL
O
PE=
0.007 FT/FT
SE
E
D
E
T
AIL
W
C2
W
ET
L
A
N
D
C
O
N
V
E
Y
A
N
C
E
S
T
A.
1
0
+
0
7

-
L
B
F
-

R
1
B
E
G
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
S
T
A.
1
0
+
0
0
-
U
T
4
-

R
1
B
E
G
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
S
T
A. 24
+
96 -
U
T4-
R2
E
N
D
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
S
T
A.
1
4
+
7
5

-
U
T
4
-
B
E
G
I
N
R
E
A
C
H
2
S
T
A. 33
+
25 -
L
B
F-
B
E
GI
N
R
E
A
C
H
2
STA. 47+96 -
UT1-
R2
EN
D
CO
N
STRU
CTI
O
N
STA. 11+10 -
U
T5-
STA. 45+16 -
LBF-
R3
EN
D
CO
N
STRU
CTIO
N
STA.
39+00 -
LBF-
BEGI
N
REA
CH
3
S
T
A. 10+00 -
UT1-
R1
BE
GI
N
C
O
NS
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
STA. 25+45 -UT1-BEGIN REACH 2A
STA. 29+20 -UT1-BEGIN REACH 2
W
E
TLA
N
D
RE-
ES
T
ABLISH
ED
W
ET
L
A
N
D
RE-ES
T
A
B
LIS
H
E
D
W ETLANDRE-ESTABLISHED
CROSSING24' WIDE NON-CREDIT
Inv= 741.33'
8" DIP
Inv= 739.64'
farm ro
ad
GATE
14" RCP
12" RCP
12" CPP
8.
5'X6.0'
CMP
A
RCH
8.5'X6.0'
C
MP
ARC
H
12" CMP
Inv= 751.72'4" PVC PIPEInv= 748.63'
GATE
GATE
TEL
gravel
pavement
30" C
MP
TEL
gravel
30" CMP
GATE
GATE
12
"
R
CP
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
12" RCP
GA
TE
12"
R
CP
Approximate location of
12" RCP. Upstream endof pipe not located.
privetpat
c
h
402
764.84
CONTROL
403
763.16
PK
1432
763.59
HUB
1433
754.45
HUB
1434
7
4
8.2
1
H
U
B
PK
794.02
404
1431
798.54
HUB
1428
818.14
HUB
1
4
2
9
7
6
6
.
7
7
H
U
B
811.61
RBR
R
B
R
3
4
5
1
7
6
9
.
0
2
3457
766.95
RBR
INVERT OUT: 747.6'INVERT IN: 748.1'
INVE
R
T
OU
T:
7
5
6.
1'
I
N
V
ER
T
IN:
7
5
6.3'
INVERT
O
UT:
7
5
5.
9'
INVE
R
T
IN:
7
5
5.
9'
INVERT OUT: 759.6'
1
5
9.
4
9'
C
C
c
475.39'
54.32'
164.61'
DB 2564 PG 1306
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 1
9171#RSDAORDOOGNEVILMOT
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
DB 2564 PG 1306
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 1
DB 2570 PG 2469
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 5F
PB 80 PG 62
DB 2525 PG 1041
STACY S. GAGE
TAX LOT 5
DB 506 PG 275
PEGGY SHOAF
TAX LOT 1A
163.09'
1
9
9.
6
8'
208.57'
115.20'
2
1
4
.
6
7
'
19
3
.3
2
'
222.12'
E=1645109.26
N=808123.88
E=1647170.07
N=808356.86
sheet 1
sheet 1
C
C
match
match
tie line
tie line
KNOLL ROAD SR# 1989
N
O
R
M
A
N
S
H
O
A
F
R
O
A
D
S
R
#
1
7
1
5
136.60'
94.81'214.31'
172.13'
267.98'
3
7
0.8
4'
PB 10 PG 37
DB 311 PG 57
MRS NORMAN SHOAF
TAX LOT 17
TAX LOT 15A
DB 2564 PG 1306
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 2
DB 655 PG 482
RAYMOND G. LEAK
TAX LOT 43*
DB 578 PG 409
JOHN A. HIATT, Jr
TAX LOT 16*
T
A
X

LO
T
4
3
*
TA
X
LO
T

16
*
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
c
19
3
.3
8
'
188.13'146.04'
17
1.4
4
'
70.87'
129.13'
165.40'
15
0
.7
8
'
142.14'
13
7
.2
8
'
204.16'
124.21'
211.19'
AREASTAGING
A
R
E
A
S
T
A
GIN
G
A
RE
A
STA
G
I
N
G
AREA
ST
AGIN
G
STAGING
AREA
AREASTAGING
AREASTAGING
A
R
E
A
S
T
A
GI
N
G
AREASTAGING
AREASTAGING
A
RE
A
STA
G
I
N
G
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
3
:
2
6
:
5
6

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
P
S
H
0
1
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
UT 4
UT 5
LBF
N

O

R
T
H
M

A

G

N

E
T
I
C
SITE
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. 1.800.632.4949
CONSTRUCTION CANNOT BEGIN UNTIL UTILITIES ARE PROTECTED.
**IMPORTANT**
TOWN OF MIDWAY
DAVIDSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DEVELOPMENT REFERENCE
OWNER/DEVELOPER
APPLICANT:
CIVIL ENGINEER:
SURVEYS: DAVID B. COE
COE FORESTRY & SURVERYING
6638-A NC HWY 109
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27107
[phone]
TOM LIVENGOOD ROAD
N
O
R
M
A
N
S
H
O
A
F
R
O
A
D
ECO TERRA PARTNERS, LLC
1328 DEKALB AVE NE
ATLANTA, GA 30307
BOUNDARY
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
BOUNDARY
PROPERTY
THREE CREEKS
VHB ENGINEERING NC, P.C.
940 MAIN CAMPUS DR. SUITE 500
RALEIGH, NC 27606
[phone]
REID B. ROBOL, PE
VICINITY MAP
EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 64 ACRES
GRAPHIC SCALES
5 10 20 1000 0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)PLANS PROFILE (VERTICAL)
0 00501002550502550100
RESOURCES.
DIVISION OF WATER
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
APRIL 1, 2019 AND ISSUED BY
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EFFECTIVE
BY THE NCG-010000 GENERAL
THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH
CONTROL PLANS COMPLY WITH
THESE EROSION AND SEDIMENT
TRIB A
MICHAEL BEINENSON
[phone]
DISTURBANCE
LIMITS OF
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
0
1
THREE CREEKS FARM MITIGATION BANK
PREPARED FOR:
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
T
I
T
L
E

S
H
E
E
T
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S

C
F
F
C
C
F C
C
C
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
F
F
F
F
C
F
C
C
C
F
F
C
F
C
C
F
F
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
F
C
C F
F
C
C
C
C
C
F
C
C
C
C
FC
CC
C
C
C
C
F
C
C
C FF
C
C
C
F FCCFFC
C
C
C
C
F
F
C
CF
C
F
F
F
C
F
F
F
C
CC
F
FC
F
C
F F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
FFF
F
C
C
CC
C
F
C
C
F C
C
CC
C C
C
C
F
C
F
F
C
F
C
C
F
C
C
C F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F C
C
C F
FC
C C
C
F
C
F
F
C
F
C
F
C
C
F
C
C C
C
FF C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
C
F
F
C
F
F
C
C
C
F
C
C
C
F
C
C
C
F
C
F C
F
C
C
C
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
2
A
TREE PROTECTION FENCE (BLAZE ORANGE FENCE)
Tp
TREE PROTECTION AREA
DO NOT ENTER
VARIABLE AS DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER
8' MAX.
3"
40"FENCE
DRIP LINE
1.5x DRIPLINE
NOTES:
POLYETHYLENE LAMINAR FENCING
TREE PROTECTION FENCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF
PLAN
ELEVATION
4"
3"
3"
4"
4"
SIGN DETAIL

SPECIFICATIONS)
(SEE PROJECT
METAL POST
WOOD OR
MIN. 4 FEET
GRADE
FRONT VIEW
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
4
4
:
2
7

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
2
B
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
4
5
:
4
3

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
2
C
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A

,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
4
6
:
15

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
2
D
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
4
7
:
2
5

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
PERMANENT SEEDING SCHEDULE
SOIL AMENDMENTS
MULCH
MAINTENANCE
4". RESEED, FERTILIZE, AND MULCH DAMAGED AREAS IMMEDIATELY.
OR TWICE A YEAR, BUT MOWING IS NOT NECESSARY. THE MINIMUM MOWING HEIGHT SHALL BE
REFERTILIZE IN THE SECOND YEAR UNLESS GROWTH IS FULLY ADEQUATE. MAY BE MOWED ONCE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL NOTES
FOOD AS A 10-20-20 ANALYSIS AND AS DIRECTED.
MAINTAINED AND THE RATE OF APPLICATION ADJUSTED TO PROVIDE THE SAME AMOUNT OF PLANT
FERTILIZER. A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS OF FERTILIZER MAY BE USED PROVIDED THE 1-2-2 RATIO IS
GROUND AGRICULTURAL LIMESTONE AND 3 TONS/ACRE IN CLAY SOILS, AND 500 LB/ACRE 10-20-20
APPLY LIME AND FERTILIZER ACCORDING TO SOIL TESTS, OR APPLY A MINIMUM OF 2 TONS/ACRE
SOIL PREPARATION
SCHEDULE.
SHALL BE APPLIED AS SPECIFIED IN THE SEEDING
MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4 INCHES. LIME AND FERTILIZER
OR PLANTED SHALL BE TILLED OR RIPPED TO A
MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED. AREAS TO BE SEEDED
LARGER THAN 3 INCHES, STICKS, ROOTS, AND OTHER
FOR AREAS THAT ARE TO BE SEEDED ALL STONES
NURSE CROP SEEDING
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
0
3
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEED MIX
TEMPORARY SEEDING SCHEDULE
AND PERMANENT SEED MIX TABLE
AT THE RATE OF 400 POUNDS AND SEEDED AT THE RATE SPECIFIED IN THE TEMPORARY
FERTILIZER SHALL BE THE SAME ANALYSIS AS SPECIFIED FOR PERMANENT SEEDING AND APPLIED
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (CONTINUED)
GENERAL SITE NOTES:
GENERAL PHASING NOTES:
ALLOW SEDIMENT TO ENTER THE STREAM.
GROUND CREW. THE MATS MUST BE CONTINUOUS ACROSS THE CHANNEL, WITH NO GAPS THAT COULD
AN EXCAVATOR TO LIFT THE MATS ACROSS THE CHANNEL WITH CHAINS AND GUIDED AND SET BY A
NOT DISRUPT STREAM FLOW OR CAUSE EROSION IN THE CHANNEL. THIS IS TYPICALLY ACHIEVED USING
CROSSING SURFACE, THE BRIDGE MATS WILL BE LAID ACROSS THE CHANNEL IN A MATTER THAT DOES
PRESSURE OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT WILL BE UTILIZING THE CROSSING. UPON ENSURING A LEVEL
BRIDGE MATS CAN BE MADE OF WOOD OR STEEL, BUT MUST BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORING THE GROUND
HEIGHTS ARE SIMILAR OR CAN BE GRADED TO PROVIDE A LEVEL, OR NEAR LEVEL CROSSING SURFACE.
ALL STREAM CROSSINGS WILL BE LOCATED IN AREAS OF THE STREAM WHERE LEFT AND RIGHT BANK
ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE DONE DURING PERIODS OF DRY WEATHER.
AND GUIDANCE PROVIDED IN THE PLANS.
STREAM AS DEEMED APPROPRATE USING THE GENERAL SITE NOTES, GENERAL PHASING NOTES
UPON APPROVAL FROM THE DESIGNER THE CONTRACTOR MAY PHASE CONSTRUCT SECTIONS OF
PRECLUDE THE CONTRACTOR FROM HAVING TO COMPLY WITH NOTES ABOVE.
DIVERSION IN ANTICIPATION OF POSSIBLE STORM EVENTS. WORKING IN A DRY CHANNEL DOES NOT
APPROPRIATELY SIZED PUMPS AND MATERIALS TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN A TEMPORARY STREAM
WHEN WORKING IN STREAM WITH NO ACTIVE FLOW THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO HAVE
CHANNEL.
COMPLETED STREAM MUST BE STABILIZED AND MATTED BEFORE FLOW CAN BE RETURED INTO THE
OF STREAM THAT SHALL BE ENTIRELY COMPLETED WITHIN A SINGLE DAY. EACH SECTION OF
GRADING, STABILIZATION MEASURES, AND SEEDING, MULCHING, AND MATTING WORK, ON A SECTION
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY CONDUCT STREAM WORK, INCLUDING ALL IN-STREAM STRUCTURES,
ACCESSIBLE DURING INSPECTION.
COC, AND A COPY OF THE PLAN MUST BE KEPT ON SITE, PREFERABLY IN A PERMITS BOX, AND
OBTAINED BEFORE ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES OCCUR. A COPY OF THE E&SC PERMIT, THE
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (ES&C) PERMIT AND A CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE (COC) MUST BE
[phone] TO SCHEDULE AN ON-SITE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING.
PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, CALL THE NCDEQ DIVISION OF LAND QUALITY AT
ACTIVITY (NCG010000) TO STORMWATER INSPECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.
SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED UNDER THE SITE NPDES STORMWATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION
INSTRUCTION CONTAINED IN THE PLANS, CONSTITUTE THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
DIRECTED OR APPROVED BY THE DESIGNER. THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, ALONG WITH THE
DESIGNER. CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED IN THE SPECIFIED MANNER UNLESS OTHERWISE
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, AS DIRECTED BY THE
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION IN
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
13.
12.
11.
10.
DENSE VEGETATIVE COVER.
ACCORDING TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A VIGOROUS,
ALL SEEDED AREAS WILL BE FERTILIZED, RESEEDED AS NECESSARY, AND MULCHED4.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES WILL BE CLEANED OUT AS NECESSARY.3.
ADEQUATE BARRIER.
DEEP OR GREATER. SILT FENCING WILL BE REPLACED AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN AN
SEDIMENT WILL BE REMOVED FROM BEHIND SILT FENCING WHEN IT BECOMES 0.5 FT2.
ONCE A WEEK. IF REPAIRS ARE NEEDED THEY WILL BE DONE SO IMMEDIATELY.
OPERATION FOLLOWING EVERY RUNOFF-PRODUCING RAINFALL OR AT A MINIMUM
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES WILL BE CHECKED FOR STABILITY AND1.
AND SEEDING RATES.
REFER TO THE TEMPORARY SEEDING SCHEDULE FOR SPECIFIC NURSE CROP SPECIES
INHIBIT THE GROWTH AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PERMANENT, NATIVE SPECIES.
THESE TEMPORARY MEASURES SHOULD BE PLANTED AT MINIMUM DENSITY AS TO NOT
GRASS SPECIES SHOULD BE USED ALONG WITH NATIVE SEEDING AND/OR MATTING.
A QUICKLY GERMINATING NURSE CROP OF NON-INVASIVE, NON-COMPETITIVE ANNUAL
COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES.
HOWEVER, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO PREPARE FOR NURSE CROPS PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION AND UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE PREPARATION AREA IS COMPLETE.
PREPERATION FOR PRIMARY/PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL NOT BEGIN UNTIL ALL
RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION.
WHERE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT ACQUISITION MAY BE NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE STREAM
AND ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND CITY REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS; IDENTIFYING AREAS
THE PROJECT DESIGN SHALL COMPLY WITH NORTH CAROLINA LAND QUALITY GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
BY SEEDING AND MULCHING.
THAT IS APPOXIMATELY 64 ACRES FOR THIS SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED WITH VEGETATION
CALCULATED BASED ON COORDINATION WITH CONTRACTOR, LANDOWNER, AND ENGINEER FOR ANTICIPATED AREA
9850 FEET ALONG NORMAN SHOAF ROAD AND TOM LIVENGOOD ROAD. THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WERE
THE YADKIN-PEEDEE RIVER BASIN. THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES A STREAM RESTORATION OF APPROXIMATELY
THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN DAVIDSON COUNTY WITHIN THE TOWN OF MIDWAY AND IS WITHIN
COMMENCING THE LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY [phone] TO CLOSE OUT THE E&SC PLAN.
CONTACT THE DEMLR WINSTON SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO
THE SITE, ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REMOVED.
BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED. ONCE PERMANENT GROUND COVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL PERMANENT GROUND COVER HAS
REGULATIONS.
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OR DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES RULES AND
OF AT A FACILITY REGULATED BY THE DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OR PER
FROM DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES OR GENERATED BY ANY ACTIVITIES ON SITE MUST BE DISPOSED
1971, OR A LANDFILL REGULATED BY THE DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. TRASH/DEBRIS
WITH AN APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN, A SITE REGULATED UNDER THE MINING ACT OF
ANY OFF-SITE BORROW AND WASTE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT MUST COME FROM A SITE
SITE FOR MONITORING.
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS ON THIS PLAN. A RAIN GAUGE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE PROJECT
MEASURES AS DESIGNED. ALL ESC MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AS SPECIFIED IN THE
OF GREATER THAN 0.5 INCH. ANY NEEDED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY TO MAINTAIN
AT LEAST ONCE EVERY SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF EVERY RAIN EVENT
SELF-INSPECTIONS FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES ARE TO BE PERFORMED
APPLY 4,000 LB/ACRE SMALL GRAIN STRAW OR EQUIVALENT COVER OF ANOTHER SUITABLE MULCH.
ENTERING SURFACE WATERS.
ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED TO KEEP ALL SEDIMENT FROM9.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL.
ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED ACCORDING TO THE NCDEMLR 8.
THE WORK SITE SHALL BE "STORM READY" AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY.7.
AROUND SYSTEM SHALL BE UTILIZED TO MAINTAIN DRY WORKING CONDITIONS.
ALL CHANNEL AND STABILIZATION WORK SHALL OCCUR IN DRY WORKING CONDITIONS. A TEMPORARY PUMP6.
OF EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING DEMOLITION, CONSTRUCTION OR LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES.
UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN APPROXIMATE MANNER ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION5.
AND NCDEMLR STAFF.
48 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE AN ON-SITE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE ENGINEER
PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE NCDEMLR REGIONAL OFFICE 4.
BE PERFORMED AT AN APPROVED OFFSITE LOCATION.
NO CONCRETE TRUCK WASHOUT IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AND MUST3.
WILL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 50' FROM ANY WATERCOURSE OR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES.
ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE AREAS WILL BE CONTAINED WITHIN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE AND 2.
OF THE CONTRACTOR.
BY THE CONTRACTOR, ANY ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS AND REGULATORY PERMITS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES FOR ANY SUCH AREAS. IF ANY ADDITIONAL STAGING AREAS ARE REQUIRED
CHANNELS, OR SURFACE WATER BODIES. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEQUATE
DISTURBANCE AND A MINIMUM OF 50' FROM ANY STORM DRAIN INLET, TEMPORARY DIVERSIONS, LIMITS OF
ANY STAGING, MATERIAL LAY DOWN, PARKING AREAS, OR WASTE PILES WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED 1.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
SEED AND MULCH COMPLETED WORK AREAS.
TO PLANTING IN AREAS WHERE FESCUE IS PRESENT.
APPLY A BROADCAST HERBICIDE, GLYPHOSATE (ROUNDUP) OR SULFOMETURON (OUST), PRIOR
TREATMENTS AND IN-STREAM STRUCTURES.
COMPLETE CHANNEL GRADING AS DIRECTED IN THE PLANS, INSTALL ANY BANK STABILIZATION
CHANNEL DIVERSION AND DIVERT FLOWS AROUND THE DESIGNATED WORK AREA.
ESTABLISH AN ISOLATED WORK AREA BY INSTALLING IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND TEMPORARY
ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
EXISTING AND NEW CHANNEL AND ARE IN WORKING CONDITION PRIOR TO CONDUCTING
ENSURE THAT ALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED ALONG
CONTROL DEVICES IN A MANNER TO SUPPORT THE RESTORATION IN PHASES.
CONSTRUCT ENTRANCE AND STAGING AREAS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED SEDIMENT AND EROSION
STABILIZED ENTRANCES, TEMPORARY CROSSING AND ACCESS POINTS WITH THE DESIGNER.
IDENTIFY THE PROJECT BOUNDARY, LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE, SENSITIVE AREAS, STAGING AREAS,
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
4
7
:
5
6

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
0
4
SEE SHEET EC-05
STA. 22+00 -LBF-
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET EC-05
STA. 18+00 -UT4-
MATCHLINE
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
2
7
:
5
3

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
P
S
H
0
4
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755755
755
7
5
5
755 755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7 5 5
755
7
55
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
7
6
0
760
760
7 60
7
6
0760
760
7
6
0
7 6 0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
760
760
760
7
6
0
760
7
60
7
6
0
760
760
760
760
7
60
760
7
6
0
760
760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
760
760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7607
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760 7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
07
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7 6 5
7
6
5
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
765
765
7
6
5
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
770
770
770
7
7
0
770
770
770
770
770
770
770
770
7
7
0
770
770
7
7
0
77
0
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
770
770
7
7
0
770
7
7
0
770
770
770
770
770
7
7
0
770
770
7
7
0
7
7
0
7
7
0
775
775
775
775
775775
775
775
7
7
5
7
7
5
775
775 7
7
5
7
7
5
7
7
5
7
7
5
7
7
5
775
775
77
5
7
7
5
775
77
5
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
780
780
7
8
0
7
8
0
7
8
0
780
780 780
7
8
0
780
7
8
0
780
780
780
780
7
8
0
7
8
0
7
8
0
785
7
8
5
785
7
8
5
7
8
5
785
785
785
7
85
7
8
5
7
8
5
7
8
5
785
7
8
5
785
7
8
5
7
9
0
790
790
7
9
0
790 7
9
0
7
90
7
9
0
7
9
5
7
9
5
795
795
795
7
9
5
8
0
0
8
0
0
800
800
8
0
0
8
0
5
8
0
5
805
8
0
5
810
8
1
0
810
8
10
CRO
S
S
IN
G
38
' W
ID
E
N
O
N
-
C
RED
IT
STREA
M

C
RO
S
S
IN
G

D
ETA
IL
SEE
P
ERM
A
N
EN
T
C
U
LVERTED

BU
RIED

6
"
3
6
"

C
A
A
P
REMOVE
REMOVE
RETAIN
RETAIN
GRADING LIMITS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
THREE CREEKS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
LIMITS
GRADING
RETAIN
T
O
M

L
I
V
E
N
G
O
O
D

R
O
A
D
SEE DETAIL
FLOODPLAIN INTERCEPTOR
SEE DETAIL
FLOODPLAIN INTERCEPTOR
10+00
15
+
0
0
20+00
10
+00
15+00
EXISTING FARM PATH
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
SEE DETAIL FD
DEPRESSION LOCATION
APPROXIMATE FLOODPLAIN
STA. 10+07 -LBF- R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 10+00 -UT4- R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 14+75 -UT4-
BEGIN REACH 2
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHED
farm road G
A
T
E
1
4
"

R
C
P
1
2
"
R
C
P
12" CPP
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
12" CMP
In
v=

7
5
1.7
2
'
4" PVC PIPE
In
v=

7
4
8
.6
3
'
1429
766.77
HUB
RBR
3451
769.02
INVERT OUT: 756.1'
INVERT IN: 756.3'
INVERT OUT: 755.9'
INVERT IN: 755.9'
4
7
5
.3
9
'
5
4
.3
2
'
1
6
4
.6
1
'
9
1
7
1
#
R
S
D
A
O
R
D
O
O
G
N
E
V
I
L
M
O
T
D
B

2
5
6
4

P
G

1
3
0
6
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H

S
.
W
H
IT
E
M
A
C
K

T
.
S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X

L
O
T

1
D
B

2
5
7
0

P
G

2
4
6
9
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H

S
.
W
H
IT
E
M
A
C
K

T
.
S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X

L
O
T

5
F
P
B

8
0

P
G

6
2
D
B

2
5
2
5

P
G

1
0
4
1
S
T
A
C
Y

S
.
G
A
G
E
T
A
X

L
O
T

5
D
B

5
0
6

P
G

2
7
5
P
E
G
G
Y

S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X

L
O
T

1
A
1
6
3
.
0
9
'
199.68'
AREA
STAGING
AREA
STAGING
C
F
F
C
C FCC
C
C
C
F
F
C
C
CCF
F F
F
C
F
C
C
C
F
F
C F
C
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
F
F
C
C
F
F
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
F C
C C F C
C
C F C F
C
F
C
C
C
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
E
C-
0
4
-
L
B
F-
M
A
T
C
H
LI
N
E
S
T
A.
2
2
+
0
0
SEE SHEET EC-04-UT4-
MATCHLINE STA. 18+00
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
0
5
25 10050050
SE
E
SH
E
E
T
E
C-
10
-
U
T
3-
ST
A
18+00
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

E
C
-
0
6
S
T
A
.

3
4
+
0
0

-
L
B
F
-
M
A
T
C
H
L
IN
E

E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
2
7
:
5
9

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
P
S
H
0
5
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
745
745
745
745
745
745
7
4
5
745
745
745
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750750
750
7
5
0
750
750
7
5
0
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
755
7 5 5
7 5 5
755
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
7 5 5
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
760
760
7607
6
0
760
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
765
765
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
7
0
7
7
0
77
0
770
7
70
7
7
0
775
775
7
7
5
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
780
7
8
0
7
8
0
780
780
780
7
8
5
7
8
5
785
7
8
5
7
8
5
790
790
790
7
9
0
790
795
7
9
5
7
9
5
795
7
9
5
795
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
800
8
05
8
0
5
805
8
0
5
8
0
5
805
805
8
1
0
810
8
10
810
810
810
8
1
5
8
1
5
815
7
4
7.
8
STA. 19+27 -UT3-
END CONSTRUCTION
GRADING LIMITS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
NOT SURVEYED
DIRECTION ONLY
15"HDPE
REM
O
VE
ABANDONREMOVE OR
ON UT3
12" RCP
REMOVE
25+00
30+00
20
+00
COULD NOT LOCATE
POSSIBLE CLAY PIPE
30" HDPE
EXISTING FARM PATH
SEE DETAIL AR
ACCESS ROAD
SEE DETAIL FD
DEPRESSION LOCATION
APPROXIMATE FLOODPLAIN
SEE DETAIL FD
DEPRESSION LOCATION
APPROXIMATE FLOODPLAIN
EST 2 CY DDE
SLOPE=0.007 FT/FT
SEE DETAIL WC2
WETLAND CONVEYANCE
STA. 24+96 -UT4- R2
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 33+25 -LBF-
BEGIN REACH 2
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHED
A
pproxim
ate location of
12" R
C
P
. U
pstream
end
of pipe not located.
1434
748.21
HUB
D
B
2
5
6
4
P
G
13
0
6
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H
S
. WH
IT
E
MA
C
K
T
. S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X
L
O
T
1
T
A
X
L
O
T
1
MA
C
K
T
. S
H
O
A
F
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H
S
. WHITE
D
B
2
5
6
4
P
G
13
0
6
sheet 1
sheet 1
C
C
m
atch
m
atch
tie line
tie line
T
A
X
L
O
T
1
MA
C
K
T
. S
H
O
A
F
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H
S
. WH
IT
E
D
B
2
5
6
4
P
G
13
0
6
C
C
C
7
0.8
7
'
12
9
.13
'
1
6
5
.
4
0
'
211.19'
AREA
STAGING
AREA
STAGING
C F
F
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
C CC
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
CF
C
C
C
C
F
F
C C
F
C F
F
F
C
FF
F
C
C
C
C
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
0
6
S E E SH
E E T EC
-0 5
S TA
. 3 4 +0 0 -LB
F -
MA
TC
H
L IN
E
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T

E
C
-
0
9
S
T
A.
4
1
+
2
5

-
U
T
1-
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
2
8
:
0
6

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
P
S
H
0
6
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
740740
740740
740
740
740
740 740
740
740
740 740
7
4
0
740
740
740
740740
7
4
5
745
7
4
5
7457
4
5
7
4
5
745
745
7
4
5
745
7
4
5
745745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
7
4
5
745
745
745
745
745
745
745 745 745 745
7
4
5
745
7 4 5
745745
745 745
745 745
745
7
4
5
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
7
4
5
745
745
745
745
7
4
5
7
4
5
7
4
5
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745 745
7
5
0
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
75
0
750750
750
750
7
50
7
5
0
750
750
750 750
7
5
0
750
750
750
7
5
0
750
7
5
0
7
5
0
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755755 755
755
7
6
0760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
7
6
0
760
760
760
7
6
0
760
760
7
6
0760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
765
765
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
765
770
770
7
70
770
770
770
770
7
7
0
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
770
7
7
0
770
770
7
7
0
770
770
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
775
775
7
7
5
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
775
775
7
7
5
7
7
5
775
775
775
7
7
5
7
8
0
780
780
780
780
780
7
8
0
7
8
0
7
8
0
780
780780
7
8
0
780
780
780
7
8
0
785
7
8
5
7
8
5
785
785
785
7
8
5
785
785
7
8
5
785
7
8
5
785
785
785
785
790790
7
9
0
790
790
790
790
790
7
9
0
790
7
9
0
790
790
7
9
0 795
7
9
5
795
795
795
795
7
9
5
795
795
795
7
9
5
795
8
0
0
800
800
800
8
0
0
8
00
8
0
0
800
8
0
0
800
8
0
5
8
0
5
8
0
5
8
0
5
STA. 10+00 -UT5-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
REMOVE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
THREE CREEKS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
35+00
4
0
+
0
0
45+00
45+00
10
+
0
0
GRADING LIMITS
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED.
FROM ENGINEER. BANKFULL PROFILE AND CHANNEL
CONTRACTORS DISCRETION WITH APPROVAL
NOTE: UT5 METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION MAY BE AT
SEE DETAIL FD
DEPRESSION LOCATION
APPROXIMATE FLOODPLAIN
STA. 47+96 -UT1- R2
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 11+10 -UT5-
STA. 45+16 -LBF- R3
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 39+00 -LBF-
BEGIN REACH 3
Inv= 741.33'
8" DIP
Inv= 739.64'
privet
patch
E=1647170.07
N=808356.86
DB 655 PG 482
RAYMOND G. LEAK
TAX LOT 43*DB 578 PG 409
JOHN A. HIATT, Jr
TAX LOT 16*
T
A
X
L
O
T
4
3
*
T
A
X
L
O
T
1
6
*
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
2
0
4.
1
6'
124.21'
STAGING AREA
C
F
C C F F
C
C
C C
C
F
FC
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
F F
C
F F
C
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
0
7
25 10050050
SEE SHEET EC-08
-UT1-
MATCHLINE STA. 22+00
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
2
8
:
12

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
P
S
H
0
7
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
7
5
5
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
55
75
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5 7
5
5
755
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5755
755
755
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
76
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
765
765
7
6
5
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
765
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
765
7
7
0
770
770
770
770
770
770
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
7
7
0
770
770
77
0
770
770
770 770
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
770
770
7
7
5
775
775
775
775
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
7
7
5
7
7
5
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
7
7
5
775
775
775 7
8
0
780
780
7
8
0
780
780
7
8
0
780
780
7
8
0
7
8
0
7
8
0
780
780
785
7
8
5
785 785
7
8
5
7
8
5
7
8
5
790 790
790
7
9
0
7
9
0
7
9
0
7
9
5
7
9
5
7
9
5
7
9
5
7
9
5
795
8
00
800
800
8
0
0
8
00
805
8
0
5
805
8
0
5
8
0
5
805
8
10
810
8
10
8
10
810
8
1
5
815
8
15
820
8
2
0
820
820
GRADING LIMITS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
THREE CREEKS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
1
0
+
0
0
15+00
2
0
+
0
0
EXISTING FARM PATH
FLOODPLAIN BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN BENCH LIMIT
STA. 10+00 -UT1- R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 25+45 -UT1-BEGIN REACH 2A
3457
766.95
RBR
159.49'
C
C
c
E=1645109.26
N=808123.88
267.98'
3
7
0.
8
4'
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
1
9
3.3
8'
188
.13
'
1
4
6
.
0
4
'
1
7
1.
4
4'
AREA
STAGING
C
F
C
C
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
C
F FC
F
C
C
F
C
C
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

E
C
-
0
9
-
U
T
1-
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A
.

3
4
+
0
0
SEE SHEET EC-07
-UT1-MATCHLINE STA. 22+00
25 10050050
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
0
8
EXISTING FARM PATH
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
2
8
:
17

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
P
S
H
0
8
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
750
750
7
5
0
7
5
0
7 5 0
750
7
5
0
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0750
75
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
760
7
6
0
760
760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
760
760
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
760
760
760
760
760
765
765
7
6
5
765
765765
7
6
5
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765 765
765
765
7
6
5
765
765
765
765
765
770
7 7 0
770
770
7
7
0
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
770
770
7
7
0
770
7
7
07
7
0
770
770
770
770
775
775
7
7
5
775
775
7
7
5
775
7
7
5
775
775
7
7
5 7
7
5
780
7
8
0
780
7
8
0
780
780
780
7
4
7.
4
747.5
FLAT
STA. 10+00 -UT2-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 13+49 -UT2-
END CONSTRUCTION
RETAIN
RETAIN
GRADING LIMITS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
THREE CREEKS PROPERTY BOUNDARY
STA. 10+85 -TRIBA-
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 10+00 -TRIBA-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
N
O
R
M
A
N

S
H
O
A
F

R
O
A
D
#1 SEE DETAIL
HOLE STABILIZATION
BANK AND SCOUR
10
+
0
0
25+00 30+00
10+00
EXISTING FARM PATH
EXISTING FARM PATH
TO AVOID TREE
STEEPEN CUT SLOPE
SEE DETAIL HCR #1
HEAD CUT REPAIR
RSP
SEE DETAIL
FLOODPLAIN BENCH LIMIT
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
CULVERT
EXISTING
TIE TO
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED.
FROM ENGINEER. BANKFULL PROFILE AND CHANNEL
CONTRACTORS DISCRETION WITH APPROVAL
NOTE: UT2 METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION MAY BE AT
STA. 25+45 -UT1-
BEGIN REACH 2A
STA. 29+20 -UT1-
BEGIN REACH 2
W ETLANDRE-ESTABLISHED
CROSSING
24' WIDE NON-CREDIT
G
A
T
E
G
A
T
E
TEL
gravel
pavement
3
0
"
C
M
P
TEL
gravel
30" CMP
G
A
T
E
GATE
1
2
"

R
C
P
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
12" RCP
G
A
T
E
1
2
"

R
C
P
402
764
.84
CONTROL
403
763
.16
PK
1432
763
.59
HUB
1433
754.45
HUB
INVERT OUT: 747.6'INVERT IN: 748.1'
I
N
V
E
R
T
O
U
T:
7
5
9.
6'
KNOLL ROAD SR# 1989
N
O
R
M
A
N

S
H
O
A
F

R
O
A
D

S
R
#

1
7
1
5
136.60'
94.81'2
1
4
.
3
1'
1
7
2
.
1
3'
PB
10
PG
37
DB
311
PG
57
MRS
NORMAN
SHOAF
TAX
LOT
17
MACK
T
. SHOAF
TAX
LOT
15A
DB
2564
PG
1306
EL
IZABETH
S
. WH
ITE
MACK
T
. SHOAF
TAX
LOT
2
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
1
5
0
.7
8
'
142.14'
13
7
.2
8
'
AREA
STAGING
AREA
STAGING
AREA
STAGING
AREA
STAGING
AREA
STAGING
F F
C
F
F
F
F
C
C
C
C
C F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F C
C
C
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-0
8
-U
T
1-
MA
T
C
H
L
IN
E
S
T
A
. 3
4
+
0
0
SEE SHEET EC-06
STA. 41+25 -UT1-
MATCHLINE
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
0
9
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
2
8
:
2
5

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
P
S
H
0
9
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
745
750
750
7
5
0
750
7
5
0
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
7
5
0
7
5
5
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
755
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
760
765
765
765
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765765
765
765
765
765
770
770
7
7
0
770
770
770
7
7
5
775
775
775
775
7
8
0
7
8
0
780
780
780
780
780
7
8
5
7
8
5
785
785
785
785
7
9
0
790
790
7
9
0
795
795
7
9
5
8
0
0800
805
ELEVATION =747.5' TO 747.0'
MORE THAN 6". FILL/EXCAVATION
EXCAVATION SHALL BE NO
ACCORDING TO GRADING PLAN.
FILL EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCHES
7
4
7
.4
747.
5
7
4
7.4
747.5
7
4
7
.3
7
4
7
.2
7
4
7
.1
7
4
7
.0
747.6 747.7 747.8 747.9 748.0
748.0 747.9 747.8 747.7 747.6
747.5
7
4
7.0
7
4
7.
1
747.
2
7
4
7
.3
7
4
7.
5
747.
6
7
4
7
.7
748.
0
7
4
7
.9
747.8
7
4
8.
0
747.
7
7
4
7
.
6
747.5
747.8
7
4
7.
9
FL
A
T
EXISTING FARM PATH
35+00
40+00
EXISTING FARM PATH
EXISTING FARM PATH
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
FLOODPLAIN BENCH LIMIT
BENCH LIMIT
FLOODPLAIN
LIMITS
GRADING
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHED
1432763.59
DB 2564 PG 1306
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
MACK T. SHOAF
TAX LOT 1MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S.
WHITE
MACK T. SHOAFELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
C
CC
F C F
F
C F
C
F
C
C
F
C
C
C
C
F
C
S
H
E
E
T
E
C
-
1
0
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

E
C
-
0
5
-
U
T
3
-

S
T
A

18
+
0
0
GRADING LIMITS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
E
R
O
S
I
O
N

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

P
L
A
N
S
3
:
2
8
:
3
0

P
M
R
:
\
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
E
C
_
P
S
H
1
0
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
755
755
755
7
5
5
7
6
0
7
6
0
7
6
0
760
7
6
0760
7
6
0
760
7
6
0
760
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
7
6
5
7
6
5
765
765
765
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
770
7
7
0
7
7
0
770
770
7
7
5
775
775
775
7
7
5
775
775
775
775
7
7
5
775
7
8
0
7 8 0
780
780
7
8
0
7
8
0
780
780
780
780
7
8
0
7
8
0
780
7
8
5
785
785
7
8
5
785
785
785
785
785
785
785
785
7
8
5
7
8
5
785
7
9
0
790
7
9
0
7
9
0
7
9
0
7
9
0
790
7
9
0
790
790
790
7
9
0
790
790
7
9
0
790
7
9
0
790
7
9
5
795
7
9
5
795
7
95
7
9
5
795
795
795
7
9
5
795
795
7
9
5
795
7
9
5
795
795
7
9
5
795
7
9
5
795
795
795
795
795
795
795
795
795
795
795
795
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
00
800
800
800
800
800
800
805
8
0
5
8
0
5
8
0
5
805
805
8
0
5
805
805
8
0
5
8
0
5
805
8
0
5
8
0
5
805
8
0
5
8
0
5
805
805
805
805
805
805
805
805
805
805
805
805
805
805
810
8
10
810
810
810
810
810
8
10
8 10
8
1
0
810
810
810
815
815
815
815
8
15
8
15
815
8
15
815
815
815
815
820
CROSSING
38' WIDE NON-CREDIT
STREAM CROSSING DETAIL
SEE PERMANENT CULVERTED
BURIED 6"
36" CAAP
S
T
A.
1
9
+
2
7
-
U
T
3
-
E
N
D
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
STA. 12+00 -UT3-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
10
+0
0
15
+
0
0
Approxima
te
location of
12" RCP
. Upstream
end
208.57'
115
.20
'
2
1
4
.
6
7
'
1
9
3
.3
2
'
222.12'
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
F
C
C
C
C
FC
C
C
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T
-
0
1
BUDS (FACING UPWARD)
SQUARE CUT
GROUND
EXISTING/PROPOSED
LIVE STAKES
BANK STABILIZATION WITH LIVE STAKES
COIR FIBER MAT
2 - 3 Feet
STREAMBED
EXISTING/PROPOSED
NOTES:
ANGLE CUT 30 -45
oo
LIVE STAKE SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW
BANKFULL
WATER SURFACE
NORMAL
(1/2"-2" DIAMETER)
LIVE CUTTING
1. LOCATE A HEELING-IN SITE IN A SHADY, WELL
PROTECTED AREA.
4. PLACE A SINGLE LAYER OF PLANTS3. BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH 2 INCHES WELL
ROTTED SAWDUST. PLACE A 2 INCH LAYER OF
2. EXCAVATE A FLAT BOTTOM TRENCH
12 INCHES DEEP AND PROVIDE DRAINAGE.
HEELING IN
WELL ROTTED SAWDUST AT A SLOPING ANGLE
AT ONE END OF THE TRENCH.GROUND LEVEL.
THE ROOT COLLAR IS AT HIGHER
5. PLACE A 2 INCH LAYER OF WELL ROTTED
SAWDUST OVER THE ROOTS MAINTAINING
A SLOPING ANGLE.
6. REPEAT LAYERS OF PLANTS AND SAWDUST
AS NECESSARY AND WATER THOROUGHLY.
DIBBLE PLANTING METHOD
(USING THE KBC PLANTING BAR)
TOWARDS PLANTER.
AND PULL HANDLE
BAR AS SHOWN
1. INSERT PLANTING
CORRECT DEPTH.
SEEDLING AT
BAR AND PLACE
2. REMOVE PLANTING
FROM SEEDLING.
TOWARD PLANTER
BAR 2 INCHES
3. INSERT PLANTING
2 IN
SOIL AT BOTTOM.
PLANTER, FIRMING
BAR TOWARDS
4. PULL HANDLE OF
SOIL AT TOP.
FORWARD FIRMING
5. PUSH HANDLE
THOROUGHLY.
HOLE OPEN. WATER
6. LEAVE COMPACTION
PLANTING BAG
KBC PLANTING BAR ROOT PRUNING
TO PREVENT THE ROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.
IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG OR SIMILAR CONTAINER
1. DURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALL BE KEPT
THAN 10 INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.
NECESSARY, SO THAT NO ROOTS EXTEND MORE
3. ALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOT PRUNED, IF
NOTES:
THICK AT CENTER.
12 INCHES LONG, 4 INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH
TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION, AND SHALL BE
2. PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADE WITH A
AGAINST THE SLOPING END SO THAT
BAREROOTED SEEDLINGS
LIVE STAKES
SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR AREAS TO BE PLANTED
PLANTING DETAILS
GROUND
APPROXIMATELY 3/4 OF LIVE STAKE IS WITHIN
2. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN UNTIL
3 FEET ON CENTER
1. LIVE STAKES SHALL BE SPACED APPROXIMATELY
REFORESTATION
SEEDING SCHEDULE
AND 15 FT DEPENDING ON FLOODPLAIN WIDTH, SLOPE AND OVERALL EXISTING VEGETATIVE COMPOSITION
NEAR THE BANKFULL ELEVATION. THE WIDTH OF THE REFORESTATION AREA SHALL RANGE BETWEEN 5 FT
2. THE LOCATION OF STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE CONCENTRATED TO THE FLOODPLAIN AREA
PER ACRE).
PER ACRE). IN OTHER AREAS, PLANTING WILL AVERAGE 3 FEET ON CENTER (APPROXIMATELY 4,840 PLANTS
RANDOM SPACING THROUGHOUT THE OUTSIDES OF THE MEANDERBENDS (APPROXIMATELY 43,560 PLANTS
1. STREAMBANK REFORESTATION USING LIVE STAKES AND TUBLINGS SHALL BE PLANTED 1-FOOT ON CENTER,
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

D
E
T
A
I
L
S
1:
0
9
:
5
6

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
L
T
0
1
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T
-
0
2
PLANTING NOTES
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

N
O
T
E
S
1:
11:
0
3

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
L
T
0
2
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T
-
0
4
SEE SHEET PLT-05
STA. 22+00 -LBF-
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET PLT-05
STA. 18+00 -UT4-
MATCHLINE
STREAMSIDE
UPLAND
WETLAND
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
S
1:
11:
5
5

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
L
T
0
4
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
CRO
S
S
IN
G
38
' W
ID
E
N
O
N
-
C
RED
IT
STREA
M

C
RO
S
S
IN
G

D
ETA
IL
SEE
P
ERM
A
N
EN
T
C
U
LVERTED

BU
RIED

6
"
3
6
"

C
A
A
P
REMOVE
REMOVE
RETAIN
RETAIN
RETAIN
10+00
15
+
0
0
20+00
10
+00
15+00
STA. 10+07 -LBF- R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 10+00 -UT4- R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 14+75 -UT4-
BEGIN REACH 2
farm road G
A
T
E
1
4
"

R
C
P
1
2
"
R
C
P
12" CPP
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
12" CMP
In
v=

7
5
1.7
2
'
4" PVC PIPE
In
v=

7
4
8
.6
3
'
1429
766.77
HUB
RBR
3451
769.02
INVERT OUT: 756.1'
INVERT IN: 756.3'
INVERT OUT: 755.9'
INVERT IN: 755.9'
4
7
5
.3
9
'
5
4
.3
2
'
1
6
4
.6
1
'
9
1
7
1
#
R
S
D
A
O
R
D
O
O
G
N
E
V
I
L
M
O
T
D
B

2
5
6
4

P
G

1
3
0
6
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H

S
.
W
H
IT
E
M
A
C
K

T
.
S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X

L
O
T

1
D
B

2
5
7
0

P
G

2
4
6
9
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H

S
.
W
H
IT
E
M
A
C
K

T
.
S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X

L
O
T

5
F
P
B

8
0

P
G

6
2
D
B

2
5
2
5

P
G

1
0
4
1
S
T
A
C
Y

S
.
G
A
G
E
T
A
X

L
O
T

5
D
B

5
0
6

P
G

2
7
5
P
E
G
G
Y

S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X

L
O
T

1
A
1
6
3
.
0
9
'
199.68'
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T-
0
4
-
L
B
F-
M
A
T
C
H
LI
N
E
S
T
A.
2
2
+
0
0
SEE SHEET PLT-04-UT4-
MATCHLINE STA. 18+00
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T
-
0
5
25 10050050
SE
E
SH
E
E
T
PL
T-
10
-
U
T
3-
ST
A
18+00
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

P
L
T
-
0
6
S
T
A
.

3
4
+
0
0

-
L
B
F
-
M
A
T
C
H
L
IN
E

STREAMSIDE
UPLAND
WETLAND
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
S
1:
11:
5
9

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
L
T
0
5
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
STA. 19+27 -UT3-
END CONSTRUCTION
25+00
30+00
20
+00
STA. 24+96 -UT4- R2
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 33+25 -LBF-
BEGIN REACH 2
1434
748.21
HUB
D
B
2
5
6
4
P
G
13
0
6
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H
S
. WH
IT
E
MA
C
K
T
. S
H
O
A
F
T
A
X
L
O
T
1
sheet 1
C
C
m
atch
tie line
tie line
T
A
X
L
O
T
1
MA
C
K
T
. S
H
O
A
F
E
L
IZ
A
B
E
T
H
S
. WH
IT
E
D
B
2
5
6
4
P
G
13
0
6
C
C
C
7
0.8
7
'
12
9
.13
'
1
6
5
.
4
0
'
211.19'
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T
-
0
6
S E E SH
E E T P L T -0 5
S TA
. 3 4 +0 0 -LB
F -
MA
TC
H
L IN
E
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T

P
L
T
-
0
9
S
T
A.
4
1
+
2
5

-
U
T
1-
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
STREAMSIDE
UPLAND
WETLAND
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
S
1:
12
:
0
2

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
L
T
0
6
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
STA. 10+00 -UT5-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
REMOVE
35+00
4
0
+
0
0
45+00
45+00
10
+
0
0
STA. 47+96 -UT1- R2
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 11+10 -UT5-
STA. 45+16 -LBF- R3
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 39+00 -LBF-
BEGIN REACH 3
Inv= 741.33'
8" DIP
Inv= 739.64'
privet
patch
E=1647170.07
N=808356.86
DB 578 PG 409
JOHN A. HIATT, Jr
TAX LOT 16*
T
A
X
L
O
T
4
3
*
T
A
X
L
O
T
1
6
*
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
2
0
4.
1
6'
124.21'
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T
-
0
7
25 10050050
SEE SHEET PLT-08
-UT1-
MATCHLINE STA. 22+00
STREAMSIDE
UPLAND
WETLAND
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
S
1:
12
:
0
6

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
L
T
0
7
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
1
0
+
0
0
15+00
2
0
+
0
0
STA. 10+00 -UT1- R1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 25+45 -UT1-BEGIN REACH 2A
3457
766.95
RBR
159.49'
C
C
c
E=1645109.26
N=808123.88
267.98'
3
7
0.
8
4'
TAX LOT 1
MACK T. SHOAF
ELIZABETH S. WHITE
DB 2564 PG 1306
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
1
9
3.3
8'
188
.13
'
1
4
6
.
0
4
'
1
7
1.
4
4'
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

P
L
T
-
0
9
-
U
T
1-
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A
.

3
4
+
0
0
SEE SHEET PLT-07
-UT1-MATCHLINE STA. 22+00
25 10050050
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T
-
0
8
STREAMSIDE
UPLAND
WETLAND
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
S
1:
12
:
0
9

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
L
T
0
8
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
STA. 10+00 -UT2-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA. 13+49 -UT2-
END CONSTRUCTION
RETAIN
RETAIN
STA. 10+85 -TRIBA-
END CONSTRUCTION
STA. 10+00 -TRIBA-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
10
+
0
0
25+00 30+00
10+00
STA. 25+45 -UT1-
BEGIN REACH 2A
STA. 29+20 -UT1-
BEGIN REACH 2
gravel
3
0
"
C
M
P
TEL
30" CMP
G
A
T
E
1
2
"

R
C
P
8.5'X6.0' CMP ARCH
12"
RCP
G
A
T
E
1433
754.45
HUB
INVERT OUT: 747.6'INVERT IN: 748.1'
I
N
V
E
R
T
O
U
T:
7
5
9.
6'
KNOLL ROAD SR# 1989
N
O
R
M
A
N

S
H
O
A
F

R
O
A
D

S
R
#

1
7
1
5
136.60'
94.81'2
1
4
.
3
1'
1
7
2
.
1
3'
PB
10
PG
37
DB
311
PG
57
MRS
NORMAN
SHOAF
TAX
LOT
17
MACK
T
. SHOAF
TAX
LOT
2
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
1
5
0
.7
8
'
142.14'
13
7
.2
8
'
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T
-0
8
-U
T
1-
MA
T
C
H
L
IN
E
S
T
A
. 3
4
+
0
0
SEE SHEET PLT-06
STA. 41+25 -UT1-
MATCHLINE
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T
-
0
9
STREAMSIDE
UPLAND
WETLAND
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
S
1:
12
:
13

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
L
T
0
9
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
35+00
40+00
C
C
S
H
E
E
T
P
L
T
-
1
0
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

P
S
H
-
0
5
-
U
T
3
-

S
T
A

18
+
0
0
STREAMSIDE
UPLAND
WETLAND
E
C
O

T
E
R
R
A
,

L
L
C
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
T
H
R
E
E

C
R
E
E
K
S

F
A
R
M

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
N
K
F
O
R

T
H
E
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G

P
L
A
N
S
1:
12
:
17

P
M
R
:
\
C
A
D
D
\
P
S
H
\
T
h
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
H
y
d
_
P
L
T
1
0
.
d
g
n
g
a
v
e
r
e
t
t
e
5
/
1
4
/
9
9
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
.
3
9
0
7
7
.
0
6
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
,

N
C

2
7
6
0
6
V
H
B

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

N
C
,

P
.
C
.

(
C
-
3
7
0
5
)
9
4
0

M
a
i
n

C
a
m
p
u
s

D
r
i
v
e
,

S
u
i
t
e

5
0
0
D
A
T
E
0
8
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
25 10050050
CROSSING
38' WIDE NON-CREDIT
STREAM CROSSING DETAIL
SEE PERMANENT CULVERTED
BURIED 6"
36" CAAP
S
T
A.
1
9
+
2
7
-
U
T
3
-
E
N
D
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TI
O
N
STA. 12+00 -UT3-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
10
+0
0
15
+
0
0
GRADING LIMITS
SEE DETAIL HCR #2
HEAD CUT REPAIR
DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED.
FROM ENGINEER. BANKFULL PROFILE AND CHANNEL
CONTRACTORS DISCRETION WITH APPROVAL
NOTE: UT3 METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION MAY BE AT
Approxima
te
location of
12" RCP
. Upstream
end
208.57'
115
.20
'
2
1
4
.
6
7
'
1
9
3
.3
2
'
222.12'
F
C
C
C
C
FC
C
C

Appendix E. IRT, USFWS, NCWRC, and SHPO Correspondence

October 19, 2020

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Prospectus;
SAW-2019-02341

Eco terra Partners, LLC
Attn: Ted Griffith
1117 Peachtree Walk NE, Suite 126
Atlanta, GA 30309

Dear Mr. Griffith:

This letter is regarding your prospectus document for the proposed Three Creeks Farm
Mitigation Bank dated April 2020. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of a 32-
acre private commercial stream and wetland mitigation bank, located on Norman Shoaf Road,
approximately four miles south of Winston Salem in Davidson County, North Carolina. (Latitude
35.967501°, Longitude -80.194067°)

The Corps determined the Prospectus was complete and issued a public notice (PN # SAW-
2019-02341) on May 15, 2020. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the views of interested State
and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or affected by the proposed work.
Attached are comments received in response to the public notice from the North Carolina Department
of Natural and Cultural Resources.

The Corps has considered the comments received from members of the Interagency Review
Team (IRT) and information that was discussed during an IRT site review on January 27, 2020. We
have determined that the proposed mitigation bank appears to have the potential to restore and
enhance aquatic resources and provide compensatory mitigation credits within the 8-digit Hydrologic
Unit Code (HUC) 03040103 of the Yadkin River Basin. Therefore, the bank sponsor may proceed
with preparation of a draft Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI).

Please address and provide a response to the attached comments with your draft MBI
submittal. We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United States. If you
have any questions about the path forward for the proposed mitigation bank, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-413-6392.

Sincerely,

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
For Steven Kichefski, Bank PM
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
October 19, 2020
CESAW-RG/Browning
SUBJECT: NCIRT Review of the Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Bank Prospectus & IRT Site Visit;
SAW-2019-02341
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received during 30-day comment period in accordance
with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule in response to the Public Notice for Three Creeks
Farm Mitigation Bank.
Eco Terra Partners, LLC
Attn: Ted Griffith
1117 Peachtree Walk NE, Suite 126
Atlanta, GA 30309
30-Day Comment Deadline: June 17, 2020
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1.Please try to reduce the number of crossings and move some of the proposed crossings to
the upper ends of the reaches to reduce project fragmentation.
2.UT2: Some concern that flow may be lost if you raise the channel.
3.UT1 RI: Some question regarding the ability to raise the channel enough with
approximately 2 sqmi drainage at the confluence and 6-8 ft banks.
4.With the large sediment load entering the system and the large watershed, this project
presents a lot of risk.
a.Concern over lack of bedform diversity with the bed being filled by sediment. A
performance standard for bedform diversity should be included in the draft plan.
b.It may be difficult to get structures to remain stable due to sand bed.
c.Include an estimate for repairs in the monitoring calculation.
5.We’d like to see the inclusion of the linear wetlands that run parallel to UT1 R2, if possible.
6.There was discussion to include a setback from the DOT right-of-way to anticipate future
road/bridge repairs and prevent easement encroachment.
WRC Comments, Olivia Munzer:
1.The inclusion of more adjacent wetlands and fewer crossings is preferable.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1.Regarding the large tree preservation vs. removal, in my notes for UT1 Reach 1 I had the
following: Trees along channel will be used as in-stream structures and habitat, but requested
large trees in buffer area to remain (not just cut to allow sun for replanting). I don't remember
many large trees actually providing bank stability along this reach.
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

2. Note that the use of culvert/pipes at crossings is not a requirement, but an IRT preference
based on mitigation site reviews.
3. It was discussed at multiple points that with the drainage area size and sediment loading there
is risk involved with this project. Sediment transport modeling will be critical.

Sincerely,

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager

February 10, 2020

Ref: 39077.06

Kim Browning
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Dr.
Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC
27587

Re: Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site, Davidson County, NC
Draft Prospectus On-Site Meeting Minutes

Ms. Browning and Interagency Review Team (IRT) Members,
The Eco Terra Partners, LLC (EcoTerra) Team sincerely appreciates the IRT taking time to visit the Three
Creeks Farm Mitigation Site in Davidson County, NC on January 26, 2020. The following items were
recommended by the IRT during field discussions:
General Comments
 Limit the removal of large trees from the existing stream banks as part of project
implementation efforts. Retain mature trees that are currently providing bank stability
along the existing channel corridors. These areas should be under-planted with
appropriate shade tolerant species.
 Work with landowner to reduce number of stream crossings.
 All stream crossings should consist of culverts or pipes. The IRT no longer encourages
at-grade crossings, especially in areas under current livestock management.
 Attempt to incorporate the existing low area associated with the two ditches near UT 1
east of Norman Shoaf Road. If those areas cannot be included, a marsh-type BMP is
recommended inside of the easement area to diffuse flows prior to reaching Little Brushy
Fork.
 Any proposed duck impoundment(s) at or near the easement area that affect
jurisdictional waters will likely require a Nationwide Permit and potential mitigation.
 Once the proposed conservation easement area has been finalized, EcoTerra should
update and resubmit the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) package.

Ref: 39077.06
February 10, 2020
Page 2

 Wider floodplain benches are recommended for any areas proposed as Priority II
restoration.
 The Mitigation Plan should include a section on Risk Assessment. Kim Browning will
provide an example for review.
 Additional wetland enhancement opportunities exist within the area northeast of the
downstream portion of Little Brushy Fork. This area, if proposed, should be incorporated
into the updated PJD.
Other Specific Requests
UT 1
 The relocation of the proposed crossing along the upper portion of UT 1 be placed
further upstream, near the proposed easement boundary.
 A minimum of 50’ along either side of the channel should be maintained, especially near
the culvert under Norman Shoaf Road.
 The confluence of UT 1 and Little Brushy Fork should be adjusted as necessary to ensure
the appropriate transport of sediment. This may result in an earlier confluence of the
two channels. Design parameters will quantify that determination.
UT 2
 Consider the removal of the proposed crossing along UT 2 near Norman Shoaf Road.
 Overall concerns about losing the loss of hydrology if the channel undergoes Priority I
restoration. A pressure transducer was requested to demonstrate stream flow post-
restoration.
 Consider the possible formation of a wetland area along UT 2 near its confluence with UT
1.
UT 3
 Any areas where planting is not proposed along both sides of the stream will require an
adjustment of credit ratios. Overall, these areas should still be labeled as stream
enhancement.
 Bryan Roden-Reynolds (USACE) extended the Ephemeral/ Intermittent (E/I) point of UT 3
up the valley approximately 250 linear feet.
UT 4
 No comments were noted.

Ref: 39077.06
February 10, 2020
Page 3

Little Brushy Fork
 Any work proposed in the existing right-of-way should be discussed with NCDOT.
 Address any FEMA issues accordingly.
Wetland 1
 The USACE (Bryan Roden-Reynolds) generally agreed with the wetland line presented in
the PJD package.
 Request the inclusion of gauges for pre-construction water table data.
Wetland 2
 Recommended that this area which is currently proposed for Preservation be labeled as
Enhancement with adjusted ratios; the existing forested area at 7.5:1 ratio and the
herbaceous field at 2:1.
 It was agreed that if the proposed acreages are about half and half for the two ratios,
they could be averaged. This however, would need to be justified in the Mitigation Plan
Again, thanks for meeting with our Team on-site. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these
minutes, please let us know.
Sincerely,
VHB Engineering NC, P.C.

Heather Smith, LSS
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]

cc: Ted Griffith & Ryan Perry, Eco Terra
Scott Frederick, SWE Group
Heather Smith & Lane Sauls, VHB

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

1
May 17, 2021

Ms. Heather Smith
VHB Engineering
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606

Subject: Three Creeks Farm Mitigation Site, Scoping Request, Davidson County, North
Carolina

Dear Ms. Smith:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
email correspondence dated April 23, 2021 wherein you solicit our comments regarding project-
mediated impacts to federally protected species. We submit the following comments in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703) (MBTA); and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 15311543) (Act).

Project Description
VHB Engineering and Eco Terra, LLC propose to conduct stream and wetland restoration and
enhancement activities on a portion of Little Brushy Fork, four unnamed tributaries to Little
Brushy Fork, and four wetlands in the Yadkin River basin in Davidson County, North Carolina.
The proposed project site is described as predominately cattle pasture, with incised, sediment-
laden stream channels lacking forested buffers. This, along with mention of suitable habitat
presence for two federally listed species (discussed below), and aerial and topographic maps of
the project area, was the only information provided.

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

Federally Listed Species
Suitable summer roosting habitat is described as being present in the project area for the
federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis, NLEB). However, the final
4(d) rule (effective as of February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of NLEB associated with
activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site, and greater than 150
feet from a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June 1 – July 31). Based on
the information provided, the project would occur at a location where any incidental take that
may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule. Although not required, we

2
encourage you to conduct any tree clearing activities outside the pup season (June 1 to July
31) and/or active season (April 1 to October 15) to reduce the chance of impacting
unidentified maternity roosts.

Your correspondence also states that suitable habitat for federally endangered Schweinitz’s
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) is present within the project area. Botanical surveys
conducted in September of 2020 did not detect the species at that time. Please note that the
referenced survey results are valid for two years from the date the survey was conducted.
In accordance with section 7 (a)(2) of the Act and 50 CFR Part 402.01, before any federal
authorization/permits or funding can be issued for this project, it is the responsibility of the
appropriate federal regulatory/permitting and/or funding agency(ies) to determine whether
the project may affect any federally endangered or threatened species (listed species) or
designated critical habitat. A species list for counties in North Carolina can be found online
here: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html. If it is determined that this
project may affect any listed species or designated critical habitat, you must initiate section 7
consultation with this office. Species of concern are not legally protected under the Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened.

We offer the following general recommendations on behalf of natural resources:

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

Stream Channel and Bank Restoration
Adequate measures to control sediment and erosion must be implemented prior to any ground-
disturbing activities in order to minimize effects on downstream aquatic resources. In North
Carolina, non-cohesive and erosion prone soils are most common in the felsic-crystalline terrains
of the mountain and upper piedmont regions. Therefore, reconstruction work should be staged
such that disturbed areas would be stabilized with seeding, mulch, and/or biodegradable (coir)
erosion-control matting prior to the end of each workday. No erosion-control matting or
blankets should contain synthetic (netting) materials as they trap animals and can persist
in the environment beyond their intended purpose. Matting should be secured in place with
staples; stakes; or, wherever possible, live stakes of native trees. If rain is expected prior to
temporary seed establishment, additional measures should be implemented to protect water
quality along slopes and overburden stockpiles (for example, stockpiles may be covered with
plastic or other geotextile material and surrounded with silt fencing).

2

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

A complete design manual, which provides extensive details and procedures for developing site
specific plans to control erosion and sediment and is consistent with the requirements of the
North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, is available
at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/lr/publications

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

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for this
project. If you have questions, please contact Ms. Holland Youngman of our staff at
[e-mail]. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference Log Number 21-235.

Sincerely,

Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

25 May 2021

Ms. Heather Smith
VHB
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606

SUBJECT: Environmental Review of the Three Creeks Mitigation Site in Davidson County, North
Carolina.

Ms. Smith,

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your request for
review and comments on any possible concerns regarding the Three Creeks Mitigation Bank. Comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The Three Creeks Mitigation Site is located at south of Tom Livengood Road and straddles Norman
Shoaf Road near Midway, Davidson County, North Carolina. The current land use is agriculture. The
proposed project would restore and enhance four wetlands and six stream channels, including the Little
Brushy Creek, in the Yadkin River watershed.
We have no records of state or federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species at the site. The
USFWS lists the federal endangered Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), and federal
candidate Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) as having potential to occur at the site if suitable
habitat occurs. We recommend contacting USFWS at [phone] to ensure that any issues related to
these species are addressed. Although we have no records at or adjacent to the site, this does not preclude
the presence of rare, threatened, or endangered species.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. We offer the following general recommendations to
minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources:
1. We recommend riparian buffers are as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner
needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to
maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland
runoff, and wildlife habitat.
Page 2

25 May 2021
Three Creeks Mitigation
Davidson County

2. We recommend a plant list that consists of species typically found in reference streams and the
appropriate natural vegetation community, as described by M.P. Schafale in The Guide To The
Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation
(https://www.ncnhp.org/references/nhp-publications/fourth-approximation-descriptions).
3. Avoid using orchard grass, tall fescue, or cereal rye, which exhibits allelopathic characteristics,
for soil stabilization.
4. Avoid tree clearing activities during the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 – August 15)
because of the decline in populations of several bat species, including rare species.
5. The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose-weave netting that
is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal
twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it
impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have
detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of
eggs, and clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. If I can be of additional assistance, please call (336)
269-0074 or email [e-mail].

Sincerely,

Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

June 19, 2020

Nancy Wallace [e-mail]
Bryan Roden-Reynolds, WPIT [e-mail]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28262

Re: Stream restoration and mitigation banks, four unnamed tributaries and Little Brushy Fork, Yadkin
River Basin, Davidson County, ER 20-1120

Dear Ms. Wallace and Mr. Roden-Reynolds:
Thank you for your email of May 15, 2020, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

Appendix F. Soils Report

Hydric Soils Evaluation

Three Creeks Mitigation Site

Davidson County, NC

January 28, 2020

Prepared for
Eco Terra Partners, LLC
By

940 Main Campus Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27606

Heather C. Smith
NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1336

INTRODUCTION At the request of Eco Terra Partners, LLC, VHB performed a soils evaluation on the Three Creeks Mitigation Site shown on the attached hydric soil delineation figure. The site is located off Norman Shoaf Rd, Winston-Salem, NC. The site is located in LRR P, MLRA 136, located in the uplands of the Southern Piedmont. The site evaluation was for the purpose of determining if hydric soils are in the proposed stream restoration and
wetland restoration project area offered.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Three Creeks Mitigation Site is currently being used for cattle and hay production. The site has been in
either crops or cattle grazing over the past 50 years. The wetland areas on the site are as Chewacla.

METHODS

A two-inch Dutch auger was used to hand bore approximately 75 holes to determine the boundary between
upland and hydric soils. This boundary was used to determine the extent of jurisdictional wetlands. (See
attached descriptions, photos and Figure 1). This determination for the presence of hydric soil indicators is described in the manual Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, 2018, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Hydric indicator utilized on this site: F3: Depleted Matrix: A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a minimum thickness of either: a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface Notes: A depleted matrix requires a value of 4 or more and chroma of 2 or less. Redox concentrations, including soft iron-manganese masses and/or pore linings, are required in soils with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, or 5/2. F19: Piedmont Floodplain Soils: On floodplains, a mineral layer at least 15 cm (6 inches) thick, starting at a depth
of <25 cm (10 inches) from the soil surface, with a mtrix (60% or more of the volume) chroma of less than 4 and
20 percent or more of distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings.

RESULTS

Borings were performed along the upland/wetland boundary and representative soils were described at the
locations shown on the attached figure; see the soil boring sheets.

1. The hydric indicator F3 and F19 was met in soil borings found within the wetland boundary within the top
ten (10) inches.
2. Soils borings in Wetland area 4 and 5 showed relic redox features with concrete boundaries around the redox concentrations. The redox concentrations in Wetland areas 1-3 had diffuse boundaries.

CONCLUSION The soils described are consistent with the range of characteristics exhibited by Chewacla soils. It is my professional opinion the Three Creeks Mitigation Site exhibits evidence of hydric soil indicators in the upper 14 inches within the areas labeled Wetland 1-5. Disclaimer: Design plans and strategies for this project area have yet to be determined. VHB has not evaluated
the design approach, design hydroperiod, or other methodologies necessary to determine the likelihood of
meeting regulatory success criteria.

REFERENCES

Schoeneberger, P.J., D.A. Wysocki, E.C. Benham, and Soil Survey Staff. 2012. Field book for describing and
sampling soils, Version 3.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils in the United States V. 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS in cooperation with
the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Sincerely,
Heather C. Smith NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1336

Soil Profile Description
Client Eco Terra Partners, LLC Date 7-18-19
Project Name Three Creeks Stream Restoration
VHB
Project # 39077.06
County Davidson State NC
Location Norman Shoaf Rd. Boring ID Wetland 1
Soil Series Mapped Chewacla
Soil Classification Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Observed WT
Not
Observed SHWT 2” Slope 0 %
Vegetation Pasture Drainage Sm. Poor. Drain Latitude 35.965417
Boring Depth 14” Reason Indicator Met Longitude -80.191766
Depth (in) Matrix Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-2 10YR 3/3 Sandy
loam
2-5 10YR 4/1 (80%) 10YR 5/6 (20%) clay
5-14 10YR 4/2 (80%) 10YR 5/6 (20%) clay
Comments: Overcast, had saturation at 6-inches. Some oxidized rhizospheres; not found throughout the wetland.
Stressed obligate wetland plants were established outside of the hydric soil boundary.
LSS Seal and Signature: Date:8/6/19
Soil Profile Description
Client Eco Terra Partners, LLC Date 7-18-19
Project Name Three Creeks Stream Restoration
VHB
Project # 39077.06
County Davidson State NC
Location Norman Shoaf Rd. Boring ID Wetland 2
Soil Series Mapped Chewacla
Soil Classification Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Observed WT Surface SHWT 0” Slope 0-2 %
Vegetation Forested Drainage Sm. Poor. Drain Latitude 35.969246
Boring Depth 14” Reason Indicator Met Longitude -80.192753
Depth (in) Matrix Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-4 10YR 4/1 (90%) 10YR 5/6 (10%) clay
4-14 10YR 5/1 (85%) 10YR 5/6 (15%) Sandy clay
Comments: Sunny, existing seep that transitions into Tributary 4. Surface water in portions of the wetland.
LSS Seal and Signature: Date:8/6/19
Soil Profile Description
Client Eco Terra Partners, LLC Date 1/27/2020
Project Name Three Creeks Stream Restoration
VHB
Project # 39077.06
County Davidson State NC
Location Norman Shoaf Rd. Boring ID Wetland 3
Soil Series Mapped Chewacla
Soil Classification Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Observed WT 0” SHWT 0” Slope 0 %
Vegetation Pasture Drainage Sm. Poor. Drain Latitude 35.966506
Boring Depth 14” Reason Indicator Met Longitude -80.192166
Depth (in) Matrix Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-2 10YR 3/3 Sandy
loam
2-5 10YR 4/1 (80%) 10YR 5/6 (20%) clay
5-14 10YR 4/2 (80%) 10YR 5/6 (20%) clay
Comments: Overcast, surface water present, 4-inches, saturation, and water table at surface.
LSS Seal and Signature: Date:1/27/2020
Soil Profile Description
Client Eco Terra Partners, LLC Date 1/27/2020
Project Name Three Creeks Stream Restoration
VHB
Project # 39077.06
County Davidson State NC
Location Norman Shoaf Rd. Boring ID Wetland 4
Soil Series Mapped Chewacla
Soil Classification Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Observed WT N/A SHWT N/A Slope 0 %
Vegetation Pasture Drainage Sm. Poor. Drain Latitude 35.966715
Boring Depth 14” Reason N/A Longitude -80.195208
Depth (in) Matrix Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-10 10YR 4/3 (80%) 10YR 5/6 (20%) Sandy
loam
10-14 10YR 4/2 (90%) 10YR 5/6 (10%) clay
Comments: Overcast, area has ditches running through it and draining normal wetland hydrology. Redox appears to
be relic in some areas. SHWT depth not established due to drainage.
LSS Seal and Signature: Date:1/27/2020
Soil Profile Description
Client Eco Terra Partners, LLC Date 1/27/2020
Project Name Three Creeks Stream Restoration
VHB
Project # 39077.06
County Davidson State NC
Location Norman Shoaf Rd. Boring ID Wetland 5
Soil Series Mapped Chewacla
Soil Classification Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Observed WT N/A SHWT N/A Slope 0 %
Vegetation Pasture Drainage Sm. Poor. Drain Latitude 35.970616
Boring Depth 14” Reason N/A Longitude -80.195362
Depth (in) Matrix Color Mottles Texture Notes
0-8 10YR 4/3 (75%) 10YR 5/6 (25%) Sandy
loam
8-14 10YR 4/2 (90%) 10YR 5/6 (10%) clay
Comments: Overcast, area has ditches running through it and draining normal wetland hydrology. Redox appears to
be relic in some areas. SHWT depth not established due to drainage.
LSS Seal and Signature: Date:1/27/2020
"
"
&
"
$+
$+
&
&
$+$+
$+
$+
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
$+
$+
"
$+
$+
""
"
"
"
$+
"
&
""
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
$+
$+
"
"
"
&
&
"
&
&
&
"
&
&
&
&
&
&
$+&&
&
&
"
"
"
&
$+
&
$+
$+
"
"
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community
Soils ReportThree Creeks Farm Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040103Davidson County, North CarolinaJanuary 2020 ³ESRI Aerial Basemap
400 0 400200
Feet
Soil Borings
$+F19 Met
"F3 Met
&No Indicator Met
Conservation Easement
Jurisdictional Wetland
Drained Wetland
Existing Streams
Figure1
Wetland 2Successional
Wetland 1UT 1
UT 2
UT 1
Little Brushy Fork (LBF)
UT 4
UT 3
Wetland 3
Wetland 2Pasture
Wetland 4-Drained
Wetland 5-Drained

Appendix G. Wetland Hydrologic Modeling Charts

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Date
Wetland 1-Edge
Precipitation Water Level Wetland Hydrology End Growing Season Begin Growing Season
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
-45
-35
-25
-15
-5
5
15
25
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
1
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
1
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
1
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
1
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
1
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
1
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
1
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
1
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
1
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
1
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
1
8/
9
/
2
0
2
1
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
1
9/
8
/
2
0
2
1
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
1
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
1
10
/
2
3
/
2
0
2
1
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
1
11
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
1
12
/
7
/
2
0
2
1
12
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
1
1/
6
/
2
0
2
2
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
2
2/
5
/
2
0
2
2
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
3/
7
/
2
0
2
2
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
2
4/
6
/
2
0
2
2
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
2
5/
6
/
2
0
2
2
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
2
6/
5
/
2
0
2
2
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
7/
5
/
2
0
2
2
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Date
Wetland 1-Edge
Precipitation Water Level Wetland Hydrology Begin Growing Season End Growing Season
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
9/25/2021 10/25/2021 11/25/2021 12/25/2021 1/25/2022 2/25/2022 3/25/2022 4/25/2022 5/25/2022 6/25/2022
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Date
Wetland 3-Middle
Precipitation Water Level Wetland Hydrology Begin Growing Season End Growing Season
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
1
3/
2
/
2
0
2
1
3/
7
/
2
0
2
1
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
1
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
1
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
1
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
1
4/
1
/
2
0
2
1
4/
6
/
2
0
2
1
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
1
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
1
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
1
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
1
5/
1
/
2
0
2
1
5/
6
/
2
0
2
1
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
1
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
1
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
1
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
1
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
1
6/
5
/
2
0
2
1
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
1
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
1
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
1
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
1
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
1
7/
5
/
2
0
2
1
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
1
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
1
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
1
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
1
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
1
8/
4
/
2
0
2
1
8/
9
/
2
0
2
1
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
1
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
1
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
1
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
9/
3
/
2
0
2
1
9/
8
/
2
0
2
1
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
1
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
1
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Date
Drained Wetland 4-Edge
Precipitation Water Level Wetland Hydrology Begin Growing Season
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
-55
-45
-35
-25
-15
-5
5
15
25
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Date
Drained Wetland 4-Middle
Precipitation Water Level Wetland Hydrology Begin Growing Season End Growing Season
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wetland Area 4 Water Budget: Normal Year 2017
Pre-Restoration
Precip Runoff Infiltration/Seeps Exfiltration ET Amount Overflow Monthly Water Level (in.)Net Gain/Loss
-60.00
-40.00
-20.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wetland Area 4 Water Budget: Wet Year 2020
Pre-Restoration
Precip Runoff Infiltration/Seeps Exfiltration ET Amount Overflow Monthly Water Level (in.)Net Gain/Loss
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wetland Area 4 Water Budget: Dry Year 2008
Pre-Restoration
Precip Runoff Infiltration/Seeps Exfiltration ET Amount Overflow Monthly Water Level (in.)Net Gain/Loss
-25.00
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wetland Area 4 Water Budget: Wet Year 2020
Post Restoration
Precip Runoff Infiltration/Seeps Exfiltration ET Amount Overflow Monthly Water Level (in.)Net Gain/Loss
-25.00
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wetland Area 4 Water Budget: Normal Year 2017
Post-Restoration
Precip Runoff Infiltration/Seeps Exfiltration ET Amount Overflow Monthly Water Level (in.)Net Gain/Loss
-30.00
-25.00
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wetland Area 4 Water Budget: Dry Year 2008
Post-Restoration
Precip Runoff Infiltration/Seeps Exfiltration ET Amount Overflow Monthly Water Level (in.)Net Gain/Loss
-25.00
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wetland Area 4 Water Budget: Normal Year 2017 After Dry Year
Post-Restoration
Precip Runoff Infiltration/Seeps Exfiltration ET Amount Overflow Monthly Water Level (in.)Net Gain/Loss

Appendix H: Project Risk and Uncertainties

Project Risks and Uncertainties
Listed below are identified project risks and uncertainties that have been evaluated in the development
of design plans for the site, along with methods that have been/will be used to address these concerns.
Methods to address may be presented as adaptive management.
1. Land use development: There is potential for increased land development around the site in the
future that could lead to additional runoff and changes to watershed hydrology.
• Methods to Address: The project area has seen little development in recent years but this area will
most likely see increased development in the foreseeable future. Restoration of the site to reconnect
streams to their floodplains will reduce the likelihood of future degradation from watershed changes, as
increased flows will spread over a wider floodplain. Grade control (in the form of constructed in-stream
structures and natural bedrock outcrops) will decrease the chances of future channel incision.
2. Easement Encroachment: Any encroachment to the conservation easement. (Including road
widening, culvert maintenance, utility easements, etc.)
• Methods to Address: The sponsor has had considerable discussions with the landowner regarding the
project requirements and limitations of easement access and is confident that the landowner fully
understands and will maintain the easement protections. The landowner has agreed to keep at-grade-
crossings closed to cattle except during active use to relocate the cattle from one side of the stream to
the other. The easement boundaries will be fenced with barbed wire fencing and clearly marked. Any
encroachments that do occur will be remedied by the sponsor to address any damage and provide any
other corrections required by the IRT.
3. Drought and Floods: There is potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring period
of the project.
• Methods to Address: The sponsor will apply adaptive management techniques as necessary to meet
the site performance criteria. Such adaptive management may include replanting, channel damage
repair, irrigation, or other methods. If adaptive management activities are significant, additional
monitoring may be required by the IRT.
4. Beavers: While there was no evidence of recent beaver activity during recent assessments, there is
potential for beavers to colonize the site during the monitoring period of the project.
• Methods to Address: Due to the watershed size, beaver colonization is unlikely. However, the sponsor
will take steps to trap and remove beaver if they colonize the Site during the monitoring period.
5. Sediment Load: Potential for aggradation to occur in the constructed pools.
Methods to Address: The project has been designed with appropriate channel dimensions and shear
stress to move the sediment load entering the system. Grade control structures have been incorporated
to maintain pools and channel bed elevation. In the event this becomes an issue existing conditions will
be reviewed to determine where the problem is located, and a repair plan will be produced and
presented to the NCIRT.
6. Invasive/Nuisance Species: Chinese privet, the main invasive species present on-site, currently exists
in the easement area. There is potential for these species to jeopardize buffer vegetation establishment.
Kudzu is present off-site at the downstream end of Little Brushy Fork.
• Methods to Address: The sponsor will locate invasive vegetation. It will be visually assessed,
photographed, and mapped. These areas will be treated by mechanical or chemical methods, so that
invasive species are no more than 5% of the easement acreage, and zero tolerance for kudzu. Any
vegetation requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture rules and regulations.
7. Hydrology of adjacent fields: Increased wetness may occur in fields adjacent to the Site.
• Methods to Address: In the event the landowner begins to have issues from increased wetness in
fields adjacent to the conservation easement, Eco Terra will work with them to install solutions that will
not affect the stream or wetland credits associated with the site. Drawdown around wetland areas will
be considered before any solutions are implemented.
8. At-grade Crossings: There is a potential for at-grade crossings to become covered with sand or
unstable.
• Methods to Address: Eco Terra will inspect crossings during each visit and coordinate with the
landowner on appropriate uses for the crossings, ie limiting large equipment from using the crossings on
a regular basis. In the event the crossings exhibits signs of instability a plan will be developed and
provided to the IRT for remediation.

Appendix I. Credit Release Schedule and Southern Conservation Trust Letter

Credit Release Schedule
Credit release will be determined from the total credit generated by the as-built survey of the
Site. Authorization from the DA will be required prior to any debits to the mitigation project.
Monitoring reports will be submitted to the NCIRT for determination on whether success criteria
have been met. If it is determined the Site is meeting the success criteria credits may be
released.
Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Credit Release Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim Release Total Released 1 Site establishment 15% 15%
2 Completion of an initial physical and biological improvements
made pursuant to the mitigation plan 15% 30%
3 First year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 10% 40%
4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 10% 50%
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 15% 65%
6* Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 5% 70%
7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 15% 85%
8* Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 5% 90%
9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 10% 100%
*Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during
these monitoring years unless otherwise required by the NCIRT.

Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit Release Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim Release Total Released 1 Site establishment 15% 15%
2 Completion of an initial physical and biological improvements
made pursuant to the mitigation plan 15% 30%
3 First year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 10% 40%
4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 10% 50%
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 10% 60%
Credit Release
Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
6* Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates interim performance standards are being met 5% 65% (75%)
7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates interim performance standards are being met 10% 75% (85%)
8* Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 5% 80% (90%)
9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates interim
performance standards are being met 10% 90% (100%)
*10% of credits will be reserved and subsequently released after four bankfull events have occurred in
separate monitoring years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are being
met.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits is defined as Bank Establishment in the 2013 Wilmington
District credit release schedule guidance document. The initial allocation can be released
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a.Execution of the MBI by the Sponsor and the USACE
b.Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan
c.Recordation of the conservation easement, as well as delivery of a title opinion that is
acceptable to the USACE.
d.Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan.
e.404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
f.Documentation of the establishment of the long-term endowment/escrow account.
Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based
on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream
projects, a reserve of 10% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull
events have occurred in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance
standards are met. In the event that fewer than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring
period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach
milestones associated with the credit release, Eco Terra will submit a request for credit release to
the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to
occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report.

Appendix J. Financial Assurance

Financial Assurances
Construction Costs
General (e.g., mobilization, erosion control, etc.) $10,000
Sitework $274,000
Structures (e.g., ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir, etc.) $534,000
Crossings $80,000
Vegetation $45,000 Miscellaneous/Admin Fees $10,000
Total $953,000
Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Set-Up, As-Built, & Equipment $20,000
Year 1 Monitoring and Report $20,000
Year 2 Monitoring and Report $20,000 Year 3 Monitoring and Report $20,000
Year 4 Monitoring and Report $20,000
Year 5 Monitoring and Report $20,000
Year 6 Monitoring and Report $20,000
Year 7 Monitoring and Report $20,000
Maintenance and Contingency $20,000 Total $180,000