20161044 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_20180226

MITIGATION PLAN
Final

December 8, 2017
LONE HICKORY MITIGATION SITE
Yadkin County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 6897
DMS ID No. 97135

Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101

USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-00100
RFP #: 16-006706

PREPARED FOR:

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

November 30, 2017

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan;
SAW-2017-00100; DMS Project #97135

Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Dear Mr. Baumgartner:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) during
the 30-day review for the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on November
13, 2017. These comments are attached for your review.

Based on our review of these comments and the provider’s response, we have determined that no
significant concerns have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved
with this correspondence. However, several issues were identified, as described in the attached revised
comment memo, which must be appropriately addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.

The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
application for Nationwide permit (NWP) approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified in the attached memos must be appropriately addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All
changes made to the Final Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the
beginning of the document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army
permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed.
Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that
the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues
may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction
that may lead to reduced credit.

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have questions regarding this letter,
the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please contact Andrea
Hughes at [phone] extension 59.

Sincerely,

for
Henry M. Wicker, Jr.
Deputy Chief, Regulatory

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:

NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner, NCDMS

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning November 14, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Lone Hickory Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan
Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were posted to the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Review
Portal during the 30-day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008
Mitigation Rule.
NCDMS Project Name: Lone Hickory Mitigation Site, Yadkin County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2017-00100
NCDMS #: 97135
30-Day Comment Deadline: November 13, 2017
Mac Haupt, NCDWR, November 13, 2017:
1. DWR questions whether there is enough hydraulic energy that supports constructing a channel at
the toe of the slope for tribs UT2B and UT2A. In addition, it would seem historically at this
landscape position there would be a toe of slope wetland that then may transition to a single
thread channel.
2. DWR notes that on Figure 11.1 that there are stream gauges planned to be installed on tribs
UT2A and UT2B. DWR would like those gauges installed no further down than mid reach.
DWR recommends the placement of the gauge for UT2A just before the proposed wetland
polygon on Figure 11.1.
3. In Section 4.0, the functional uplift is discussed based on the Stream Pyramid. While the
discussion was fine, given the fact that there seems to be a lot of potential for functional uplift,
DWR recommends that the measurements are performed related to the Quantification Tool to
provide more quantifiable evidence of the actual uplift. If discussions of the Stream Pyramid are
undertaken, DWR likes to see the Quantification Tool and the tables included in the Mitigation
Plan (for future projects).
4. Section 7.2.2, Groundwater Modeling, discussed the approach for determining the wetland
hydrologic performance criteria. DWR accepts the 9.2% wetland saturation standard arrived at
from modeling, other site data and discussions with the IRT on-site. DWR would like to caution,
however, that when grading the wetland site that no more than 12 inches of cut is taken, anymore
would result in wetland creation rather than re-establishment.
5. Page 40 (first paragraph) references Table 22 and should reference Table 21.
6. Section 8.0, Performance Standards, references the April 2003 USACE Stream Guidelines as the
basis for the guidance of the performance criteria. This document should have referenced the
October 2016 Mitigation Update from the IRT. While DWR realizes the project was initiated
before the 2016 Guidance came out, the Mitigation was written and finalized well after that date.
7. In the Monitoring Components Section, Table 23, I believe there should be 15 total plots.
8. Buffer width calculations-DWR would like Wildlands to perform the buffer width calculations
based on the new method.
9. There appears to be a significant impact on current jurisdictional wetlands for the upper reach of
UT1. DWR realizes that this is the old pond bed where the headcut is currently active. DWR
would like to know what steps will be undertaken to minimize the effect on the wetlands or will
there be other measures to offset the loss other than the proposed wetland re-establishment.
10. On the Design sheets for UT1 DWR noted several areas of high slope with long riffles and no
grade control structures (stations 116+00, 121+00, and 125+00). One riffle starting at
approximately sta 120+25 is about 170 feet long. One concern is that there will be a lot of rock in
the channel and the other concern is of stability given the slope and length. DWR would like a
justification for this approach for these areas.
11. DWR would caution the design of the meander at sta 307+50 along UT3. The design ratio of
curvature seems pretty tight for this meander and DWR would ask that Wildlands look again at
this section.
12. DWR noted that for UT1, all of the grade control structures involve rock or log sills at the end of
a type of constructed riffle. In addition, for the typicals shown on Design sheet 6.3, neither the
log or rock sills show footers. DWR is concerned with the ultimate stability of these structures in
these high gradient environments. Is Wildlands discontinuing the use of rock cross vanes? How
have these structures performed on other projects?
13. DWR was not able to attend the July 19, 2016 site visit to see the entire site. DWR would
appreciate if you could send some photos of reach UT1, particularly reach 2A and 2B. Given the
amount of bedrock on this reach, it would be nice to see some evidence of the incision, stream
banks or bedform to justify moving the channel.
Kim Browning, USACE, November 13, 2017:
1. UT2A and UT2B—The field notes from July 19, 2016 indicate the concern for lack of flow and
creating a possible wetland complex. Flow monitoring/gauges needed.
2. Figure 2 Site Map and Figure 6 Concept Map show a channel labeled as UT2C. While Figure 8.1
Concept Map and Figure 11.1 Monitoring Plan shows the same channel labeled UT2B.
3. Section 4 Functional Uplift Potential, page 15: The functional pyramid is cited to show existing
conditions for each category, and was used to describe the functional uplift potential of the
project, which is appreciated. Please note that the functional pyramid and QT tool have not been
approved for use in determining success for mitigation projects. No standards for collection
protocol are addressed in the plan, nor are score sheets, sampling location and number of samples
discussed.
4. Section 7.7.1, page 37: NRCS stands for Natural Resources Conservation Service. Please correct
the text in the last paragraph on the page.
5. Section 8.0 Performance Standards, page 41: The plan states, “Wildlands may propose to
terminate stream and/or vegetation monitoring after five years.” The monitoring program should
be implemented for 7 years.
6. Page 40: The text references Table 22, but the table is labeled Table 21.
7. Section 8.2 Vegetation, page 42: Please include a discussion on vigor (vegetation height).
8. Section 8.3 Wetlands, page 42: The text reads, “If a gage does not meet the performance standard
for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will be
compared to that of the reference wetlands." Please keep in mind that performance standards for
wetland hydrology must be met.
9. Section 7.6, pages 35-36: The removal of existing dams is discussed. Please expand on your
description on how the existing pond bed will be handled, and where the sediment will be spread.
10. Section 12.0, page 48: the first paragraph references Table 27. I believe this was meant to be
Table 26.
11.Section 8.0, Performance Standards, references the April 2003 USACE Stream Guidelines;
however, Section 12.0, Determination of Credits, references the October 2016 USACE guidance
for Additional Credits for buffers. While the USACE encourages establishing buffers that exceed
minimum standard widths, it would be preferable if only one guidance document was referred to
for consistency.
Kim Browning
Mitigation Specialist
Regulatory Division
BROWNING.KIMBERLY
.DANIELLE.152768351
0
Digitally signed by
BROWNING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.1527683510
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
ou=USA,
cn=BROWNING.KIMBERLY.DANIELLE.1527683510
Date: 2017.11.14 15:47:40 -05'00'

MEMORANDUM

TO: Paul Wiesner, NC DMS 

FROM: Emily Reinicker, PE 

DATE:     December 8, 2017 

RE:     Lone Hickory Mitigation Site     
Yadkin County, NC 
USACE AID#: SAW‐2017‐00100, NCDMS #: 97135 
FINAL Mitigation Plan – IRT Comment Response 

This memo documents NCIRT’s Mitigation Plan review comments (in italics) received from Kim 
Browning’s letter dated 11/14/17, the project team’s responses, and where the revisions have been 
included in the final Mitigation Plan. 
Mac Haupt, NCDWR, November 13, 2017:  

1. DWR questions whether there is enough hydraulic energy that supports constructing a channel 
at the toe of the slope for tribs UT2B and UT2A. In addition, it would seem historically at this 
landscape position there would be a toe of slope wetland that then may transition to a single 
thread channel. 
a. Wildlands acknowledges this concern referenced in comments #1, 14, and 25.  Due to 
the contributing drainage area, the defined upstream channel on UT2A, and the 
observed groundwater hydrology inputs on UT2B, it is appropriate to develop the site 
design treating these features as restored stream channels.  We acknowledge that if 
these features do not meet the prescribed success criteria for functioning stream 
features at the end of the monitoring period, then we will not receive stream credits for 
the affected reach(es).  No revisions have been made to the Mitigation Plan. 

2. DWR notes that on Figure 11.1 that there are stream gauges planned to be installed on tribs 
UT2A and UT2B. DWR would like those gauges installed no further down than mid reach. DWR 
recommends the placement of the gauge for UT2A just before the proposed wetland polygon on 
Figure 11.1.  
a. Wildlands will install the a stream gage at midreach on UT2A and UT2B.  The Mitigation 
Plan text on page 42, Section 8.1.5 Hydrology has been modified to state that “low flow 
channels (UT1 Reach 1, UT2A, and UT2B) will each have a stream gage pressure 
transducer installed midreach to document 30 consecutive days of baseflow.”  Figure 
11.1 has been revised to show the proposed stream gage and monitoring cross sections 
located upstream of the proposed wetland polygon on UT2A.  

3. In Section 4.0, the functional uplift is discussed based on the Stream Pyramid. While the 
discussion was fine, given the fact that there seems to be a lot of potential for functional uplift, 

2 

DWR recommends that the measurements are performed related to the Quantification Tool to 
provide more quantifiable evidence of the actual uplift. If discussions of the Stream Pyramid are 
undertaken, DWR likes to see the Quantification Tool and the tables included in the Mitigation 
Plan (for future projects).  
a. Wildlands used observations and terminology from the functional pyramid to 
qualitatively describe stream conditions on the site, as requested in DMS’s newest 
mitigation plan template as required within our DMS contract. Wildlands does not 
propose to use the functional pyramid to determine the success of the mitigation site.  
The following text changes have been made in Section 4.0‐ Functional Uplift Potential on 
page 15 of the Mitigation Plan based on this comment: “The potential for functional 
uplift is qualitatively described in this section using terminology from the Stream 
Functions Pyramid (Harman, 2012). The Stream Functions Pyramid describes a hierarchy 
of five stream functions, each of which supports the functions above it on the pyramid 
(and sometimes reinforces those below it). The five functions in order from bottom to 
top are hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, physicochemical, and biology. Neither 
the Stream Functions Pyramid nor the Quantification Tool are proposed to determine 
success of the mitigation site.”  See also comment #16. 

4. Section 7.2.2, Groundwater Modeling, discussed the approach for determining the wetland 
hydrologic performance criteria. DWR accepts the 9.2% wetland saturation standard arrived at 
from modeling, other site data and discussions with the IRT on‐site. DWR would like to caution, 
however, that when grading the wetland site that no more than 12 inches of cut is taken, 
anymore would result in wetland creation rather than re‐establishment.  
a. As discussed during the Post‐Contract IRT Site Walk for Wetland Soils Evaluation 
(January 25, 2017 notes included in Appendix 9), overburden removal will generally be 
limited to 12 inches.  There is obvious crowning between the two major ditches draining 
the proposed wetland area. Some grading in this area is slightly deeper than 12 inches; 
this grading was discussed and approved at the Post‐Contract IRT Site Walk for Wetland 
Soils Evaluation based on the obvious manipulation of the site for agriculture. 
Additionally, grading around stream channels to tie the proposed streams to the 
proposed wetland area may result in grading depths just over 12 inches. This is a 
byproduct of grading the streams into the wetland valley and is not a result of the 
wetland design. As stated on page 39 of the report, “Cut depth is limited to 
approximately 12 inches throughout the site.”  No changes have been made to the 
Mitigation Plan based on this comment. 

5. Page 40 (first paragraph) references Table 22 and should reference Table 21.  
a. This reference has been updated to Table 21. 

6. Section 8.0, Performance Standards, references the April 2003 USACE Stream Guidelines as the 
basis for the guidance of the performance criteria. This document should have referenced the 
October 2016 Mitigation Update from the IRT. While DWR realizes the project was initiated 
before the 2016 Guidance came out, the Mitigation was written and finalized well after that 
date.  
a. Section 8.0‐ Performance Standards on page 41 of the Mitigation Plan has been updated 
as follows: “The stream and wetland performance standards for the project have been 
developed based on guidance presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (October 

3 

2015), the Annual Monitoring Template (April 2015), and the Stream and Wetland 
Mitigation Guidance issued October 2016 by the USACE. Annual monitoring and semi‐
annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. 
Specific performance standard components are proposed for stream morphology, 
hydrology, vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Performance criteria will be evaluated 
throughout the seven year post‐construction monitoring period.” 
b. Several of the performance standards have been updated to reference details of the 
2016 guidance: 
i. A note has been added to Section 8.1.1‐ Dimension: “Please note that UT3 Reach 
3 is designed to incise as it transitions to meet the invert of South Deep Creek 
and this reach is expected to have a bank height ratio greater than 1.0 and an 
entrenchment ratio less than 2.2. 
ii. Section 8.1.5‐ Hydrology has been edited: “The occurrence of bankfull events 
will be documented throughout the monitoring period. Four bankfull flow 
events must be documented within the seven‐year monitoring period. The four 
bankfull events must occur in separate years. In addition, low flow channels 
(UT1 Reach 1, UT2A, and UT2B) will each have a stream gage pressure 
transducer installed midreach to document 30 consecutive days of baseflow. 
iii. Section 8.2‐ Vegetation has been edited: “The final vegetative performance 
standard will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the planted 
riparian areas at the end of the required seven‐year monitoring period. The 
interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 
320 planted stems per acre at the end of monitoring year three (MY3) and at 
least 260 stems per acre at the end of MY5. Trees in each plot will average 7 
feet in height at MY5 and 10 feet in height at MY7.”  See also comment #24.   
7. In the Monitoring Components Section, Table 23, I believe there should be 15 total plots.  
a. Table 23 has been revised to show 15 plots total, comprised of 10 permanent and 5 
mobile plots. 

8. Buffer width calculations‐DWR would like Wildlands to perform the buffer width calculations 
based on the new method.  
a.  Wildlands has verified that the mitigation credit adjustment for non‐standard buffer 
widths are based on Table 2 of the October 24, 2016, USACE guidance.  No changes have 
been made to the Mitigation Plan based on this comment.   

9. There appears to be a significant impact on current jurisdictional wetlands for the upper reach of 
UT1. DWR realizes that this is the old pond bed where the headcut is currently active. DWR 
would like to know what steps will be undertaken to minimize the effect on the wetlands or will 
there be other measures to offset the loss other than the proposed wetland re‐establishment.  
a. Full valley restoration, which includes excavation of the former pond beds (which are 
filled with sediments and cattle waste), has been the proposed approach since the 
beginning of this project.  Wildlands discussed this approach during the IRT post‐
contract site meeting, as included in the meeting notes in Appendix 9.  The imminent 
failure of the dam will not only destroy these wetlands but will be a mass 
sediment/animal waste input to the downstream system.  No direct offset measures are 
proposed but we do expect wetlands to form on the restored floodplain and vernal 
pools.  The restoration of the historic valley discussed in Section 5.3‐ 401/404 on page 

4 

21 of the Mitigation Plan, has been edited to add: “The valley floor will be restored at or 
near its historic gradient. The restoration will impact the wetlands that have formed 
around the impoundments; however, new riparian wetlands associated with the Priority 
1 stream restoration are likely to form on the restored valley floor, and the real and 
present threat posed by the advancing headcuts as they cut into the old pond beds will 
be eliminated.”  The IRT has expressed concern on past projects of the constructability 
of stream channels in former pond beds containing unconsolidated materials.  The 
proposed valley restoration is the most holistic ecological uplift approach for the site.   
10. On the Design sheets for UT1 DWR noted several areas of high slope with long riffles and no 
grade control structures (stations 116+00, 121+00, and 125+00). One riffle starting at 
approximately sta 120+25 is about 170 feet long. One concern is that there will be a lot of rock in 
the channel and the other concern is of stability given the slope and length. DWR would like a 
justification for this approach for these areas.  
a. The structure detail for these long riffles shows log and rock steps with micropools 
throughout.  This will be built in the field and each step and micropool was not detailed 
in the profile callouts. A sample plan & profile sheet with a photo of the newly 
constructed channel is attached at the end of this letter to demonstrate how this 
approach was implemented at the Candy Creek Mitigation Site last year.  No changes 
have been made to the plans as a result of this comment.   

11. DWR would caution the design of the meander at sta 307+50 along UT3. The design ratio of 
curvature seems pretty tight for this meander and DWR would ask that Wildlands look again at 
this section.  
a. This meander has a radius of 38 feet and a radius of curvature ratio of 2.3, which is 
within the reference and design parameters.  Brush toe is also provided in the bend, 
which will protect against toe scour.  No changes have been made to the plans as a 
result of this comment.   

12. DWR noted that for UT1, all of the grade control structures involve rock or log sills at the end of a 
type of constructed riffle. In addition, for the typicals shown on Design sheet 6.3, neither the log 
or rock sills show footers. DWR is concerned with the ultimate stability of these structures in 
these high gradient environments. Is Wildlands discontinuing the use of rock cross vanes? How 
have these structures performed on other projects?  
a. Wildlands reserves the use of rock vanes for discrete locations such as upstream of 
bridges or adjacent to infrastructure with limited working space.  We have not found 
rock cross vanes to be the best use of resources.  We have revised the rock and log vane 
structure details on Sheets 6.1‐6.4 to include footers.   

13. DWR was not able to attend the July 19, 2016 site visit to see the entire site. DWR would 
appreciate if you could send some photos of reach UT1, particularly reach 2A and 2B. Given the 
amount of bedrock on this reach, it would be nice to see some evidence of the incision, stream 
banks or bedform to justify moving the channel.  
a. Photos of these reaches have been added to Appendix 4. 

5 

Kim Browning, USACE, November 13, 2017:  

14. UT2A and UT2B—The field notes from July 19, 2016 indicate the concern for lack of flow and 
creating a possible wetland complex. Flow monitoring/gauges needed.  
a. Wildlands will install a stream gage at midreach on UT2A and UT2B.  The Mitigation Plan 
text on page 42, Section 8.1.5 Hydrology has been modified to state that “low flow 
channels (UT1 Reach 1, UT2A, and UT2B) will each have a stream gage pressure 
transducer installed midreach to document 30 consecutive days of baseflow.”   

15. Figure 2 Site Map and Figure 6 Concept Map show a channel labeled as UT2C. While Figure 8.1 
Concept Map and Figure 11.1 Monitoring Plan shows the same channel labeled UT2B.  
a. Labels have been verified on the figures.   

16. Section 4 Functional Uplift Potential, page 15: The functional pyramid is cited to show existing 
conditions for each category, and was used to describe the functional uplift potential of the 
project, which is appreciated. Please note that the functional pyramid and QT tool have not been 
approved for use in determining success for mitigation projects. No standards for collection 
protocol are addressed in the plan, nor are score sheets, sampling location and number of 
samples discussed.  
a. Wildlands used observations and terminology from the functional pyramid to 
qualitatively describe stream conditions on the site, as requested in DMS’s newest 
mitigation plan template as required within our DMS contract. Wildlands does not 
propose to use the functional pyramid to determine the success of the mitigation site.  
The following text changes have been made in Section 4.0‐ Functional Uplift Potential on 
page 15 of the Mitigation Plan based on this comment: “The potential for functional 
uplift is qualitatively described in this section using terminology from the Stream 
Functions Pyramid (Harman, 2012). The Stream Functions Pyramid describes a hierarchy 
of five stream functions, each of which supports the functions above it on the pyramid 
(and sometimes reinforces those below it). The five functions in order from bottom to 
top are hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, physicochemical, and biology. Neither 
the Stream Functions Pyramid nor the Quantification Tool are proposed to determine 
success of the mitigation site.”  See also comment #3. 

17. Section 7.7.1, page 37: NRCS stands for Natural Resources Conservation Service. Please correct 
the text in the last paragraph on the page.  
a. Text has been corrected. 

18. Section 8.0 Performance Standards, page 41: The plan states, “Wildlands may propose to 
terminate stream and/or vegetation monitoring after five years.” The monitoring program 
should be implemented for 7 years.  
a. The early termination reference has been deleted.  The text in Section 8.0‐ Performance 
Standards on page 41 now simply states: “Performance criteria will be evaluated 
throughout the seven‐year post‐construction monitoring period.” 

19. Page 40: The text references Table 22, but the table is labeled Table 21.  
a. The text has been revised. 

6 

20. Section 8.2 Vegetation, page 42: Please include a discussion on vigor (vegetation height).  
a. The following statement has been added to Section 8.2‐ Vegetation on page 42: “Trees 
in each plot will average 7 feet in height at MY5 and 10 feet in height at MY7.”  

21. Section 8.3 Wetlands, page 42: The text reads, “If a gage does not meet the performance 
standard for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will 
be compared to that of the reference wetlands." Please keep in mind that performance 
standards for wetland hydrology must be met.  
a. Wildlands acknowledges this comment and the fact that success criteria must be met 
for the mitigation site to qualify for wetland credits.  No changes have been made to the 
Mitigation Plan based on this comment.   

22. Section 7.6, pages 35‐36: The removal of existing dams is discussed. Please expand on your 
description on how the existing pond bed will be handled, and where the sediment will be 
spread.  
a. The existing dams and pond bed sediments will be excavated to restore the historic 
valley topography.  Wildlands is under option to purchase the entirety of the parcels 
comprising the mitigation site.  We are still working on grading plans, but in general we 
expect this material will be placed in the agricultural field to the east of UT1 Reach 1.  
Fill will not be placed in jurisdictional stream or wetland features. 
23. Section 12.0, page 48: the first paragraph references Table 27. I believe this was meant to be 
Table 26.  
a. The text has been revised. 

24. Section 8.0, Performance Standards, references the April 2003 USACE Stream Guidelines; 
however, Section 12.0, Determination of Credits, references the October 2016 USACE guidance 
for Additional Credits for buffers. While the USACE encourages establishing buffers that exceed 
minimum standard widths, it would be preferable if only one guidance document was referred to 
for consistency.  
a. Section 8.0‐ Performance Standards on page 41 of the Mitigation Plan has been updated 
as follows: “The stream and wetland performance standards for the project have been 
developed based on guidance presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (October 
2015), the Annual Monitoring Template (April 2015), and the Stream and Wetland 
Mitigation Guidance issued October 2016 by the USACE. Annual monitoring and semi‐
annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. 
Specific performance standard components are proposed for stream morphology, 
hydrology, vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Performance criteria will be evaluated 
throughout the seven‐year post‐construction monitoring period.” 
b. Several of the performance standards have been updated to reference details of the 
2016 guidance: 
i. A note has been added to Section 8.1.1‐ Dimension: “Please note that UT3 Reach 
3 is designed to incise as it transitions to meet the invert of South Deep Creek 
and this reach is expected to have a bank height ratio greater than 1.0 and an 
entrenchment ratio less than 2.2. 
ii. Section 8.1.5‐ Hydrology has been edited: “The occurrence of bankfull events 
will be documented throughout the monitoring period. Four bankfull flow 
events must be documented within the seven‐year monitoring period. The four 

7 

bankfull events must occur in separate years. In addition, low flow channels 
(UT1 Reach 1, UT2A, and UT2B) will each have a stream gage pressure 
transducer installed midreach to document 30 consecutive days of baseflow. 
iii. Section 8.2‐ Vegetation has been edited: “The final vegetative performance 
standard will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the planted 
riparian areas at the end of the required seven‐year monitoring period. The 
interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 
320 planted stems per acre at the end of monitoring year three (MY3) and at 
least 260 stems per acre at the end of MY5. Trees in each plot will average 7 
feet in height at MY5 and 10 feet in height at MY7.”  See also comment #6.   

Steven Kichesfski, USACE, November 15, 2017 email to Kimberley Browning 

25. I wanted to put on the record somewhere with this site my concerns for some of the features like 
the upper portion of UT2a (and probably UT2b) based on my jd site visit (I haven't seen the 
proposed mit plan). This channel seemed to barely meet jurisdiction as a WoUS and seems risky 
if lifted onto the floodplain that it will maintain enough flow to stay a stream in this broad 
floodplain, especially if flow is dispersed to create adjacent wetland areas. I'm not suggesting 
that this is an inappropriate design, simply that it may be a future monitoring/credit issue to 
demonstrate that it is functioning as stream. I mentioned this to Wildlands in the field and 
thought it should be in the file (if not already) so it's not a surprise during monitoring/credit 
release discussions. 
a. Wildlands acknowledges this concern referenced in comments #1, 14, and 25.  Due to 
the contributing drainage area, the defined upstream channel on UT2A, and the 
observed groundwater hydrology inputs on UT2B, it is appropriate to develop the site 
design treating these features as restored stream channels.  We acknowledge that if 
these features do not meet the prescribed success criteria for functioning stream 
features at the end of the monitoring period, then we will not receive stream credits for 
the affected reach(es).  No revisions have been made to the Mitigation Plan. 

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
LONE HICKORY MITIGATION SITE
Yadkin County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 6897
DMS ID No. 97135
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
USACE Action ID No. SAW 2017-00100
PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
PREPARED BY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]

This mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Emily Reinicker, PE, CFM Project Manager
Shawn Wilkerson, Principal in Charge
Ian Eckardt, PWS, Wetland Delineations
Christine Blackwelder, Mitigation Plan Development

Aaron Earley, PE, CFM, Stream and BMP Design
Eric Neuhaus, PE, Wetland Design
Jesse Kelley, Construction Documents
Jake McLean, PE, CFM, Lead Quality Assurance

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page i December 8, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection ...................................................................................1
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................2
3.1 Landscape Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover .................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Existing Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Project Resources ......................................................................................................................... 7
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential ..................................................................................................... 15
4.1 East Side ...................................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 West Side .................................................................................................................................... 18
4.3 Overall Functional Uplift Potential ............................................................................................. 19
4.4 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift ........................................................................................... 19
5.0 Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 19
5.1 Biological and Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 20
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................. 20
5.3 401/404 ...................................................................................................................................... 20
6.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 21
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ........................................................................... 23
7.1 Design Approach Overview ........................................................................................................ 23
7.2 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................... 23
7.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 25
7.4 Design Discharge Analysis........................................................................................................... 31
7.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... 34
7.6 Project Implementation .............................................................................................................. 35
7.7 Proposed Wetland Design Overview .......................................................................................... 37
7.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan ..................................................................................................... 40
7.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties .................................................................................................... 41
8.0 Performance Standards ......................................................................................................... 41
8.1 Streams ....................................................................................................................................... 41
8.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 42
8.3 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 42
8.4 Visual Assessments ..................................................................................................................... 42
9.0 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................... 42
9.1 Monitoring Components ............................................................................................................ 44
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan ................................................................................................ 47
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan ................................................................................................... 47
12.0 Determination of Credits ....................................................................................................... 48
13.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 50

TABLES
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1 ......................................................................................................... 1
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2 ......................................................................................................... 2
Table 3: Project Soil Types ............................................................................................................................ 3
Table 4: East Side Project Attribute Table Part 3 ........................................................................................ 11
Table 5: West Side Project Attribute Table Part 3 ...................................................................................... 15
Table 6: Project Attribute Table Part 4 ....................................................................................................... 20

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page ii December 8, 2017
Table 7: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands ........................................................................................ 21
Table 8: Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 22
Table 9: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters .......................................... 23
Table 10: Summary of Morphological Parameters for East Side Streams .................................................. 26
Table 11: Summary of Morphological Parameters for East Side Streams .................................................. 27
Table 12: Summary of Morphological Parameters for West Side Streams ............................................... 28
Table 13: Summary of Morphological Parameters for West Side Streams ................................................ 29
Table 14: Summary of Morphological Parameters for West Side Streams ................................................ 30
Table 15: Summary of Morphological Parameters for West Side Streams ................................................ 31
Table 16: Summary of East Side Design Discharge Analysis ....................................................................... 33
Table 17: Summary of West Side Design Discharge Analysis...................................................................... 33
Table 18: Summary of West Side Design Discharge Analysis...................................................................... 33
Table 19: Results of East Side Competence Analysis .................................................................................. 34
Table 20: Results of West Side Competence Analysis ................................................................................ 35
Table 21: Summary of Water Balance for Gauge 4 ..................................................................................... 40
Table 22: Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................................... 43
Table 23: East Side Monitoring Components ............................................................................................. 45
Table 24: West Side Monitoring Components ............................................................................................ 46
Table 25: Long-term Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 47
Table 26: Project Asset Table ...................................................................................................................... 49
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Existing Watershed Map
Figure 4 Topographic Map
Figure 5 Soils Map
Figure 6.1 Existing Conditions Map- West Side
Figure 6.2 Existing Conditions Map- East Side
Figure 7 FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 8.1 Concept Design Map- West Side
Figure 8.2 Concept Design Map- East Side
Figure 9 Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 10 Discharge Analysis
Figure 11.1 Monitoring Plan- West Side
Figure 11.2 Monitoring Plan- East Side

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 2 Wetlands JD Forms
Appendix 3 DWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix 4 Data, Analysis, Supplementary Information, Figures and Maps
Appendix 5 Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
Appendix 6 Plan Sheets
Appendix 7 Invasive Species Plan
Appendix 8 Maintenance Plan
Appendix 9 Crediting Information
Appendix 10 Financial Assurance

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 1 December 8, 2017
1.0 Introduction
The Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (Site) is in Yadkin County approximately 3.5 miles south of the town of
Yadkinville and approximately 24 miles west of the city of Winston-Salem, NC (Figure 1). The Site is
within the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) targeted watershed for the Yadkin River Basin
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101130020 and the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin
03-07-02, and will provide stream mitigation units (SMUs) and riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs)
in the Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101 (Yadkin 01).
The Site contains two valleys, separated by a ridge that runs north to south through the project limits.
South Deep Creek flows along the northern boundary of the project. On the east side of the ridge
(herein referenced as the East Side), UT1 flows through a steep, narrow valley that gradually widens and
flattens in slope as it flows downstream to the South Deep Creek floodplain. UT1 is joined by UT1A and
UT1B within the Site limits before flowing offsite to join South Deep Creek. On the west side of the ridge
(herein referenced as the West Side), UT2 and UT3 flow out of steep, narrow valleys into the broad, flat
floodplain of South Deep Creek. UT2A and UT2B join UT2 before the stream’s confluence with South
Deep Creek.
The Site is currently in agricultural crop cultivation and has a history of use for both crop production and
as a dairy farm. The streams throughout the Site are in various stages of impairment related to the
current and historical agricultural uses. The project proposes to restore and preserve 13,370 existing
linear feet of streams. Wetland re-establishment is proposed to restore a stream-wetland complex, and
best management practices (BMPs) are proposed at points of concentrated agricultural runoff. The
existing streams are presented in Figure 2. The work proposed on the Site will provide 13,164 SMUs and
9.5 WMUs, and will be protected in perpetuity by a 103 acre conservation easement. The Site Protection
Instrument detailing the proposed terms and restrictions of the conservations easement is in Appendix
1.
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1 – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Project Information
Project Name Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
County Yadkin
Project Area (acres) 103
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36° 5' 39.16"N 80° 40' 2.14"W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted) 99
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The Site was selected based on its potential to support the objectives and goals of multiple conservation
and watershed planning documents, outlined below.
• In 2008, the Yadkin River DWR Basinwide Water Quality Plan noted that, approximately 3.3
miles downstream from the Site, South Deep Creek was impaired for aquatic life due to
turbidity. Additionally, less than a mile downstream from the Site, the Town of Yadkinville has a
water plant intake on South Deep Creek, resulting in a DWR critical area classification of South
Deep Creek at the intake. The Site is within the water supply watershed to this facility.
• Downstream of the Site, South Deep Creek is included on the 2014 North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment 305(b) report as exceeding criteria for fish tissue mercury and turbidity.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 2 December 8, 2017
• The 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) outlined general goals
of restoration of water quality and aquatic habitat on impaired streams in the watershed, and
implementation of agricultural BMPs to limit sediment and nutrient input from active farming
operations.
• The 2005 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission’s (WRC) Wildlife Action Plan (WAP)
discusses the Upper Yadkin river basin as a priority watershed for freshwater conservation.
The project will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the DWR Basinwide Plan, the RBRP,
and the WAP by stabilizing eroded stream banks, reconnecting incised stream to floodplains, restoring
historically drained wetlands to the floodplain of South Deep Creek, installing BMPs to treat areas of
concentrated agricultural inputs, and restoring and preserving wide, forested buffers averaging twice of
that required to achieve mitigation credit. These actions will reduce nutrient and sediment inputs to Site
streams, and ultimately to South Deep Creek, while providing improved instream and terrestrial
(riparian) habitats, stream stability, and overall hydrology.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
The Site watershed (Table 2 and Figure 3) is in the southeastern portion of the Yadkin 01. It is situated in
the rural countryside in Yadkin County near Yadkinville, NC. The following sections describe the existing
conditions of the Site, watershed, and watershed processes, including disturbance and response.
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2 – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Ecoregion Northern Inner Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin River
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14 digit) 03040101, 03040101130020
NCDWR Sub-basin 03-07-02
Project Drainage Area (acres) 286 (East Side),
170 (UT2 - West Side), 392 (UT3 – West Side)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 3% (UT1 - East Side), 1% (UT2 – West Side), 2%
(UT3 – West Side)
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification East Side West Side
UT1 UT2 UT3
Forest 39% 31% 57%
Cultivated 42% 40% 22%
Grassland 4% 9% 5%
Shrubland 7% 10% 10%
Urban 8% 0% 3%
Open Water 0% 10% 3%
3.1 Landscape Characteristics
3.1.1 Physiography and Topography
The Site is in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont is
characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations ranging
anywhere from 300 to 1500 feet above sea level. The Site topography and relief are typical for the
region, as illustrated in Figure 4. The Site is divided by a low, north to south running ridge, and most of

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 3 December 8, 2017
the project area on the West Side is in the broad, gently sloping floodplain of South Deep Creek. The
East Side is characterized by moderate and steep contours. The valley through the project transitions
from a steep, moderately confined valley to a broad, alluvial floodplain at the bottom as it approaches
South Deep Creek.
3.1.2 Geology and Soils
The Site is in the Inner Piedmont lithotectonic belt which consists of intrusive and metamorphic rocks
(NCGS, 1985). The underlying geology of the Site is mapped as late Proterozoic to Cambrian (1 billion to
500 million years in age) metamorphic rocks biotite gneiss and schist (CZbg) and Cambrian to Ordovician
(455-540 million years in age) intrusive metamorphosed granitic rock (OCg) (NCGS, 1985). The
Proterozoic to Cambrian biotite gneiss and schist is described as “inequigranular and megacrystic;
abundant potassic feldspar and garnet; interlayered and gradational with calc-silicate rock, sillimantite-
mica schist, mica schist, and amphibolite that contains small masses of granitic rock.” The Cambrian to
Ordovician metamorphosed granitic rock intrusion is described as “equigranular to megacrystic, foliated
to massive”, and “includes Toluca Granite”.
The proposed project is mapped by the Web Soil Survey for Yadkin County. Project area soils are
described below in Table 3. Figure 5 is a soil map of the Site, which includes observed instances of
exposed bedrock.
Table 3: Project Soil Types – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Soil Name Description
Clifford Series:
Fine Sandy
Loam
These soils are on gently sloping uplands with a slope of 2-6 %. Clifford soils are very deep and
well drained. They have a sandy loam surface layer and a clay loam subsoil. Includes a
moderately eroded component of sandy clay loam with a gravelly loamy surface layer. The
parent material consists of saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist.
Codorus loam
This series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils, on nearly level floodplains and valleys
with a slope of 0- 2%. These soils are subject to occasional flooding, and they have a loamy
surface layer and subsoil. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium derived from igneous
and metamorphic rock.
Dan River and
Codorus soils
This series consists of 50% Dan River and 40% Codorus soil on nearly level valleys and
floodplains with a slope of 0-2%. Dan River soils are very deep and well drained. They have a
loamy surface layer and loamy subsoil. Codorus soils are very deep and somewhat poorly
drained. They have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. These soils are subject to occasional
flooding. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock.
Dan River and
Comus soils
This series consists of 50% Dan River and 40% Comus soils on nearly level to gently sloping
valleys and floodplains with a slope of 0-4%. Dan River soils are very deep and well drained.
They have a loamy surface layer and loamy subsoil. Co mus soils are very deep and well
drained. They have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. These soils are subject to occasional
flooding. The parent material consists of loamy and sandy alluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock.
Delila Fine
Sandy Loam
This series consists of nearly level to gently sloping soils along drainageways and in slight
depressions on uplands with 0-6 % slopes. Delila soils are very deep and poorly drained. They
have a loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. The parent material consists of alluvium
and/or colluvium over saprolite derived from granite and gneiss.
Fairview
sandy loam
This series consists of sloping soils on uplands, ridges and hills, with slopes from 10-25%.
Fairview soils are very deep and well drained. They have a thin loamy surface layer and a
clayey subsoil. Includes a moderately eroded and severely eroded component. The parent
material consists of saprolite residuum weathered from granite and gneiss and/or schist.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 4 December 8, 2017
Soil Name Description
Fairview
sandy clay and
clay loam
This series consists of sloping soils on uplands, ridges and hills, with slopes from 10-25%. These
map units are very deep and well drained. The parent material consists of saprolite derived
from granite and gneiss and/or schist.
Fairview-Stott
Knob complex
This series consists of 60% Fairview and 28% Stott Knob soils, on steep hillslopes, ridges, and
uplands, with 25-45% slopes. Fairview soils are very deep and well drained. They have a
cobbly, loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Stott Knob soils are well drained and have
weathered bedrock within a depth of 20 to 40 inches. They have a cobbly, loamy surface layer
and subsoil. Stones are widely scattered on the soil surface. The parent material consists of
saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss.
Nathalie
sandy clay
loam
This series consists of gently sloping soils on uplands with 2-6 % slopes. Nathalie soils are very
deep and well drained. They have a loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. The parent
material consists of saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or schist.
Rhodhiss-
Stott Knob
complex,
stony
This series consists of 75% Rhodhiss and 20% Stott Knob soils on strongly sloping hillslopes,
ridges and uplands of 8-25% slopes. The compositions changes to 40% Rhodhiss and 20% Stott
Knob from 25-45% slopes. Rhodhiss soils are very deep and well drained. Stott Knob soils are
well drained and have soft (rippable) bedrock within a depth of 20 to 40 inches. Both soils
have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. There are widely scattered stones on the soil surface .
The parent material consists of residuum weathered from granite and gneiss and/or schist.
Siloam sandy
loam
This series consists of strongly sloping to steep soils on hillslopes, ridges, and uplands from 25-
50% slopes. Siloam soils are well drained and have soft (rippable) bedrock within a depth of 10
to 20 inches. They have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. The parent material consists of
residuum weathered from diorite and/or gabbro and/or diabase and/or gneiss.
Starr loam
This series consists of nearly level soils in upland drainageways and depressions with a slope of
0-6 %. Starr soils are very deep and well drained. They have a loamy surface layer and a loamy
subsoil. These soils rarely experience flooding. The parent material consists of loamy alluvium
derived from igneous and metamorphic rock.
Toast fine
sandy loam
and sandy clay
loam
This series consists of soils on moderately steep hillslopes, ridges and uplands with a slope of
15-25%. Toast soils are very deep and well drained. They have a loamy surface layer and a
clayey subsoil. The parent material consists of saprolite derived from granite and gneiss and/or
schist. Also, includes a moderately eroded component (sandy clay loam)
Woolwine-
Fairview-
Westfield
Complex
This series consists of 47% Woolwine, 24% Fairview and 10% Westfield components on steep
uplands with slopes ranging from 25-45% and include a stony component. Woolwine soils
have weathered (rippable) bedrock within a depth of 20 to 40 inches. They have a gravelly,
loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Fairview soils are very deep. They have a gravelly,
loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Westfield soils have soft (rippable) bedrock within a
depth of 40 to 60 inches. They have a gravelly, loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Parent
material consists of saprolite derived from schist and/or gneiss.
Source: USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
Wildlands contracted a licensed soil scientist (LSS) to further investigate the soil types and potential for
hydric soil development on the West Side of the Site. Details regarding this soils investigation and how it
relates to the wetland restoration design are detailed in Section 7.7 – Proposed Wetland Design
Overview. During the LSS’s investigation, he made note of a sand and rounded gravel substrate layer
found at a depth of 42 to 48 inches at the location shown on Figure 6.1. This substrate is different from
other substrates found at this depth within the West Side floodplain, and the LSS noted that these were
stream sediments. Wildlands uncovered similar substrates at a depth of 44 to 54 inches while installing
GWG3, which is located just north of the soil scientist’s findings.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 5 December 8, 2017
Wildlands conducted a watershed walk on November 10, 2016 to gain an understanding of the various
sources of sediment to Site streams. Three major sources of sediment to the East Side were identified
during the watershed walk: runoff from the agricultural watershed and the actively tilled portions of the
stream buffer in crop production; Site stream bank erosion; and failing in-line pond embankments. The
agricultural watershed and adjacent fields contribute fine sediments, the onsite stream bank erosion
contributes a mix of small gravels and cobbles and fines, while the failing pond embankments contribute
fine sediments both from the eroding embankment and the pond bed sediments. UT1A and UT1B are
both eroded upstream of the Site boundary. UT1A upstream of the project reach has alternating bank
erosion and a small plume of stream bed and bank sediments is present at the confluence of UT1A and
UT1. A road crossing directly upstream of the Site boundary on UT1B appears to detain the eroded
stream bank sediment from reaching the Site. Offsite stream bank erosion was determined to be a
minor potential source of stream sediments.
On the West Side of the project, there are two sources of sediment to the project streams: agricultural
field and watershed stream bank erosion. The runoff from the agricultural fields contributes fines while
the watershed stream bank erosion contributes a varied mix of fines, small gravels, and cobbles. During
the West Side watershed walk, UT2 and UT3 typically had one or both banks eroding, generally on
alternating banks. In areas where the valley narrowed, streams tended towards incision, whereas in
areas where the valley widened, the streams tended to have lower bank heights and better connection
to the valley floor. In the wider floodplain areas, valley bottoms functioned as active alluvial floodplains,
providing storage for eroded bank sediments transported during larger storm events. Culverted stream
crossings leftover from the old logging roads were observed throughout the watershed. While these
culverts likely function as barriers to aquatic species passage, they also prevent upstream head cut
migration and provide storage for eroded bank sediments to drop out before reaching the downstream
waters. Because of the two types of sediment sinks observed within the watershed, coupled with the
absence of in-stream sediment plumes inside the Site, limited sediment load from the watershed is
believed to reach UT2 and UT3. UT2A’s watershed is small and well-vegetated. The ephemeral stream
channel in the watershed is clay bed, but appears to be in equilibrium and not a substantial source of
eroded channel sediments; therefore, limited sediment load is also anticipated from this watershed.
Currently, much of UT2B’s watershed drainage bypasses the channel and is routed through a ditch
network that splays near the confluence of UT2B and UT2. The sediment splay at the ditch outlet is
active, and although the ditch itself is a fine sediment source, observations of flow through the ditch
network during rain events confirm that runoff entering the ditch network from the agricultural fields is
sediment-laden.
West Side streams were visually inspected several times between 2015 and 2017, and sediment
movement into the Site from the UT2, UT2A, and UT3 watersheds appears modest, with only minor
changes observed in bars within the Site limits. No sediment movement was observed in UT2B due to
the upstream ditch network. Franklin Shore, the tenant farmer who has managed this land for over 15
years, indicated that most of the fine sediments within the existing streams on the West Side originate
from South Deep Creek backwater flooding, and that the depth of the channels limits their ability to
flush the fine sediments back into South Deep Creek (Shore, 2017).
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover
Land use and land cover, both past and present, were investigated throughout the Site and its
watershed using historical aerials from 1963-2016 and through the November 10, 2016 watershed
reconnaissance survey. Future land use potential was examined by reviewing the Yadkin County zoning
boundaries and the 2011 Yadkin County Land Plan (Anthony et al.). Historic aerials are presented in
Appendix 4.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 6 December 8, 2017
3.2.1 East Side
Within the eastern valley, the onsite streams have been manipulated through ditching, impoundments,
and land use changes since at least 1963. UT1’s riparian land use is currently sparsely forested in the
valley bottoms of the upper watershed with forest on the valley walls and agricultural fields beyond.
Moving downstream, as the valley bottom widens, the land use transitions to agricultural row crops in
the valley bottom, forested valley walls, and agricultural fields beyond.
UT1 features a series of former inline impoundments, several of which contain old embankments and
sediments visible today (Figure 6.2). In the 1963 aerial, one large inline impoundment (Former Pond 1) is
visible on UT1 and one impoundment is visible in drainage to UT1 (Former Pond 2). By the 1982 aerial,
an additional inline impoundment (Former Pond 3) appears immediately upstream from Pond 1 and
farm roads are visible over the impoundment dams. Evidence of tree clearing within the UT1 valley is
apparent in this aerial as well. In the 1993 aerial, Pond 1 appears drained with a large downstream
headcut progressing through a field. Pond 3 also appears greatly reduced in size, and a fourth
impoundment (Former Pond 4) is visible upstream from Pond 2. Pond 4 is not visible in 2006 in aerial
imagery. In present day, legacy sediments remain in place at the site of Ponds 1, 2, and 3 but there is no
evidence of Pond 4.
Prior to 1982, UT1’s streamside buffer was forested and showed cultivated fields beyond the forested
buffer. In the 1982 aerial, UT1’s forested buffer is cleared for cultivation. The headwaters of UT1,
upstream of former Pond 1, are also completely deforested. In 2007, the eastern farm field and
hillslopes surrounding former Pond 3 were planted in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). From 1950 until 1994,
an active dairy farm operated on the southernmost farm field above UT1. Buildings associated with the
dairy farm were demolished a few years after the dairy closed and are not visible in the 2005 aerial.
The project on the East Side begins at the intermittent call on UT1, and approximately 85% of the
watershed stream length is contained within the Site limits. UT1’s watershed is bound roughly by the
ridge that bisects the Site, Lone Hickory Road, and Route 601. UT1A and UT1B’s watersheds, which are
encompassed by UT1’s overall watershed, both extend to Route 601, and are within the Yadkin County
Future Land Use Plan ‘Primary Growth Area’. Yadkin County intends to focus on providing infrastructure
such as water, sewer, and road improvements in this area to promote growth. The land within these
watersheds is zoned for Highway Business, Manufactured Home Parks, Manufacturing, and Residential
Limited.
3.2.2 West Side
Within the project limits on the West Side, the predominate land use is agricultural crop land in the
South Deep Creek floodplain, with some areas of forest along the valley walls. The West Side has a
history of agricultural land use, and UT2, UT2A, and UT2B have been ditched and re-routed several
times, as evidenced by the series of aerial images presented in Appendix 4.
The watershed to the West Side has been a consistent mix of forest and agriculture from 1963 to 1993.
Between the 1993 and 1998 aerial, a large portion of UT3’s watershed and a small area of UT2’s
watershed was logged. In 1998, the network of logging roads and a few trees remained in the logged
areas. By the 2005 aerial, the areas had revegetated. A new area of logging in the upper watershed
appears in the 2006 aerial. This area showed vegetation in the succeeding aerials, and remains
vegetated in present day. The West Side watershed is predominantly zoned rural/agricultural and is not
anticipated to develop.
3.3 Existing Vegetation
Throughout the East Side, the floodplains include native hardwood species such as red maple (Acer
rubrum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). The slopes

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 7 December 8, 2017
surrounding a collapsed boulder dam contains several species of oak trees including swamp chestnut
oak (Quercus michauxii), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), and water oak
(Quercus nigra). Other mature hardwoods along UT1 include black willow (Salix nigra), American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), and umbrella magnolia (Magnolia tripetala). The understory has sparse shrubby
growth but does include species such as mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), American hop-hornbeam
(Ostrya virginiana), and young sassafras (Sassafras albidum). The ground cover contains several
herbaceous species, including various ferns and moss populations on rock crops and stream banks, along
with a small patch of horsetail (Equisetum sp.) further downstream. There are discrete areas of invasive
species present throughout, which include a population of the princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), thick Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Throughout the West Side, the floodplain is actively row cropped and the valley walls around the
floodplain are primarily forested. Several species of pine are seen in these wooded areas, such as
loblolly and pitch (Pinus rigida), along with the same hardwood species observed along UT1. The
streams on this side of the Site are ditched through the South Deep Creek floodplain. The herbaceous
plants along the ditches are typical wildflowers and weeds seen in open pastures and fields such as
goldenrod (Salidago sp.), ironweed (Vernonia sp.), henbit deadnettle (Lamium amplexicaule), and
creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Some Chinese privet is present at the downstream extent of
UT2.
3.4 Project Resources
Wildlands investigated on-site jurisdictional waters of the United States (US) within the proposed
project area. Potential 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 subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional
Supplement. Streams were classified using North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR)
Classification Forms. Jurisdictional waters of the US were surveyed for inclusion on plans and figures.
Wetland determination forms representative of on-site jurisdictional areas as well as non-jurisdictional
upland areas are included in Appendix 2.
The results of the on-site investigation include seven jurisdictional stream channels (UT1, UTA, UT1B,
UT2, UT2A, UT2B, and UT3), three open waters (A-C), and five wetlands (E-I) within the project area, and
are discussed below by their location within the Site. NCDWR stream identification forms are in
Appendix 3. Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of water resources within the project limits. Existing
conditions are also illustrated in Figures 6.1 and 6.2. Reach specific cross sections and geomorphic
summaries are provided in Appendix 4.
3.4.1 East Side Resources
Project resources on the East Side of the Site include UT1, UT1A, and UT1B, and Wetlands E, F, G, and H.
UT1 to South Deep Creek
UT1 originates just upstream of the project limits as an ephemeral stream, and transitions to
intermittent and perennial within the Site limits. The stream flows through two sediment-filled ponds
(Pond 3 and Pond 1) with breached dams before entering the lower valley and flowing offsite to join
South Deep Creek. UT1’s valley is narrow in the headwaters and gradually widens downstream as it
approaches South Deep Creek, where the valley bottom is a broad, alluvial floodplain. There are four
distinct morphological reaches on UT1, discussed below, and several artificial wetlands, all summarized
in Table 4 at the end of this section.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 8 December 8, 2017
UT1 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 1 begins approximately 40 LF
downstream of the conservation easement
boundary, where the stream drops over a headcut
and becomes intermittent. The valley slope is 6.5%
and UT1 is deeply incised into clay subsoil with very
little pattern development and several small active
headcuts. UT1 transitions to a perennial channel
just upstream of Pond 3, approximately 200 LF
downstream of the intermittent stream break. The
top of the accumulated sediment of Pond 3 has a
longitudinal slope of 1.7%. UT1 flows through
Wetland E, which has developed in the sediment
deposition behind the old pond embankment. The
bed and banks are weakly defined here as the
stream flows through the old pond bed. A deeply incised, ephemeral drainage ditch carrying a heavy
sediment load from the farm fields enters from the left bank. Downstream from the ditch, UT1 flows
through Wetland F. Wetland F ends where UT1 drops over an active headcut.
Below the headcut, UT1 is deeply incised, with steep banks, mass wasting, and moderate bank erosion
on alternating banks. UT1 is characterized here by
moderate pattern and coarse gravels, and cross
sections 1 and 2 were taken here which classify the
channel as an incised (bank height ratio of 3.8),
unstable Rosgen E5b-type stream. Approximately
300 feet downstream of the headcut, UT1 reaches a
30-foot tall embankment undergoing mass wasting
with series of small headcuts leading to a steep
boulder cascade. This embankment is clearly visible
on the 1993 historical aerial as an old farm road.
Beyond the boulder cascade, UT1 enters Wetland G,
which has formed within the accumulated
sediments in Pond 1.
Within the old pond bed UT1 has weakly defined
bed and banks and is braided with several
concurrent flowpaths. The top of the accumulated
sediment of Pond 1 has a longitudinal slope of 1.7%.
Flow continues for 250 feet through the old pond
bed before the weakly defined channel begins to
follow a ditch. Several headcuts occur along this
ditch and the stream becomes incised. This slightly
meandering, incised section continues for 150 feet
until reaching another breaching dam with an active,
10-foot headcut. Banks around the base of this
headcut are 12-20 feet above the streambed, and
are mass-wasting with several visible root masses
undermined by erosion. Over the course of 18
UT1 Reach 1 flowing through old pond bed of
Pond 1
8-foot headcut on UT1 Reach 1 at Pond 1
Incised, eroding UT1 Reach 1

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 9 December 8, 2017
months of site investigations, the headcut has rapidly progressed, advancing an average of 1 foot per
month. A photo log of the headcut progression is included in Appendix 4.
The area of mass wasting subsides within 60 feet, as the stream takes a sharp turn to the northeast, and
the hillslope gradually comes down to meet the new elevation of the streambed. The breaching dams
and active headcuts are a significant fine sediment source. These headcuts will inevitably continue to
advance upstream through the old ponds beds and exponentially increase the sediment load by cutting
through easily eroded sediments. Further, the advancing headcuts will perch the existing wetlands well
above the potentiometric surface and the artificially induced hydrology currently supporting the
wetlands in this landscape position will no longer be present.
As discussed, UT1 Reach 1’s valley slope is varied along its alignment due to the man made
impoundments and the accumulated sediments behind them. If the former pond dams and accumulated
sediments were not present, the approximate valley slope through the reach would be 6.3%.
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 2 begins where UT1 takes a sharp turn back
to the north approximately 100 feet below the 10 foot
headcut at Pond 1 and immediately downstream from
Wetland H. Reach 2 is confined against the right valley
wall and is perched above the lowest point in the valley,
suggesting historic relocation. A review of historic aerials
shows that UT1 has occupied near the same alignment
since 1963. Wetland H is hydrologically connected to
Pond 1 through a drainage pipe that contributes to the
hydrology of this wetland and may be the remnant UT1
channel prior to its impoundment. A series of bedrock
outcrops also begin to appear in Reach 2, and continue
to influence the streambed throughout the reach.
Approximately 100 feet downstream from the northward turn, the entire valley bottom is cleared for
row crops with UT1 occupying the right valley toe. The Reaves family recount that their grandfather
ditched UT1 along the valley wall to open the field for farming (Reaves, 2015). Moderate to mild bank
erosion occurs throughout this length of UT1 due to the confinement of the channel and the lack of
stabilizing vegetation. The reach is predominantly incised, but regains some floodplain connection in
areas where bedrock outcrops are present in the channel and in isolated areas where bankfull benches
have developed within the incised channel. Due to confinement against the right valley wall, the stream
has very little pattern. Long riffles and short, shallow pools dominate the streambed. Due to the
steepness of the right valley wall, mass wasting is present in areas where the stream has eroded into it.
Cross sections 3 and 4 were taken here and classify the stream as a Rosgen G4-type stream channel. The
valley slope of UT1 Reach 2 varies down its length, but is approximately 3% on average.
Two perennial tributaries (UT1A and UT1B) join UT1 along Reach 2. The tributaries are not part of the
project, except where they join UT1 within the conservation easement, and are discussed briefly later in
this section.
UT1 Reach 3
UT1 Reach 3 begins at a ford crossing, where the stream takes a turn to the northwest, and the channel
is then confined against the left valley wall. The left valley wall is forested, with a typical width of 100
feet or more, beyond which is cultivated field. The valley bottom, to the right of the channel, is cleared
and in cultivation. Active bank erosion and incision are present throughout this reach with occasional
UT1 Reach 2– confined against right valley wall,
cleared for row crops to top of bank

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 10 December 8, 2017
areas of more severe mass wasting. Cross sections 5 and 6 were taken midway through the reach and
classify the stream as a straightened, incised Rosgen E4-type stream, with a bank height ratio of 1.7.
This reach continues until a large bedrock outcrop, where the stream regains stability.
UT1 Reach 4
Reach 4 of UT1 to South Deep Creek begins where large bedrock outcrops begin to dominate the stream
bed. This reach has a stable meander pattern with little active erosion. A narrow, approximately 10-foot
wide forested buffer begins on the right bank until the channel turns further northwest into a mature
bottomland forest.
UT1A and UT1B to South Deep Creek
UT1A and UT1B both originate outside the project
limits, and enter the Site from the east as perennial
streams. Both streams have well-established forested
buffer on both banks and have stable riffle-pool
morphology with low bank heights and narrow
floodprone areas within naturally confined valleys.
Wetlands E, F, G, and H
Wetland features E, F, and G have formed in former
farm pond beds on UT1. These concave landforms
contain legacy sediments behind breached and
actively eroding dams. The features exhibit a high
water table, saturated soils, and shallow surface
water. Evidence of hydric soil is indicated by a depleted matrix and redox features within closed
depressions. Hydrophytic vegetation includes arrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), black
willow (Juglans nigra), Canadian clearweed (Pilea pumila), devil’s beggartick (Bidens frondosa), marsh
dayflower (Murdannia keisak), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), and spotted ladysthumb (Polygonum
persicaria). Wetland H is a small seep that originates at the base of a former impoundment (Wetland G)
and which receives hydrology through a small pipe emanating from the old pond. This feature exhibited
several hydrology indicators including shallow surface water, a high water table, saturation, and drift
deposits. Sandy soils within the feature met the “depleted below dark surface” hydric soil indicator.
Much of Wetland H was devoid of vegetation.

UT1A – Stable with riffle/pool morphology

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 11 December 8, 2017
Table 4: East Side Project Attribute Table Part 3 – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
East Side Reach Summary Information
Parameter
UT1 (R1:
intermittent
portion)
UT1 (R1: perennial
portion, R2, R3, R4) UT1A UT1B
Existing Length of Reach (LF) 198 6,476 230 48
Valley Confinement (confined,
moderately confined, unconfined) Confined Confined to
moderately confined Confined Confined
Existing Drainage Area (acres) 10 286 92 31
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral I P P P
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-III
Stream Classification1 Existing G Straightened E/G Not classified, preservation
only Proposed Ba Ba/B/C
Evolutionary Trend (Simon)1 III III/IV/V VI VI
FEMA Classification None
Last 400 LF in Zone
AE backwater from
South Deep Creek
None None

East Side Wetland Summary Information
Parameter E F G H
Size of Wetland (acres) 0.8 0.10 0.84 0.05
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non-riverine) Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series Delila/
Fairview Delila Delila/Fairvie
w Delila
Drainage Class
Poorly
drained/ well
drained
Poorly drained
Poorly
drained/ well
drained
Poorly
drained
Soil Hydric Status Yes/No Yes Yes/No Yes
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
& stream
baseflow
Groundwater &
stream baseflow
Groundwater
& stream
baseflow
Groundwater
Restoration or enhancement method
(hydrologic, vegetative, etc.)
Permanent
impact Permanent impact
Permanent
impact/
preservation
Permanent
impact
1. The Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1994) and Simon Channel Evolution Model (Simon, 1989) is for natural streams.
These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore may not fit the classification category or channel
evolution as described by these models. Results of the classification and model are provided for illustrative purposes only.
3.4.2 West Side Resources
There are four streams on the West Side of the Site, including UT2, UT2A, UT2B, and UT3. UT2A is
intermittent for approximately 643 LF within the Site before transitioning to a perennial stream. All
other streams are perennial. The streams are buffered by agricultural fields which are routinely farmed
up to the top of bank. The streams and wetlands are periodically dredged, and were last dredged 4 years
ago (Shore, 2017).
The West Side streams have been ditched and re-routed through the South Deep Creek floodplain since
before 1963, as evidenced by the historic aerials in Appendix 4. UT2B followed a flow path parallel to
UT2 in 1963, but was re-routed and shortened in length by the 1982 aerial. Between 1982 and 1993, a
series of hillside ditches was installed to carry most of UT2B’s watershed drainage across the hill to the

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 12 December 8, 2017
eastern edge of the farm field. Ditching and re-routing of UT3, a primary drainage feature on the West
Side, began prior to 1957 per a historical survey, provided in Appendix 4. The historical survey shows
UT3 connecting straight out to South Deep Creek; however, at least three parallel farm ditches
connected the UT3 hydrology through UT2 in the 1963 aerial. The main connection between UT3 and
UT2 flowed through what is now Open Water A (Figure 6.1). This connection was removed sometime
between 1998 and 2005. Currently, all surface water flow to UT3 is routed along the western parcel
boundary where it drains directly to South Deep Creek. John Kessler, a landowner along UT3, indicated
that his wife’s family has owned the land adjacent to this field for generations, and that UT3 once ran
across the open floodplain of South Deep Creek and joined South Deep Creek near its current
confluence with UT2. Mr. Kessler said that the farmer excavated a ditch along the property boundary
and routed UT3 into it as part of the agricultural management of the parcel (J. Kessler, personal
communication, December 29, 2015). This anecdotal evidence was substantiated with both Wildlands
and the soil scientist’s discovery of a rounded, alluvial substrate vein running across South Deep’s
floodplain, as depicted in Figure 2 and discussed in Section 3.1.2.
Manipulation of topography for agricultural use is evident throughout the Site. The valley toes on the
north facing slope of the West Side bottomlands appear to have been cut to increase the size of
agricultural fields. Material from the valley cut was potentially spread over the agricultural fields as an
attempt to dry out the floodplain fields and relic wetlands.
UT2 to South Deep Creek
UT2 enters the Site as a perennial stream, and flows through a narrow valley before entering the broad,
flat floodplain of South Deep Creek. Upstream of the proposed conservation easement, UT2 drains a
steeply sloping watershed dominated by hardwoods. There are three distinct morphological reaches on
UT2 due to slope breaks as discussed below.
UT2 Reach 1
Reach 1’s valley is moderately confined and has a slope of approximately 2%. UT2 is pinched between
the left valley wall and a dirt farm road paralleling the right bank. UT2 Reach 1 is deeply incised with a
bank height ratio over 4 and active bank erosion throughout its length. The stream receives sediment-
laden runoff from the existing farm road and the agricultural field beyond. Cross sections 1 and 2 were
taken in the middle of the reach and classify the stream as a Rosgen G4-type stream.
UT2 Reach 2
UT2 Reach 2 begins at an existing culvert outlet where
UT2 leaves its valley and enters the broad, flat floodplain
of South Deep Creek. Reach 2 follows a straight
trajectory until just downstream of its confluence with
UT2A and UT2B, where it curves gradually northeast,
terminating at the wood-line. At its confluence of UT2A,
inner berms vegetated with annual species are a
consistent channel feature. Throughout its entire length,
UT2 Reach 2 is ditched, incised with low entrenchment
ratios and high bank height ratios, and straightened.
Bedform diversity is poor with only low sloped runs and
shallow pools for habitat. Cross sections 3 and 4 classify
the stream as a Rosgen G5-type stream.
UT2 Reach 3
UT2 Reach 3 begins at the wood-line and continues its straightened, northeast trajectory until its
confluence with South Deep Creek. UT2 Reach 3 is ditched against the right valley toe; the left floodplain
UT2 Reach 2 – ditched below culvert in South
Deep’s floodplain

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 13 December 8, 2017
is actively farmed. The overall valley slope is 0.9%, and UT2 Reach 3 incises to meet the lower invert of
South Deep Creek. The stream bed morphology is dominated by runs and shallow pools with a few
deeper pools forming around tree roots on the right bank. Cross sections 11 and 12 classify UT2 Reach 3
as a Rosgen G5-type stream.
UT2A to South Deep Creek
UT2A to South Deep Creek enters the Site flowing
north through a failing concrete culvert. Upstream
of the culvert, an ephemeral channel drains a
steeply sloping hardwood forest. Just downstream
from the culvert, UT2A becomes intermittent. UT2A
here is ditched, deeply incised, and straightened.
Approximately 100 LF upstream of UT2A’s
confluence with Open Water A (a field ditch), the
stream becomes perennial. The perennial stream
takes a sharp right turn to the east at its confluence
with Open Water A, and flows straight until its
perpendicular confluence with UT2. UT2A is joined
by Open Water B and C between its confluence with Open Water A and UT2. Site soil probes found
gravel stream deposits in the cultivated area to the west of UT2A. Cross sections 9 and 10 classify UT2A
as a Rosgen G5-type stream.
UT2B to South Deep Creek
UT2B to South Deep Creek begins within the conservation easement as a perennial channel at a spring
under a bedrock slab. UT2B has been ditched and straightened, and is incised with low-sloped runs and
shallow pool bed features until its confluence with UT2. UT2B’s existing drainage area is only 6 acres;
however, a ditch network just upstream of UT2B routes the watershed flows to UT2B across a hillside
and into the floodplain of UT2 downstream of UT2B. The true drainage area to UT2B, if this ditch
network were not present, is 35 acres. Cross sections 13 and 14 classify UT2B as a Rosgen G5-type
stream.
UT3 to South Deep Creek
UT3 to South Deep Creek, a perennial stream, originates outside the project limits, enters the project at
the southwestern corner of the Site, and flows directly along the property boundary in a manmade and
maintained ditch to its confluence with South Deep Creek. There are two distinct morphological reaches
on UT3 due to slope breaks, discussed below.
UT3 Reach 1
UT3 Reach 1 flows through a narrow, 4% valley and is confined against the left valley wall. The stream
was likely relocated to its current location to maximize the agricultural field in the right floodplain. As
evidence, site soil probes found stream gravel deposits in the cultivated area to the east of UT3. UT3
Reach 1 has riffle-pool morphology, but is incised with eroded stream banks. Cross sections 5 and 6
classify UT3 Reach 1 as an incised (bank height ratio of 2.6) Rosgen G4-type stream.
UT2A – looking upstream

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 14 December 8, 2017
UT3 Reach 2
UT3 Reach 2 begins at the valley slope transition,
from the steeper valley to the broad, flat floodplain
of South Deep Creek. Reach 2’s valley is
approximately 0.5%, and the stream is ditched and
straightened along the property line before turning
east to join South Deep Creek. Reach 2 lacks
bedform diversity and exhibits signs of routine
maintenance. Row cropping is present in the right
floodplain, and the left top of bank and beyond is
actively mowed and maintained. Cross sections 7
and 8 classify UT3 Reach 2 as an incised (bank height
ratio of 1.4) Rosgen G5c-type stream.
Open Waters A, B, C & Wetland I
Open Waters A-C are wide, linear ditches within the floodplain of South Deep Creek that contain
standing water and are primarily devoid of vegetation as a result of on-going maintenance. Indicators of
hydric soils within the open waters include depleted matrix and redoximorphic (redox) features. These
areas have been manipulated and maintained for surrounding row-crop agricultural activities. Wetland I
is a small sparsely vegetated concave area of saturation and shallow inundation with a thin layer of
muck at the base of a hillslope along UT2 Reach 1. Hydric soil indicators in Wetland I include a stripped
matrix and mucky sandy mineral soil. Sparse hydrophytic vegetation includes rice cutgrass and Canadian
clearweed. This area experiences significant impacts from surrounding row-crop agricultural activities.

UT3 Reach 2 – maintained as a ditch

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 15 December 8, 2017
Table 5: West Side Project Attribute Table Part 3 – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
West Side Reach Summary Information
Parameter UT2 UT2A
(upper)
UT2A
(lower) UT2B UT3
Existing Length of Reach (LF) 2,527 643 541 699 2,008
Valley Confinement (confined,
moderately confined, unconfined)
Moderately
confined to
unconfined
Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined
Moderately
confined to
unconfined
Existing Drainage Area (acres) 170 16 27 6 392
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral P I P P P
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-III
Stream Classification1 Existing G G G G G
Proposed B/C C C Cb/C B/Cb/C
Evolutionary Trend (Simon)1 III/IV/V III IV/V IV/V IV/V
FEMA Classification Zone AE backwater from South Deep Creek

West Side Resource Summary Information
Parameter A
(Open Water)
B
(Open Water)
C
(Open Water)
I
(Wetland)
Size of Resource (acres) 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.01
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non-riverine) Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series Codorus loam/ Dan River and Comus
soils
Dan River
and Comus
soils
Delila
Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drainage/well
drained Well drained Poorly
drained
Soil Hydric Status Yes/No No Yes
Source of Hydrology Groundwater
Surface water
& out of bank
events
Restoration or enhancement method
(hydrologic, vegetative, etc.) Permanent impact
1. The Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1994) and Simon Channel Evolution Model (Simon, 1989) is for natural streams.
These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore may not fit the classification category or channel
evolution as described by these models. Results of the classification and model are provided for illustrative purposes only.
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential
The potential for functional uplift is qualitatively described in this section using terminology from the
Stream Functions Pyramid (Harman, 2012). The Stream Functions Pyramid describes a hierarchy of five
stream functions, each of which supports the functions above it on the pyramid (and sometimes
reinforces those below it). The five functions in order from bottom to top are hydrology, hydraulics,
geomorphology, physicochemical, and biology. Neither the Stream Functions Pyramid nor the
Quantification Tool are proposed to determine success of the mitigation site.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 16 December 8, 2017
4.1 East Side
4.1.1 Hydrology
Apart from periodic forestry activities, the major watershed disturbance on the East Side of the Site has
been the intensive management of the watershed for agriculture, which includes removing mature,
woody vegetation and routinely harvesting and plowing the fields. These alterations in land cover
typically result in reductions in rainfall interception and evapotranspiration which lead to increases in
runoff and water yield (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). The primary result of these changes is an increase in
both peak flows and base flows. However, increases in water yield usually change over time as
vegetation regrows and crops are planted. The hydrology to UT1 was also altered through the years
through the creation and complete or partial abandonment of Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4. When ponds provide
storage, they can shave peaks off storm flows or result in sustained periods of higher flows when
compared to an uncontrolled watershed. Ponds 2 and 4 are no longer in place, and Ponds 1 and 3 are
breached, but may still provide some storage and reduce peak flows downstream.
The East Side has a low percentage of contributing impervious area with potential for urban growth in
the UT1A and UT1B watersheds, which are in the targeted ‘Primary Growth Area’ for the town of
Yadkinville. These sub-watersheds make up 44% of UT1’s watershed area. The future growth would
follow installation of public utilities in the area, of which there are no current plans for extension of the
utilities, suggesting that urbanization is in the distant future.
Approximately 85% of the streams in the watershed are located within the conservation easement
boundary, so the watershed land use directly adjacent to the stream will be shifted from agriculture to
forest as part of the project. The remnant impoundments will be removed and the valley topography
will be restored throughout the former impoundment areas. Additionally, three points of concentrated
agricultural input will be treated with BMPs, resulting in a lift to hydrologic function of Site streams after
development of the project.
4.1.2 Hydraulics
UT1 is hydraulically impaired due to its lack of consistent floodplain connection. Large headcuts more
than 8 feet tall are advancing through the remnant dams at former Pond 1 and former Pond 3 and into
the unconsolidated pond sediments. Outside of the influence of the ponds, the streams continue to be
affected by the historic channelization, confinement against the valley walls, and incision with bank
height ratios ranging from 1.7 to 2.3. Removing the embankments, restoring the valley topography, and
reconnecting the streams to the floodplain will provide the in-stream relief needed to improve the
hydraulic function of UT1. Bankfull and greater flow velocities and channel shear stresses will be
reduced. The overall water table is expected to rise to meet the restored elevation of the stream
channel, which may result in pocket wetland formation in the restored valley bottom.
4.1.3 Channel Geomorphology
The past impoundment, channelization, incision, and on-going bank erosion place UT1 in Stages III and
IV of the Simon Channel Evolution Model. Approximately 62% of UT1’s stream banks are actively
eroding. The bedform diversity is moderate, with pool to pool spacing ratio ranging from 0.8 to 4.7, and
the streambed is estimated to consist of 60% riffles. Bank migration and lateral stability were not
measured for this project due to its straightened status; however, the active retreat of the headcuts at
the failing pond embankments was informally measured at 1 linear foot per month. Overall, the existing
geomorphologic function on UT1 ranges from moderate in areas where bedform diversity has formed
despite prior channelization, to very poor near the former pond areas.
There is a significant opportunity to improve the geomorphologic function on the Site. The incision and
bank erosion will be corrected. Large woody debris (LWD) will be added to the system through

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 17 December 8, 2017
construction of instream structures and bank revetments. A riparian buffer will be planted, resulting in
improved long-term geomorphic function of UT1.
4.1.4 Physicochemical
No water quality sampling has been conducted on UT1 and there are no water quality monitoring
stations within the Lone Hickory watershed; however, the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee Dee RBRP noted the
importance of reducing sediment and nutrient input from farming operations. The watershed to UT1
contains three defined points of concentrated agricultural inputs; ephemeral UT1, which drains a small
adjacent farm utility barn area; the drainage from old Pond 2, which continues to funnel sediment laden
runoff from the agricultural fields to UT1, and a ditch which drains an adjacent farm in the right
floodplain of UT1 Reach 3. Additionally, the sediment accumulated behind the old Pond 1 and 3
embankments poses a real threat to water quality as headward erosion continues through dam
embankments and into the old pond beds. Sediment and the nutrients stored in those pond beds would
be rapidly mobilized, creating water quality issues downstream.
As a result of these persistent and on-going threats, there is great potential to improve the
physicochemical functioning of UT1 and its watershed through execution of the project. Beyond the
proposed stream activities, BMPs will be installed at all three points of concentrated agricultural input to
reduce both sediment inputs from the adjacent farm fields. Additionally, the sediment accumulated
behind the old Pond 1 and 3 embankments will be removed from the valley bottom and stabilized in the
uplands to prevent mobilization of those sediments and attached nutrients into UT1. A riparian buffer
will be established and agricultural fields within the conservation easement will be taken out of
production, thus reducing nutrient-laden runoff and erosion of nutrient-rich bank sediments. Water will
flow over instream structures that will provide reaeration, trees will be planted in the riparian zone to
eventually shade and cool stream flow and help reduce and filter runoff, the stream will be reconnected
to its floodplain and adjacent riparian wetlands to provide storage and treatment of overbank flows, and
streambank erosion will be greatly reduced to nearly eliminate a source of sediment and nutrients.
However, the potential improvements to physicochemical functioning on UT1 will not happen
immediately and some aspects will not occur until a mature canopy is established. Therefore,
physicochemical improvements will not be explicitly monitored for success, although visual observations
should show that the improvements are in place and functioning.
4.1.5 Biology
There are no available biological data for the Site; however, the habitat conditions on UT1 vary from
poor in areas that are actively incising to moderate in downstream reaches that exhibit more stable
bedforms. The massive headcuts through Pond 1 and Pond 3 are barriers to aquatic organism passage,
and while the riparian wetlands currently present in the beds of these old ponds provide floodplain
habitat diversity, they are transient features that will be eroded away as the headcuts progress through
the dams. Wooded areas in the riparian buffers of UT1 provide some permanent habitat, but the
agricultural fields in the floodplain of the project provide little habitat value for terrestrial species.
There is opportunity to improve the instream and riparian habitat on UT1. Habitat will be improved by
removing the embankments and restoring the valley profile through the old pond beds. Instream
structures with a variety of rock and woody materials, pools of varying depths, and woody bank
revetments will be added to UT1 to increase instream habitat diversity, and a wide riparian buffer that
will shade the stream and improve terrestrial habitat will be planted. Despite these immediate
improvements, the biological response may be slow. The ultimate level of improvement in biology may
not occur until after the completion of the seven-year monitoring period. Although the biological
response of the project will not be explicitly monitored, improvements in biologic activity of the Site will
likely be noted during visual assessments of the project.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 18 December 8, 2017
4.2 West Side
4.2.1 Hydrology
The watersheds to the West Side streams have been subject to intensive agricultural production and
pockets of logging within the forest. These alterations in land cover typically result in reductions in
rainfall interception and evapotranspiration which lead to increases in runoff and water yield (Dunne
and Leopold, 1978), resulting in an increase in both peak flows and base flows. There is a very low
percentage of impervious area in the West Side watershed, and the entire watershed is zoned for
rural/agriculture, suggesting that this area is unlikely to urbanize.
A stream restoration project performed at a specific site does not often result in uplift to hydrology
(Harman, 2012). Trees will be planted within the conservation easement and BMPs will be installed to
treat concentrated agricultural runoff, but this will not significantly improve the rainfall-runoff
relationship for this watershed.
4.2.2 Hydraulics
Streams on the West Side of the Site are hydraulically impaired due to the extent of ditching,
channelization, and resulting disconnection of the streams from their floodplains. Bank height ratios
range from 1.4 to 7.2. Entrenchment ratios for streams in broad, flat floodplains such as UT2 and UT3
should be quite high; however, most flood flows are confined to the channelized ditches, as evidenced
by entrenchment ratios ranging from 1.1 to 2.4 for all reaches except UT3 Reach 2, which does have
flood access to the broad floodplain during high flows. Reconnecting the streams to the floodplain will
provide the in-stream relief needed to lift the hydraulic function of the West Side streams. Bankfull and
greater flow velocities and channel shear stresses will be reduced. The overall water table level is
expected to rise to meet the new, higher elevation of the stream channel, supporting the adjacent
wetland restoration.
4.2.3 Channel Geomorphology
The past channelization, incision, and on-going bank erosion place most of the West Side stream reaches
in Stages II, III, and IV of the Simon Channel Evolution Model. Inner berm formation on UT2 Reach 2
suggests that this reach may have advanced to Stage V of the model; however, this inner berm may be
due to deposition from backwater flooding from South Deep Creek as opposed to the evolution of the
channel from watershed and in-channel processes. Bedform diversity throughout the West Side streams
is extremely poor from agricultural maintenance practices such as dredging. Overall, the existing
geomorphology function on the West Side streams ranges from moderate in UT2 Reach 1 and UT3
Reach 1 to very poor for the rest of the reaches.
There is a significant opportunity to improve the geomorphology function on the West Side streams. The
incision and bank erosion will be corrected. LWD will be added to the system through construction of
instream structures and bank revetments and a riparian buffer will be planted, resulting in lifted
geomorphic function.
4.2.4 Physicochemical
No water quality sampling has been conducted on the West Side Streams and there are no water quality
monitoring stations within the Lone Hickory watershed; however, the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee Dee RBRP
noted the importance of reducing sediment and nutrient input from farming operations. The watershed
to the West Side features two defined points of concentrated agricultural inputs; a dirt farm road that
directs concentrated drainage to UT2 Reach 1, and an agricultural ditch network upstream of UT2B.
The physicochemical functioning of the West Side streams will be improved through installation of a
BMP at the concentrated agricultural input point upstream of UT2B to reduce both sediment and
nutrients from the adjacent farm fields. The concentrated agricultural runoff from the farm road at the

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 19 December 8, 2017
upstream end of UT2 Reach 1 will be treated either through decommissioning the road or through
installation of a BMP. The streams throughout the West Side will be restored with proper dimension,
and wetlands will be re-established within the floodplain. In-stream flows will reaerate over drop
structures, trees planted in the riparian zone will eventually shade and cool stream flow and help filter
runoff, the stream will be reconnected to its floodplain and riparian wetlands restored in the floodplain
will provide storage and treatment of overbank flows. However, the potential improvements to
physicochemical functioning on the West Side streams will not happen immediately and some aspects
will not occur until a mature canopy is established. Therefore, physicochemical improvements will not
be explicitly monitored for success, although visual observations should show that the improvements
are in place and functioning.
4.2.5 Biology
There are no available biological data for the Site; however, the habitat conditions on the West Side
streams vary from very poor in areas that are channelized and incised to moderate in upstream reaches
that exhibit more stable bedforms. While Open Waters A, B, and C may provide some habitat value, they
are stagnant and likely experience algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen from agricultural nutrient
inputs, making them unsuitable for most aquatic species.
There is great opportunity to improve the instream and riparian habitat on the West Side streams in
addition to the physicochemical function. Instream structures with a variety of rock and woody
materials, pools of varying depths, and woody bank revetments will be added to the streams to increase
instream habitat diversity. A wide, consistent riparian buffer that will shade the stream and improve
terrestrial habitat will be planted. Wetland development within the floodplain will diversify the available
habitats for both terrestrial and aquatic species. Despite these immediate improvements, the biological
response may be slow. The ultimate level of improvement in biology may not occur until after the
completion of the seven-year monitoring period. Although the biological response of the project will
not be explicitly monitored, improvements in biologic activity of the Site will likely be noted during visual
assessments of the project.
4.3 Overall Functional Uplift Potential
Overall, the Lone Hickory Site has great functional uplift potential, from the improvement in watershed
hydrology that will be seen on the East Side, to the improvements in stream hydraulics that will be seen
throughout the Site with the stream restoration and BMP installations, to the improvements in
geomorphology that will come with restoring streams that are suited to the valley types throughout the
Site. Physicochemical and biological improvements are a likely result of the project. However, there is no
existing basis for classifying the existing condition of these functions and the likely improvements will
occur gradually after construction.
4.4 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift
There are no known Site constraints that will affect the functional uplift of the project. The valley width
on the Site will allow for the development of pattern and dimensions to restore stable, functioning
streams and wetlands. The degree to which the physicochemical and biology functions can improve on
the Site is limited by the watershed conditions beyond the project limits, upstream water quality, and
the presence of source communities upstream and downstream of the Site.
5.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 6, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. These considerations are
expanded upon in Sections 5.1-5.3.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 20 December 8, 2017
Table 6: Project Attribute Table Part 4 – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes No PCN1
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes No PCN1
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix 5
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix 5
Coastal Zone Management Act No No N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes No N/A2
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
1. PCN to be provided to IRT with Final Mitigation Plan.
2. A floodplain development permit application will be submitted to the local floodplain administrator.
5.1 Biological and Cultural Resources
A Categorical Exclusion for the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site was submitted to DMS on June 24, 2016,
and approved on September 6, 2016. This document included investigation into the presence of
threatened and endangered species on Site protected under The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
well as any historical resources protected under The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The
biological conclusion for the Site, per the Categorical Exclusion research and response by US Fish and
Wildlife Service, is that “any incidental take that may results from the associated activities [from the
project] is exempt under the 4(d) rule.” All correspondence with USFWS and a list of Threatened and
Endangered Species in Yadkin County, NC is included in Appendix 5. The conclusion for cultural
resources per the Categorical Exclusion research and response by the State Historic Preservation Office
is that there are no historic resources that would be affected by this project. For additional information
and regulatory communications please refer to the Categorical Exclusion document in Appendix 5.
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The Site is represented on the Yadkin and Davie County Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 5804, with an
Effective date of 5/18/2009. The Site is located within a Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
regulatory floodplain associated with South Deep Creek. None of the project streams are mapped under
the regulatory authority of FEMA. Current Effective FEMA mapping for the Site is overlain with project
streams on Figure 7. The Effective hydraulic model for South Deep Creek has been obtained from the
NC Floodplain Mapping Program. The stream, wetland, and floodplain grading within the regulatory
floodplain of South Deep Creek will be designed to achieve a no-rise condition and a floodplain
development permit will be obtained from the Yadkin County floodplain administrator.
The proposed design associated with the Site has limited or no risk of potential hydrologic trespass since
the upper reaches are steeply sloped, allowing for restoration profiles to tie-in with minimal backwater
effects. In addition, wide buffers adjacent to project streams are protected under conservation
eliminating the risk to adjacent farm fields. A Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) has been
recorded for the adjacent landowners to allow for filling the UT3 channel along the east property line
and relocating the channel into the flat floodplain field away from the property line. UT3A will be
extended to join the new UT3 channel within the project limits. The old UT3 channel will be partially
filled below its confluence with Drainage A to provide positive drainage to South Deep Creek.
5.3 401/404
On the East Side of the Site, Wetlands E, F, and G formed in-line on UT1 behind former impoundments
which have filled with sediment and subsequently been dewatered through dam breaches. Wetland H

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 21 December 8, 2017
originates at the base of a former impoundment downstream from Wetland G and appears to receive
flow from the upstream pond remnant through an existing pipe emanating from the direction of the old
pond. These wetland areas are currently at risk of being dewatered by headcuts advancing through the
old pond embankments. The design on this side of the Site focuses on valley and stream restoration to
reconnect aquatic resources currently disconnected by massive, advancing head cuts formed through
the failing embankments. The impoundments and the accumulated sediments behind the old dams will
be excavated and placed in the uplands. The valley floor will be restored at or near its historic gradient.
The restoration will impact the wetlands that have formed around the impoundments; however, new
riparian wetlands associated with the Priority 1 stream restoration are likely to form on the restored
valley floor, and the real and present threat posed by the advancing headcuts as they cut into the old
pond beds will be eliminated.
On the West Side of the Site, several open water features and one wetland (Open Water A, B, and C, and
Wetland I) formed in maintained agricultural ditches installed to promote field drainage. The design on
this side of the Site focuses on restoration of a broad, wetland stream complex. The wetland and stream
restoration will impact these existing maintained features but will restore a stream-wetland complex.
Wetlands on the Site that are within the conservation easement and outside of the limits of disturbance
will be flagged with safety fence during construction to prevent unintended impacts. This will be
denoted in the final construction plans.
Table 7 estimates the anticipated impacts to wetland areas on this project. The Pre-Construction
Notification, including this data, will be submitted to the IRT with the Final Mitigation Plan.
Table 7: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Jurisdictional
Feature Classification Acreage Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T) Type of Activity Impact Area
(acres)
Open Water A
Riparian
Riverine
0.15 P Stream Realignment
and Wetland Creation
0.15
Open Water B 0.15 P 0.15
Open Water C 0.11 P 0.11
Wetland E 0.08 P Stream Realignment 0.08
Wetland F 0.10 P Dam removal, Stream
Realignment
Stream Realignment
0.10
Wetland G 0.84 P 0.84
Wetland H 0.05 P 0.05
Wetland I 0.01 P Stream Realignment 0.01
6.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
The project will improve stream functions as described in Section 4 through stream restoration,
conversion of maintain agricultural fields into riparian buffer, and through developing wetlands within
the broad floodplain of South Deep Creek. Project goals are desired project outcomes and are verifiable
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 8 of this report. The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 8.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 22 December 8, 2017
Table 8: Mitigation Goals and Objectives – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Goal Objective Expected Outcomes Function
Supported
Improve stream
channel stability.
Restore stream channels that will
maintain a stable pattern and profile
considering the hydrologic and
sediment inputs to the system, the
landscape setting, and the
watershed conditions. Create stable
tie-ins for tributaries joining restored
channels. Add bank revetments and
in-stream structures to protect
restored streams.
Significantly reduce sediment
inputs from bank erosion.
Reduce shear stress on channel
boundary. Support all stream
functions above hydrology.
Hydraulic,
Geomorphology,
Physicochemical,
Biology
Reconnect
channels with
historic floodplains
and re-establish
wetland hydrology
and function in
relic wetland
areas.
Remove man-made impoundments,
remove culvert crossings, and
restore historic valley profile.
Remove historic overburden from
farm fields. Reconstruct stream
channels with bankfull dimensions
relative to the floodplain. Restore
stream plan form to promote
development of mutually beneficial
stream/wetland complex.
Raise water table and hydrate
riparian wetlands. Allow more
frequent flood flows to disperse
on the floodplain and create
overbank floodplain and
depression storage for overland
flow retention. Decrease direct
runoff, increase infiltration.
Support all stream functions
above hydrology.
Hydraulic,
Geomorphology,
Physicochemical,
Biology
Improve instream
habitat.
Remove man-made impoundments
and culvert crossings within
easement. Install habitat features
such as constructed riffles, cover
logs, and brush toes into
restored/enhanced streams. Add
woody materials to channel beds.
Construct pools of varying depth.
Increase and diversify available
habitats for macroinvertebrates,
fish, and amphibians. Promote
aquatic species migration and
recolonization from refugia,
leading to colonization and
increase in biodiversity over
time. Add complexity including
LWD to the streams.
Geomorphology,
Biology
Reduce sediment
and nutrient input
from adjacent farm
fields
Construct two step pool stormwater
conveyance and three dry detention
BMPs to slow and treat runoff from
farm fields before entering Site
streams.
Reduce agricultural and
sediment inputs to the project,
which will reduce likelihood of
accumulated fines and excessive
algal blooms from nutrients.
Hydrology,
Hydraulic,
Geomorphology,
Physicochemical,
Biology
Restore and
enhance native
floodplain and
wetland
vegetation.
Plant native tree and understory
species in riparian zone where
currently insufficient.
Reduce sediment inputs from
bank erosion and runoff.
Increase nutrient cycling and
storage in floodplain. Provide
riparian and wetland habitat.
Add a source of LWD and
organic material to stream.
Support all stream functions.
Hydrology
(local),
Hydraulic,
Geomorphology,
Physicochemical,
Biology
Permanently
protect the project
site from harmful
uses.
Establish a conservation easement
on the Site.
Protect Site from encroachment
on the riparian corridor and
direct impact to streams and
wetlands. Support all stream
functions.
Hydraulic,
Geomorphic,
Physicochemical,
Biology

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 23 December 8, 2017
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
7.1 Design Approach Overview
The design approach for this Site was developed to meet the goals and objectives described in Section 6
which were formulated based on the potential for uplift described in Section 4. The design is also
intended to provide the expected outcomes in Section 6, though these are not tied to performance
criteria. The project streams proposed for restoration on the Site will be reconnected with an active
floodplain and the channels will be reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile that will
transport the water and sediment delivered to the system. On the West Side, the overburden from years
of tilling and crowning will be removed from the floodplain, and the relic wetlands will be restored. The
riparian buffer and wetlands will be planted with native tree species. Instream structures will be
constructed in the channels to help maintain stable channel morphology and improve aquatic habitat.
The entire project area will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement.
The design approach for this Site utilized a combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream
restoration, and also relies on empirical data and prior experiences and observations. Reference reaches
and reference wetlands were identified to serve as the basis for design parameters. Channels were sized
based on design discharge hydrologic analysis which uses a combination of empirical and analytical data
as described within this report. Designs were then verified and/or modified based on sediment transport
analysis. Wetland hydrology was assessed with groundwater gages and modeled to predict hydrologic
outcomes based on the proposed post-project conditions. These design approaches have been used on
many successful Piedmont restoration projects and is appropriate for the goals and objectives for this
Site.
7.2 Reference Streams
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform
design of stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. Eight reference
reaches were identified for this Site and used to support the design of streams on the West and East
Sides of the Site (Figure 9). These reference reaches were chosen because of their similarities to the Site
streams including drainage area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. Due to the variety of
slopes and project stream types present on the Site, the distribution of reference reaches is wide,
throughout North Carolina’s foothills and western Piedmont. Geomorphic parameters for these
reference reaches are summarized in Appendix 4. The references to be used for the specific streams are
shown in Table 9. A description of each reference reach is included below.
Table 9: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters : Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Design Stream UT1 UT2 UT2A UT2B UT3
Reach 1 2A 2B 3 1 2 1 2 3
Reference Stream Stream Type
UT to Kelly Branch A4 X
Pilot Mountain Trib B4 X X
Lone Hickory – UT3 Ref B4c X X X
UT to South Crowders E4 X X X
UT to South Fork
Catawba (Vile Preserve) E5 X X X X X
UT to Lyle Creek C5 X X X
Deep Creek Mitigation C5 X X X
Cooleemee Plantation C5 X X X X

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 24 December 8, 2017
7.2.1 UT to Kelly Branch
The UT to Kelly Branch reference reach is a small, locally steep (6.5%), headwater channel located in the
McDowell County. It has a drainage area of 0.08 square miles. The reach classifies as an A4 step-pool
channel, but pool depths are unreliable as a reference as they are filled with sediment from an upstream
source. Bankfull channel dimensions of riffle features were consistent throughout the reach, with a bank
height ratio of 1.0. The channel sinuosity of 1.2 is high for a steep gradient system, but planform is
stable and makes use of the valley bottom where possible. Several long gravel/cobble riffles were
observed that cascaded into pools over root mass, woody debris or a boulder step at the tail of riffle.
7.2.2 Pilot Mountain Tributary
Pilot Mountain Tributary is a small, steep (3.8%) B4 stream channel in Surry County, NC. The stream
flows through the northern side of Pilot Mountain State Park, just upstream of Black Mountain Road.
The stream flows along the left valley wall, which is vegetated with rhododendron thickets, while the
right valley has a single line of mature hardwoods with a maintained overhead utility easement corridor
beyond. The stream is relatively straight as it flows through the 4.0% valley, and bedform is diverse with
steep riffles, boulder steps, and in-line pools formed near roots and in backwater areas between steps.
7.2.3 Lone Hickory UT3 – Onsite Reference
Lone Hickory UT3 is located on the main stem of UT3 upstream of the Site boundary, within the wooded
watershed. The UT3 headwaters follow a pattern of narrow valleys with steep, eroded streams, and
areas where the valley bottom widens, and a gentler sloped, alluvial floodplain is present. This B4c
stream is located within one of the wider valley bottom points, and has a drainage area of 0.17 square
miles. The valley slope is 1.9% and the stream slope is 1.8%. UT3 has a diverse bedform with riffles,
meander pools, and pools formed near logs and debris. The stream banks are gently sloped and
vegetated with grasses and young trees. This reference reach is valuable to the project design,
particularly to the East side design, because its boundary conditions are so similar to the Site in part due
to its proximity.
7.2.4 UT to South Crowders
UT to South Crowders is a perennial stream located in Crowder Mountain State Park that receives 0.22
square miles of drainage from the forested mountain side. The stream is quite sinuous given the 2.57%
valley, with a sinuosity of 2.2. UT to South Crowders is an example of a classic, small E4 stream within a
higher sloped setting, with a width to depth ratio ranges from 5.7 to 8.2 and a high entrenchment ratio
ranging from 3.7 to 4.2. The stream is fully connected to its alluvial floodplain, and supports varied
habitats including root mats, deep meander pools, rock riffles, and woody debris in the channel.
7.2.5 UT to South Fork Catawba – Vile Preserve
UT to South Fork Catawba River - Vile Preserve is a perennial stream located in the floodplain of the
South Fork Catawba River. The stream flows through a broad, flat, wetland floodplain complex, which
receives runoff from adjacent agricultural uplands. The stream is completely connected to the floodplain
wetlands with a bank height ratio of 1.0 and an entrenchment ratio over 30. The reach has a low slope
with a sandy substrate and classifies as a Rosgen E5 stream type. The channel dimension, interaction
with the floodplain wetland, and similar stream substrate make it an applicable reference reach for
design of the streams within the wetlands on the West side of the project.
7.2.6 UT to Lyle Creek
UT to Lyle Creek is a perennial stream flowing through the broad, flat floodplain of Lyle Creek. UT to
Lyle’s watershed is wooded, and the stream is fully connected to the floodplain with a bank height ratio
of 1.0 and an entrenchment ratio of over 2.5. The width-to-depth ratio ranges from approximately 15 to
18, and the overall valley slope is approximately 0.8%. UT to Lyle Creek has a sinuosity of 1.1 and

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 25 December 8, 2017
classifies as a straight, C5 stream channel. In-stream habitat features within this reach include shallow
pools, woody debris, and small sections of tree roots.
7.2.7 Deep Creek Mitigation
Deep Creek Mitigation Bank is in the Yadkin River basin in southeast Yadkin County, NC. Originally
designed and constructed in 2003, the intent of the mitigation effort was to restore a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest Wetland by restoring wetland hydrology in borderline hydric soil areas. Stream
restoration efforts included fillings ditches and modifying stream dimension, pattern, and profile.
Wildlands identified that the site location, project intent, and soil conditions were like that of the West
Side of the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site. After visiting the site, it was determined that hydric soil
conditions had been re-established throughout the wetland restoration area. Based on the field visit and
site evaluation, a reference wetland gage was placed on site to monitor hydrologic conditions and
compare them to the existing and estimated proposed conditions of the wetland re-establishment areas
planned for the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site. Reference gage data from Deep Creek Mitigation Site is
included in Appendix 4. Wildlands will continue to monitor wetland hydrology within Deep Creek
Mitigation site to use for baseline hydrology information at Lone Hickory Mitigation Site. A short profile
and cross-section of the restored C-type channel were surveyed to evaluate its stability and similarity to
the proposed reaches at the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site. The low-sloped, moderate width-depth ratio
channel was consistent with project goals at Lone Hickory Mitigation Site.
7.2.8 Cooleemee Plantation
The Cooleemee Plantation Reference Reach is in southeast Davie County, NC approximately 9 miles east
of Mocksville, NC. The reference tributary flows through the wider floodplain of the Yadkin River. A
detailed survey of the stream was conducted in January 2017. The C-type stream channel has a 0.68
square mile drainage area with a width to depth ratio between 15 and 24. The valley and stream slope
are relatively flat (less than 0.5%). Soils on the site were mapped as Chewacla and were similar in
texture and grain size to those found at the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site. Vegetation on the site included
white oak, red oak, river birch, green ash, sycamore, tulip poplar, and American beech. The site was
selected as a reference reach due to its similarity in valley setting, stream type, slope, soil composition,
and drainage area to the west side reaches.
7.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reaches were a primary source of information to develop the pattern and profile design
parameters for the streams. Ranges of pattern parameters were developed within the reference reach
parameter ranges with some exceptions based on best professional judgement and knowledge from
previous projects. For example, for meandering C designs, radius of curvature ratio is kept above 1.8 on
all reaches and meander width ratio is kept above a 2.4. Meandering designs have pool widths to be 1.2
to 1.5 times the width of riffles to provide adequate point bars and riffle pool transition zones.
Wildlands has found these minimum ratios to support stable geometry. Designer experience was used
for pool design as well. Pool depths were designed to be a minimum of 3 times deeper than riffles to
provide habitat variation. Cross-section parameters such as area, depth, and width were designed based
on the design discharge and stable bank slopes. In some cases, the width to depth ratio was increased
beyond reference parameters as dictated by prior project experience to provide stable bank slopes prior
to the development of a fully vegetated streambank. Key morphological parameters for the Site are
listed in Tables 10-15 for East Side and West Side streams. Complete morphological tables for existing,
reference, and proposed conditions are in Appendix 4.
Due to the extensive agricultural manipulation of the West Side streams, post-construction drainage
areas vary for several reaches. The hillside ditch network that currently routes part of UT2B’s watershed
flows away from the channel will be removed, resulting in an increase in drainage area from 6 acres to

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 26 December 8, 2017
35 acres. UT3 will be relocated away from the property boundary ditch into the South Deep Creek
floodplain near its historic alignment. UT3 Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 2 join within the broad floodplain to
create UT3 Reach 3, which will flow out to South Deep Creek. As a result of this realignment, UT3 Reach
3 will receive the entire 562 acre drainage from the entire West Side.
Table 10: Summary of Morphological Parameters for East Side Streams – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Parameter
UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2A
Existing Reference: UT to
Kelly Branch Proposed Existing
Reference:
Pilot Mountain
Trib
Proposed
Valley Width (ft) 30-170 N/A 30-50 45-85 N/A 45-85
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 46 51 46 75 173 75
Channel/Reach Classification E5b B4/B4a B4a G4 B4 B4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 4.8 6.4 6.5 8.9 8.6 7.8
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.5
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 3.8 4.5 3.0 7.2 6.0 4.2
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s) 2.9 4.4 4.1 2.1 5.3 3.7
Design Discharge (cfs) 11 19 11 15 32 15
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.02951 0.03-0.065 0.0622 0.0256 0.0378 0.0290
Sinuosity 1.08 1.2 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.08
Width/Depth Ratio 7.2 9.2 14.2 11.0 12.5 14.6
Bank Height Ratio 3.2 1.0 1.0 2.6 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1.4 2.2+ 1.5 1.5 2.2+
1: Local slope at cross section – existing water surface slope varies widely on UT1 Reach 1 due to the impoundments.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 27 December 8, 2017
Table 11: Summary of Morphological Parameters for East Side Streams – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Parameter
UT1 Reach 2B UT1 Reach 3
Existing
Reference:
Lone
Hickory On-
Site
Reference
Proposed Existing
Reference:
Lone
Hickory On-
Site
Reference
Reference:
UT to
South
Crowders
Proposed
Valley Width (ft) 45-85 N/A 45-85 100-240 N/A N/A 100-240
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 206 109 206 279 109 141 279
Channel/Reach Classification G4 C4 C4 E4 C4 E4 C4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 8.9 6.7 10.7 10.0 6.7 6.1-8.4 11.8
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.8 0.5 0.8 1.3 0.5 1.0-1.1 0.8
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 7.2 3.6 8.1 13.4 3.6 6.4-8.7 9.5
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s) 4.2 3.2 3.8 4.1 3.2 2.9 4.0
Design Discharge (cfs) 30 12 30 38 12 22 38
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0256 0.0185 0.0180 0.0101 0.0185 0.0091 0.0156
Sinuosity 1.04 1.32 1.25 1.13 1.32 2.2 1.30
Width/Depth Ratio 11.0 13.4 14.3 7.5 13.4 5.8-8.0 14.6
Bank Height Ratio 2.6 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.4-2.1 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 3.0 2.2+ 3.1 3.0 3.7-4.3 2.2+

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 28 December 8, 2017
Table 12: Summary of Morphological Parameters for West Side Streams – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Parameter
UT2 Reach 1 UT2 Reach 2
Existing Reference: Pilot
Mountain Trib Proposed Existing Reference: UT to
South Crowders
Reference:
UT to S Fork Catawba
(Vile Preserve)
Proposed
Valley Width (ft) 17-130+ N/A 17-130+ 120-500+ N/A N/A 120-500+
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 88 173 88 170 141 602 170
Channel/Reach Classification G4 B4 B4 G5 E4 E5 C4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 8.7 8.6 7.5 7.7 6.1-8.4 6.1-6.2 11
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.0-1.1 0.7-0.8 0.7
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 5.7 6.0 3.9 6.1 6.4-8.7 4.5-5.3 7.8
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s) 2.5 5.3 3.4 3.3 2.9 11.0 2.6
Design Discharge (cfs) 14 32 14 20 22 54 20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0154 0.0378 0.020 0.0062 0.0091 0.0068 0.0030-
0.012
Sinuosity 1.01 1.05 1.1 1.02 2.2 1.03 1.3
Width/Depth Ratio 13.1 12.5 14 9.8 5.8-8.0 7.4-8.3 15.5
Bank Height Ratio 4.4 1.0 1.0 2.3 1.4-2.1 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 1.5 1.4-2.2+ 1.1 3.7-4.3 30+ 2.2+

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 29 December 8, 2017
Table 13: Summary of Morphological Parameters for West Side Streams – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Parameter
Existing References Proposed
UT2A UT2B UT to S. Fork Catawba
(Vile Preserve)
UT to Lyle
Creek
Deep Creek
Mitigation
Cooleemee
Plantation UT2A UT2B
Valley Width (ft) 500+ 100-475+ 500+ N/A N/A 500+ 500+ 100-475+
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 27 6 602 160 429 435 27 351
Channel/Reach Classification G5 G5 E5 C5 C5 C5 C4 C4b
Design Discharge Width (ft) 3.4-4.7 3.9-4.1 6.1-6.2 7.0-8.6 12.9 14.7-18.1 5.5 7.5
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.5-0.7 0.3 0.7-0.8 0.5 1.4 0.8-1.0 0.4 0.5
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 2.2-2.3 1.3-1.4 4.5-5.3 3.5-4.1 17.1 13.6-14.9 2.1 4.1
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s) 1.6-1.8 1.7-1.8 N/A 4.7 2.4 1.8 1.9 2.0
Design Discharge (cfs) 4 8 54 18 41 26 4 8
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0052 0.0107 0.0068 0.0057 0.0028 0.0027 0.0050-
0.0140
0.0040-
0.028
Sinuosity 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.2
Width/Depth Ratio 5.1-9.5 11.4-13.0 7.4-8.3 14.9-18.3 9.6 14.6-24.1 14 14
Bank Height Ratio 2.7-3.1 6.5-7.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6-2.4 1.2-1.6 30+ 5.7-6.4 10.5 8.8+ 1.4-2.2+ 1.4-2.2+
1: UT2B’s watershed increases post-restoration due to the removal of the ditch network that currently diverts its watershed flow.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 30 December 8, 2017
Table 14: Summary of Morphological Parameters for West Side Streams – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Parameter
UT3 Reach 1 UT3 Reach 2
Existing
References
Proposed Existing
References Proposed
Lone
Hickory
UT3
UT to
South
Crowders
UT to S. Fork Catawba
(Vile Preserve)
Cooleemee
Plantation
Valley Width (ft) 110-250 N/A N/A 110-250 500+ 500+ 500+ 500+
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 378 109 141 378 392 602 435 419
Channel/Reach
Classification G4 B4c E4 B4c G5c E5 C5 C4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 11.2 6.7 6.1-8.4 13 10.0 6.1-6.2 14.7-18.1 16.2
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 1.2 0.5 1.0-1.1 0.9 1.0 0.7-0.8 0.8-1.0 1.0
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 13.7 3.6 6.4-8.7 12.1 10.2 4.5-5.3 13.6-14.9 16.2
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s) 4.0 3.2 2.9 3.6 2.0 N/A 1.8 2.7
Design Discharge (cfs) 45 12 22 45 45 54 26 45
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0107 0.0185 0.0091 0.0110 0.0034 0.0068 0.0027 0.0020-
0.0110
Sinuosity 1.06 1.32 2.2 1.1 1.01 1.03 1.1 1.4
Width/Depth Ratio 9.1 13.4 5.8-8.0 14.4 9.9 7.4-8.3 14.6-24.1 16.2
Bank Height Ratio 2.6 1.0 1.4-2.1 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 3.0 3.7-4.3 1.4-2.2+ 14.9+ 30+ 8.8+ 2.2+

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 31 December 8, 2017
Table 15: Summary of Morphological Parameters for West Side Streams – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Parameter
Existing References Proposed
UT2
Reach 3
UT to S.
Fork
Catawba
UT to Lyle
Creek
Deep Creek
Mitigation
Cooleemee
Plantation
UT3
Reach 3
Valley Width (ft) 270-340 500+ N/A N/A 500+ 350-500+
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 170 602 160 429 435 562
Channel/Reach Classification G5 E5 C5 C5 C5 C4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 8.4 6.1-6.2 7.0-8.6 12.9 14.7-18.1 19.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7-0.8 0.5 1.4 0.8-1.0 1.1
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 5.7 4.5-5.3 3.5-4.1 17.1 13.6-14.9 21.1
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 1.8 N/A 4.7 2.4 1.8 1.8
Design Discharge (cfs) 21 54 18 41 26 55
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0043 0.0068 0.0057 0.0028 0.0027 0.0020
Sinuosity 1.05 1.03 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.2
Width/Depth Ratio 12.3 7.4-8.3 14.9-18.3 9.6 14.6-24.1 17.1
Bank Height Ratio 3.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 30+ 5.7-6.4 10.5 8.8+ 2.2+
7.4 Design Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to develop bankfull discharge estimates for each of the project restoration
reaches: the NC Rural Piedmont regional curve (Harman et al., 1999), NC Piedmont/Mountain regional
curve (Walker, unpublished), a Wildlands regional USGS flood frequency analysis, a site-specific
reference reach curve, existing bankfull indicators using Manning’s equation, and data from previous
successful design projects. The resulting values were compared and best professional judgment was
used to determine the specific design discharge for each restoration reach. Each data source is plotted
on Figure 10 to show the relationship of the data to the design discharge selections.
7.4.1 Regional Curve Data
Discharge was estimated using the published NC Rural Piedmont Curve (Rural Data on Figure 10) as well
as the updated curve for rural Piedmont and Mountain streams, shown as the Alan Walker Curve on
Figure 10.
7.4.2 Wildlands Regional USGS Rural Piedmont Calculator
Wildlands developed a regional flood frequency analysis tool that tailored the USGS 2009 publication
Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006 to the
Piedmont of North Carolina. Of the 103 stations referenced in the publication, 23 were used in the
development of the tool. To fill gaps in data, five additional stations were added by Wildlands to
represent streams with drainage areas less than one square mile. The Hosking and Wallis homogeneity
test was performed in R© to identify the most appropriate gages based on homogeneity (Hosking and
Wallis, 1993). The gages used were:

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 32 December 8, 2017
• USGS 02096740 – Gun Branch near Alamance, NC (DA = 4.06 mi2)
• USGS 02096846 – Cane Creek near Yadkin Grove, NC (DA = 7.54 mi2)
• USGS 02097010 – Robeson Creek near Pittsboro, NC (DA = 1.71 mi2)
• USGS 02101030 – Falls Creek near Bennett, NC (DA = 3.43 mi2)
• USGS 0210166029 – Rocky River at SR1300 near Crutchfield Crossroads, NC (DA = 7.42 mi2)
The data from these 28 gage stations were used to develop flood frequency curves for the 1.2-year and
1.5-year recurrence interval discharges. These relationships can be used to estimate discharge of those
recurrence intervals for ungaged streams in the same hydrologic region, and were solved for each
project reach’s discharge with the drainage area as the input. The discharge estimates are shown on
Figure 10 as the USGS Rural Piedmont Calculator 1.2-yr Predictions.
7.4.3 Site Specific Reference Reach Curve
Eight reference reaches were identified for this project. Each reference reach was surveyed to develop
information for analyzing drainage area-discharge relationships as well as development of design
parameters. Stable cross-sectional dimensions and channel slopes were used to compute a bankfull
discharge with the Manning’s equation for each reference reach. The resulting discharge values were
plotted with drainage area on Figure 10 (Reference Reach Curve) and compared the other discharge
estimation methods.
7.4.4 Maximum Discharge (Manning’s Equation)
A riffle cross-section was surveyed on each design reach on the Site. Due to the dredged condition of
UT2A and UT2B and the lack of defined riffles and pools, two run sections were surveyed on each of
these reaches, totaling 15 riffle/run cross-sections across the Site. Due to the existing impairments
throughout Site streams, bankfull indicators were weak and not considered reliable for estimating a
bankfull discharge. Instead, Manning’s equation was used to calculate a discharge associated with the
top of banks for all project streams. Stream slope was calculated from the surveyed channel slope, and
roughness was estimated using guidelines from Chow (1959). This corresponding discharge was plotted
on Figure 10 (Qmax – Existing Site Streams) and considered as an upper limit for potential bankfull
discharge values throughout the Site.
7.4.5 Design Discharge Analysis Summary
One of the main design goals at Lone Hickory is to reconnect streams with their natural valleys and to
restore riparian floodplain or wetland hydrology. On the East Side, this is first achieved by removing the
remnant impoundments and the accumulated legacy sediments behind them to restore the natural
valley topography. Then, the streams will be raised to meet the invert of the existing or restored valleys.
On the West Side, overburden will be removed to restore the floodplain wetlands and the incised,
ditched streams will be raised to meet the invert of the floodplain. Because of the desire to achieve
frequent floodplain interaction, design discharges were selected close to the lower end of the range of
values produced by the estimation methods. Tables 16-18 give a summary of the discharge analysis,
while Figure 10 illustrates the design discharge data.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 33 December 8, 2017
Table 16: Summary of East Side Design Discharge Analysis – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
UT1
Reach 1 Reach 2A Reach 2B Reach 3
DA (acres) 46 75 206 279
DA (sq. mi.) 0.07 0.12 0.32 0.44
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 13 19 39 49
Alan Walker Curve (cfs) 7 10 23 29
Wildlands Regional USGS
Flood Frequency Analysis (cfs)
1.2-year event 11 16 34 42
1.5-year event 16 24 48 61
Site Specific Reference Reach Curve 10 13 25 31
Max Q from Manning's Eq. from XS survey (cfs) 601 304 304 218
Final Design Q (cfs) 11 15 30 38
Table 17: Summary of West Side Design Discharge Analysis – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
UT2
UT2A UT2B1
Reach 1 Reach 2
DA (acres) 88 170 27 35
DA (sq. mi.) 0.14 0.26 0.04 0.05
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 21 33 5 11
Alan Walker Curve (cfs) 12 19 3 6
Wildlands Regional USGS
Flood Frequency Analysis (cfs)
1.2-year event 18 29 4 9
1.5-year event 27 42 7 13
Site Specific Reference Reach Curve 15 22 4 8
Max Q from Manning's Eq. from XS survey (cfs) 331 75 52 124
Final Design Q (cfs) 14 20 4 8
1: UT2B post restoration will capture the entire watershed, including the portion that is currently ditched along the valley toe.
Table 18: Summary of West Side Design Discharge Analysis – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
UT3
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 31
DA (acres) 378 416 562
DA (sq. mi.) 0.59 0.65 0.88
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 61 65 81
Alan Walker Curve (cfs) 37 40 50
Wildlands Regional USGS
Flood Frequency Analysis (cfs)
1.2-year event 53 56 71
1.5-year event 75 81 101
Site Specific Reference Reach Curve 38 38 48
Max Q from Manning's Eq. from XS survey (cfs) 370 39 N/A1
Final Design Q (cfs) 45 45 55
1: UT3 Reach 3 post-restoration combines flow from the existing conditions UT2 Reach 3 and UT3.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 34 December 8, 2017
7.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the conservation easement East Side of the project captures 85% of the
watershed streams. Restoration of UT1 will involve removal of the old Pond 1 and 3 embankments,
removal of the accumulated sediments behind the dam, and restoration of the approximate historic
valley profile. UT1 will be restored through the new valley with bankfull depth relative to the valley
floor. The buffers will also be converted from agricultural fields to planted native woody tree and shrub
species. The restored buffer will provide filtration for overland flow from remaining upland agricultural
fields. Additionally, three BMPs will be constructed to treat points of concentrated agricultural runoff.
The project stream and valley restoration will address the major sediment sources within the watershed
by protecting stream banks, removing unconsolidated alluvial deposits, and reducing channel shear
stress. The post-construction streams will not be capacity limited; therefore, the focus of sediment
transport analysis for design was to verify that the designed channels will be stable over time and have
the competence to pass the sediment that continues to be delivered by the watershed.
The design on the West Side of the Site will restore a wetland stream complex, reconnecting streams to
their floodplains, and providing positive stream slope down to South Deep Creek. The ditch network that
currently bypasses UT2B will be removed, and a BMP will be installed to capture fine sediments from
the upland fields prior to entering the Site. Similarly, an agricultural road that delivers fine sediments to
upper UT2 will either be decommissioned and stabilized or it will be routed into a BMP, where
sediments can settle out before reaching Site streams. With the BMPs, the post-construction streams
will not be capacity limited; therefore, the focus of sediment transport analysis for design was to verify
that the designed channels will be stable over time and have the competence to pass the sediments that
continue to be delivered by the watershed.
7.5.1 Competence Analysis
Competence analyses were performed during design for each of the restoration reaches by comparing
shear stress associated with the design bankfull discharge, proposed channel dimensions, and proposed
channel slopes with the size distribution of the existing bed load. The analysis utilized standard
equations based on a methodology using the Shields (1936) curve and Andrews (1984) equation
described by Rosgen (2001). Channel slope and design dimensions were varied until the resulting design
verified that the stream reach could move the bed load supplied to the stream. The results of the
analysis are shown in Tables 19-21.
Table 19: Results of East Side Competence Analysis – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site

UT1
Reach 1 Reach 2A Reach 2B Reach 3
Dbkf (ft) 0.46 0.53 0.75 0.81
Schan (ft/ft) 0.0622 0.0290 0.0180 0.0156
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 1.74 0.95 0.75 0.76
Dmax Bar/Subpavement (mm) 50 78 78 98
Dcrit (ft) 0.06 0.32 0.51 0.56
Scrit (ft/ft) 0.0078 0.0173 0.0122 0.0109
Movable particle size (mm) 228 146 123 125
Predicted Shear Stress to move Dmax 0.22 0.40 0.40 0.55

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 35 December 8, 2017
Table 20: Results of West Side Competence Analysis – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
UT2
UT3 Reach 1 Reach 1 Reach 2
Dbkf (ft) 0.52 0.70 0.90
Schan (ft/ft) 0.0200 0.0400 0.0110
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 0.66 1.66 0.61
Dmax Bar/Subpavement (mm) 81 48 52
Dcrit (ft) 0.39 0.10 0.34
Scrit (ft/ft) 0.0152 0.0070 0.0034
Movable particle size (mm) 112 221 106
Predicted Shear Stress to move Dmax 0.43 0.21 0.23

The initial competence analysis was based on the size material naturally found in the stream to mimic
potential bed load. The results were used to inform further design of the reach. The excess shear
throughout all Site streams influenced the design of rock and wood step structures to provide grade
control and increase roughness within the channel. Riffles with larger materials, such as chunky riffles,
were also integrated into the design as grade control. The proposed D50 and D100 for the constructed
riffles on all stream reaches will be sized so that the reconstructed channels will not produce enough
shear stress to entrain the largest particles in these structures. This will ensure a stable pavement while
allowing for bed load material to be active within the system.
7.6 Project Implementation
7.6.1 East Side
The primary stressors to UT1 are sediment-laden impoundments, concentrated agricultural runoff
inputs, confinement against the valley wall, active stream incision and head cutting, and lack of
stabilizing streamside vegetation due to agriculture practices. Wildlands’ approach to restoring UT1 will
focus on treating concentrated inputs of agricultural runoff, removing breached and eroding dams and
sediments behind them, reconnecting the stream to its floodplain and stabilizing active headcuts,
returning the stream to the center of its valley, and replacing sinuosity that was likely removed during
agricultural ditching. At the beginning of UT1, upstream of the jurisdictional stream call, BMP1 will be
installed to treat concentrated agricultural runoff from a small neighboring farm area. BMP1 is designed
as a Step Pool Conveyance System (SPSC), fitted within the steep, ephemeral portion of UT1 to filter the
agricultural runoff through sand and promote groundwater infiltration. Below this, at the headcut where
UT1 becomes intermittent and begins to incise, UT1 will be reconnected to the valley bottom using
Priority 1 restoration. Full restoration is proposed instead of enhancement on this intermittent reach to
allow for reconnection of the system to the valley bottom without the use of Priority 2 restoration
further downstream. UT1 transitions to a perennial channel within 200 feet of its inception. UT1’s valley
here is over 6%, and the stream is designed as a Rosgen Ba with energy dissipated vertically over steps.
Steps will be intermixed with cascade riffles modeled after the steep riffles observed on the reference
stream UT to Kelly Creek. Step spacing was guided by measurements from UT to Kelly Creek and by the
step pool geometric scaling documented in Chartrand and other’s paper on step-pools (Chartrand et. al,
2011). Although designed as an Ba-type stream, which generally exists within a V-shaped valley, UT1’s
valley provided some space for a small floodplain, and one is provided consistently along UT1 Reach 1’s
length.
Another BMP (BMP2) will be installed where concentrated agricultural inputs enter UT1 from the left
floodplain, at the location of historic Pond 2. BMP2 is designed as a sediment basin to capture the high

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 36 December 8, 2017
volume of fine sediments that runoff the contributing agricultural fields. A rock outlet channel will
convey the treated runoff down to the UT1 valley bottom.
Remnant dams at Pond 1 and Pond 3 will be removed, and pond sediments will be excavated to restore
the approximate historic valley bottom. The design here could classify as a Priority 2 due to the
necessary excavation to restore the valley profile. The stream design continues as a Rosgen Ba-type
stream until the downstream extent of Pond 3, where Reach 1 ends and Reach 2A begins. The valley
slope here drops to 3.1%, and the design transitions to a Rosgen B-type stream. The stream will be
relocated away from its ditched location at the right valley toe, and aligned in the center of the
floodplain. Energy will be dissipated over steps and long riffles. At the confluence with UT1A, the valley
slope flattens again to 2.3%, and the design transitions to a meandering Rosgen C-type stream, where
energy is dissipated laterally in pools and vertically over long riffles. UT1 will continue to occupy the
center of the floodplain, and UT1A, a preservation stream, will be extended to meet the alignment of
the newly restored UT1. At UT1’s confluence with UT1B, the valley slope drops slightly to 2.0%, and the
drainage area increases. UT1 Reach 3 continues below this point as a Rosgen C-type design, but with
slightly larger dimensions to accommodate the increased watershed size. At a concentrated flow point
of an ephemeral ditch entering from the right floodplain, a SPSC BMP (BMP3) will be installed to treat
the agricultural runoff and arrest the ditch erosion before entering UT1. UT1 Reach 3 is a Priority 1
design until just upstream of the Reach 3/Reach 4 break, when a short length of Priority 2 restoration is
used to bring UT1 down to meet the invert of the existing stream channel. UT1 Reach 4 is a preservation
reach, but some minor enhancements including bank stabilization and the addition of a few habitat
structures will be completed to transition the stream from restoration to preservation.
The function of the BMPs on the East Side is to trap sediment and nutrients coming from outside the
conservation easement while the Site stabilizes. The BMPs will not be monitored or maintained, and are
intended to evolve over time to provide more passive treatment associated with natural areas. The
SPSCs (BMP1 and BMP3) may fill gradually over time and transition to a stable channel. The sediment
basin (BMP2) will fill with sediment and vegetate, transitioning its function to a vegetative filter. The
outlet of BMP2 will remain the low spot, and flows from this area will still enter the riparian zone
through the rock stabilized channel.
The concept plan for East Side Site restoration is illustrated in Figure 8.2.
7.6.2 West Side
The primary stressors to streams on the West Side are the extensive agricultural manipulation through
ditching, deep incision, and the lack of bedform diversity. Wildlands’ focus on this side of the Site is to
holistically restore the bottomland by removing drainage ditches, removing the overburden material
and rebuilding the valley toe that was previously excavated, and restoring the streams and wetlands to
their natural position in the South Deep Creek floodplain. UT3’s ditch, which runs along the property
boundary, will be filled in and the drainage will be restored using Priority 1 restoration through a broad
floodplain to connect with UT2 and the other West Side tributaries. A temporary construction easement
has been secured to allow for UT3’s relocation off the property boundary. UT3’s alignment mimics the
historic alignment described by neighbor John Kessler and runs across the areas where buried stream
sediments were encountered. UT3A, a non-project stream which joins UT3 in the northeast corner of
the West Side, will be extended to join UT3 within the Site limits. The old UT3 channel, below the
Drainage A confluence will be partially filled and graded as a swale with positive drainage towards South
Deep Creek to allow Drainage A to flow. UT2A will also be restored using Priority 1 restoration to
connect with UT3 at a location upstream of the UT2 confluence. Full restoration was selected instead of
enhancement on intermittent stream UT2A due to the ditched condition of the existing stream and its
lack of bedform diversity. The series of farm ditches that currently divert UT2B’s flow to the hillside ditch

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 37 December 8, 2017
will be filled in, and UT2B will be restored to the center of its valley and meandered downstream using
Priority 1 restoration to join UT2. To address the heavy fine sediment contribution coming from the
agricultural drainage upstream of UT2B, a dry detention basin BMP (BMP4) will be installed upstream
from UT2B’s inception point. Additional buffer will be planted at the upper end of UT2B to stabilize
ephemeral ditches and intercept concentrated runoff. To treat the sediment-laden runoff from the
agricultural road in the right floodplain or UT2 Reach 1, the road will either be decommissioned and
stabilized, or it will be routed into an additional dry detention basin BMP (BMP5). To ensure that road
drainage reaches the BMP, a temporary construction easement will be secured to regrade the offsite
road into a ditch which will outlet to the BMP. This work will be depicted in the final construction plans,
if implemented.
Below the UT2, UT2A, UT2B, and UT3 confluence, the proposed channel (UT3 Reach 3) will be
meandered through the right floodplain of South Deep Creek north of the stream’s approximate existing
alignment to join the channel network with South Deep Creek more directly. A short length of UT3
Reach 3 is designed to be incised as it drops to meet the invert of South Deep Creek; however, step
height is limited to no more than 0.5’ to allow for aquatic species from South Deep to navigate into the
newly restored design reaches. It is expected that, under backwater conditions, refuge in the tributaries
will not be problematic as structures will drown out.
In-stream structures on West Side streams will include various types of constructed riffles, log sills,
boulder sills, lunker logs, and j-hooks. The structures will reinforce channel stability and serve as habitat
features. The constructed riffles will be comprised of excavated on-site riffle material from the adjacent
hillslopes where possible, or quarry stone may be used if an on-site source cannot be found. The riffles
will incorporate woody brush material and logs. The diverse range of constructed riffle types will provide
grade control, diversity of habitat, and will create varied flow vectors. Log -j-hooks will deflect flow
vectors away from banks while adding to habitat diversity. Log sills will be used to allow for small grade
drops across pools. At select outer meander bends, the channel banks will be constructed with brush
toe revetments to reduce erosion potential, encourage pool maintenance, and provide varied pool
habitat. Lunker logs in combination with sod mats will also be used to provide pool habitat variability.
The function of the BMPs on the West Side is to trap sediment and nutrients coming from outside the
conservation easement while the Site stabilizes. The BMPs will not be monitored maintained, and are
intended to evolve over time to provide more passive treatment associated with natural areas. The dry
detention basins (BMP4 and BMP5) will fill with sediment and vegetate, transitioning its function to a
vegetative filter. The outlets of these BMPs will remain the low spot, and flows from these areas will still
enter the riparian zone through the rock stabilized channel.
The concept plan for Site restoration is illustrated in Figure 8.1.
7.7 Proposed Wetland Design Overview
The proposed design includes the restoration of 9.5 acres of historically altered wetlands which will be
re-established as a stream and wetland complex through the West Side bottomland floodplain of South
Deep Creek. Wildlands performed a multilevel analysis of the proposed wetland area to holistically
understand farming and anthropogenic effects, current and proposed hydrologic conditions, and the
potential for hydric soil development.
7.7.1 Hydric Soil Investigation
After reviewing the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) web soil survey mapping and
performing site visits to evaluate potential for wetland restoration on-site, Wildlands contracted a LSS to
perform a detailed hydric soil evaluation of the site to determine the site’s potential for hydric soil

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 38 December 8, 2017
development. Ninety-five soil borings were performed on a 100-foot grid within the soils study area to
assess the presence or absence of hydric soil indicators. At boring locations, the depth below the
existing land surface to appropriate hydric soil indicators was noted. Soil borings were classified into
three categories based on the depth to hydric soil: hydric indicators from 0 to 10-inches of depth, buried
hydric indicators (below 10-inches of depth), and non-hydric. The report from the LSS (Appendix 9)
supported Wildlands’ initial impressions that the site has been heavily altered for use as an agricultural
field. Current topographic mapping suggests that the toe of the hillslopes surrounding the proposed
wetland area have been removed and used to crown the agricultural fields to increase agricultural
production. A volumetric estimation of these hillslope projections indicates that 60,000 cubic yards of
soil could have been removed from this hill toe area and used to crown the 16 acre field by 28 inches.
After the completion of the LSS hydric soils evaluation, Wildlands met with the Interagency Review
Team (IRT) on-site to confirm the findings within the hydric soils evaluation. Based on the meeting with
the IRT, the overall presence of potential hydric soils was confirmed and for further clarification
Wildlands developed three zones of potential wetland area. The zones of potential wetland area were
developed based on the depth to hydric soil indicators and the hydric soil criteria based on individual
indicators (F3 versus F19). Potential wetland area zones with less than 12-inches of depth to hydric soils
and obvious hydrologic manipulation were chosen as the areas with the most potential for wetland
restoration through re-establishment. Areas with greater than 12-inches of depth to hydric soil
indicators and limited hydrologic manipulation were excluded from the potential wetland restoration
zone. These zones, along with the groundwater modeling outlined below, were used to aid in the
development of the wetland restoration grading plan for the Site.
7.7.2 Groundwater Modeling
To further inform the wetland restoration design, an analysis of the existing and proposed conditions for
groundwater hydrology was performed using DrainMod (version 6.1). Existing and proposed
groundwater hydrology conditions were simulated as water table depth over time. DrainMod was
selected for this application because it is a well-documented modeling tool for assessing wetland
hydrology (NCSU, 2010) and is commonly used in wetland restoration projects.
A representative groundwater gage model was developed and calibrated to evaluate the existing and
proposed conditions within a central location of the wetland restoration zone. The locations and raw
data from the pre-project monitoring wells are shown in Figure 6.1 and Appendix 4, respectively.
Resulting model output was used to validate the wetland restoration plan and to develop a basic water
budget for the site.
DrainMod models are built using site hydrology, soil, and climate data. Temperature and precipitation
data were obtained from nearby weather station Yadkinville 6E (Station GHCN:USC00319675) which is
operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service.
The Yadkinville 6E weather station is located approximately 7 miles away from the proposed mitigation
site. Observed hydrograph peaks align with the precipitation data, indicating that the precipitation
trends are consistent between the weather station and the mitigation site. These data were used to
calibrate the model and perform the long-term simulation.
The existing calibration and proposed models were developed using the conventional drainage option
with the hydrologic analysis of wetlands feature incorporated to best simulate the drainage of the site.
The analyzed gage was installed in November of 2016 and recorded groundwater depth twice per day
with In-situ Level TROLL® pressure transducers. The period from January through the end of March 2017
was used as the calibration period for the groundwater models. Recordings from November 2016 to

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 39 December 8, 2017
December 2016 were not used for the calibration due to drought conditions creating atypical
groundwater levels.
A baseline soil input file was developed using published soil survey data collected for the mapped soils
found on-site (NRCS, 2017). The soil file was refined by adjusting certain parameters for the mapped
soils using in-situ soil profiles and characterizations. To calibrate the model, soil parameters not
measured in the field were adjusted within the limits typically encountered under similar soil and
geomorphic conditions. After calibration of the model was complete, the calibrated model was used as
the basis for the proposed conditions model. Plots showing the calibration result are included in
Appendix 4.
Trends in the observed data are well-represented by the calibration simulations. Although hydrograph
peaks between plots of observed and simulated data do not match exactly and the model results under-
predict water levels during some periods, relative changes in water table hydrology because of
precipitation events correspond well between observed data and model results and under predictions
indicate that proposed conditions model results will be conservative.
The proposed conditions model was developed based on the calibrated existing conditions model to
predict whether wetland criteria would be met over a long period of historical climate data. Proposed
plans for the site include realigning the streams to increase sinuosity and raising the stream bed inverts.
In addition, existing ditches that currently drain the site will be filled. Grading is proposed within the
wetland zone to remove overburden and restore the natural valley topography of the site. The proposed
grading will decrease the surface elevation of the existing site to bring hydric soils within the top 12
inches of the soil. Cut depth is limited to approximately 12 inches throughout the site. The proposed
wetland areas will be disked and planted with native wetland plants.
Settings for the proposed conditions model were altered to reflect the proposed design changes of the
site. Ditch spacing values were edited to account for filled ditches and restored stream alignments.
Proposed grading and raised channel beds related to stream restoration were modeled by reducing
depths from the soil surface to the draining channels for the modeled well. Surface storage values were
increased to account for proposed roughening and planting of herbaceous plants on site. Once the
proposed conditions model was developed, the model was run for a 59-year period from January 1958
through December 2016 using temperature and precipitation data from the Yadkinville 6E NOAA
weather station.
The calibrated existing conditions model was compared with the proposed conditions scenario to
determine the effect of proposed practices on local hydrology. Model simulations were then analyzed to
predict the success of the groundwater hydrology function on the site. The wetland performance
standard evaluated is that the water table must be within 12 inches of the ground surface for a
minimum of 9.2% (19 consecutive days) of the growing season (April 4 through October 27). Sources
used to set the wetland performance standard for the site include discussions with the IRT and LSS,
Table 1 (wetland saturation threshold values) within the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update dated October 24, 2016, reference well data from the Deep Creek
Mitigation Site, and past project experience. Growing season dates were defined by the Yadkinville 6E
North Carolina WETS table for 50% probability of soil temperatures greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit.
The model run simulations indicate that the modeled groundwater gage (GWG4, Figure 6.1 and 11.1),
would not meet the required wetland performance standard with the site in its current condition any of
the 59 modeled years. Average periods of inundation for the site without any changes sustain for
approximately 4 days. Once proposed design changes are incorporated into the model, 52 out of the 59

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 40 December 8, 2017
modeled years meet the wetland performance standard with periods of inundation lasting anywhere
from 19 to 60 days depending on precipitation patterns.
DrainMod computes daily water balance information and outputs summaries that describe the loss
pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. Table 21 below summarizes the average annual
amount of rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and evapotranspiration estimated for the modeled
location onsite. Infiltration represents the amount of water that percolates into the soil. Drainage is the
loss of infiltrated water that travels through the soil profile and is discharged to the drainage ditches or
to underlying aquifers. Runoff is water that flows overland and reaches the drainage ditches before
infiltration. Evapotranspiration is water that is lost by the direct evaporation of water from the soil or
through the transpiration of plants. The water balance results provided in the table show
evapotranspiration increasing in the proposed condition when compared to the existing condition due
to more standing surface water available to evaporation. Runoff remains virtually the same, as initial
abstraction rates are changed minimally. Drainage values are reduced by approximately 9 cm of depth
across the site by reducing the depth of adjacent streams and the filling of onsite ditches.
Table 21: Summary of Water Balance for Gauge 4 – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Hydrologic Parameter
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions
Average Annual
Amount
(cm of water)
Average Annual
Amount
(% of precip)
Average Annual
Amount
(cm of water)
Average Annual
Amount
(% of precip)
Precipitation 114.7 100% 114.7 100%
Infiltration 111.7 97% 111.3 97%
Evapotranspiration 67.0 58% 73.7 64%
Drainage 44.7 38% 37.5 33%
Runoff 2.9 3% 3.4 3%
The model results and water budget, in concurrence with the reference wetland data and the hydric
soils investigation, support that the proposed design changes to the Site will restore wetland hydrologic
processes required for hydric soil development and re-establish the proposed stream and wetland
complex.
7.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The objective of the planting plan is to establish, over time, a thriving riparian buffer composed of native
tree species. This restored buffer will improve riparian and wetland habitat, help the restored streams
stay stable, shade the streams, and provide a source for LWD and organic material to the streams. The
Site will also generate SMUs and WMUs for the Yadkin 01 CU. Non-forested areas within the
conservation easement will be planted, which includes additional buffer areas far beyond the minimum
requirement of 50 feet from top of bank as shown in Appendix 9. Riparian buffers will be seeded and
planted with early successional native vegetation chosen to develop species diversity like a Piedmont
Bottomland Forest community (Schafale, 2012). The specific species composition to be planted was
selected based on the community type, observation of occurrence of species in riparian buffers adjacent
to the Site, and best professional judgement on species establishment and anticipated Site conditions in
the early years following project implementation. Species chosen for the planting plan are listed on
Sheet 4.0 of the Draft Plans located in Appendix 6.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 41 December 8, 2017
The riparian buffer and wetland areas will be planted with bare root seedlings. In addition, the stream
banks of larger cross section reaches will be planted with live stakes and the channel toe will be planted
with multiple herbaceous species. Permanent herbaceous seed will be spread on streambanks,
floodplain areas, and disturbed areas within the project easement.
Invasive species within the riparian buffers of restoration reaches will be treated at the time of
construction. The extent of invasive species coverage will be monitored, mapped, and controlled as
necessary throughout the required monitoring period. Please refer to Appendix 7 for the invasive
species plan. Additional monitoring and maintenance issues regarding vegetation are in Sections 8 and 9
and Appendix 8.
7.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties
In general, this project is low risk. The land use surrounding the project is currently in agricultural
production, so there is not a potential for accidental livestock access. Wildlands holds an option to
purchase fee simple the Site parcels and most of the agricultural fields in the watershed. We will be able
to influence or dictate agricultural practices that occur adjacent to the conservation easement. Due to
the rural nature of the area, the potential for the urban development of UT1A and UT1B’s watershed to
occur soon is quite low, and the remaining watersheds are zoned to remain rural.
8.0 Performance Standards
The stream and wetland performance standards for the project have been developed based on guidance
presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (October 2015), the Annual Monitoring Template (April
2015), and the Stream and Wetland Mitigation Guidance issued October 2016 by the USACE. Annual
monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project.
Specific performance standard components are proposed for stream morphology, hydrology,
vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the seven year
post-construction monitoring period. An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
8.1 Streams
8.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width-to-depth ratio. All riffle cross-sections should fall within
the parameters defined for the designated stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be
evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability
include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Remedial action would not be taken if
channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. Please note that UT3 Reach 3 is designed to
incise as it transitions to meet the invert of South Deep Creek and this reach is expected to have a bank
height ratio greater than 1.0 and an entrenchment ratio less than 2.2.
8.1.2 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.
8.1.3 Substrate
Restoration reaches should show maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller
particles in the pool features. A reach‐wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach
each monitoring year for classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed
riffle to characterize the pavement during the baseline monitoring only. Riffles may fine over the course
of monitoring due to the stabilization of contributing watershed sediment sources.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 42 December 8, 2017
8.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site’s vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross-
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent of mid-channel bars or vertical incision. Grade control
structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable.
Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
8.1.5 Hydrology
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented throughout the monitoring period. Four bankfull
flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The four bankfull events
must occur in separate years. In addition, low flow channels (UT1 Reach 1, UT2A, and UT2B) will each
have a stream gage pressure transducer installed midreach to document 30 consecutive days of
baseflow.
8.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative performance standard will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the
planted riparian areas at the end of the required seven-year monitoring period. The interim measure of
vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of
monitoring year three (MY3) and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of MY5. 42: “VThe extent of
invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required
monitoring period.
8.3 Wetlands
The final performance standard for wetland hydrology will be a free groundwater surface within 12
inches of the ground surface for 19 consecutive days (9.2 percent) of the defined growing season for
Yadkin County (April 4 through October 27) under typical precipitation conditions. This performance
standard was determined through model simulations of post restoration conditions and comparison to
reference wetland systems. A detailed discussion of the modeling approach to determining this
performance standard as well as definitions and determinations of a target hydroperiod are included in
Section 7.7.2 of this report. If a gage does not meet the performance standard for a given monitoring
year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will be compared to that of the reference
wetlands to assess whether atypical weather conditions occurred during the monitoring period.
8.4 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above.
9.0 Monitoring Plan
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are
met and project goals and objectives are achieved. Annual monitoring data will be reported using the
DMS Annual Monitoring Reporting Template (April 2015). The monitoring report shall provide project
data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of
DMS databases for analysis and research purposes, and assist in close-out decision making.
Using the DMS As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (February 2014), a baseline monitoring
document and as-built record drawings of the project will be developed following the planting
completion and monitoring installation on the restored site. Monitoring reports will be prepared in the
fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS by November 30. These reports will be based on the
DMS Annual Monitoring Template (April 2015) and Closeout Report Template (March 2015). The

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 43 December 8, 2017
closeout monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction or until
performance standards have been met. If all performance criteria have been successfully met and at
least two bankfull events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose to terminate
stream and/or vegetation monitoring after five years.
Table 22, below, describes how the monitoring plan is set up to verify that project goals and objectives
have been achieved.
Table 22: Monitoring Plan – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Goal Treatment Performance
Standards
Monitoring
Metric Outcome Likely Functional
Uplift
Improve stream
channel stability.
Restore stream channels
with bankfull channel
dimension and pattern
suited to the valley type.
Bank height ratios stay
below 1.2. Visual
assessments showing
progression towards
stability.
Cross-section
monitoring and
Visual
assessment.
Stable stream
channels with
bank height
ratios below 1.2.
Reduction in
sediment inputs
from bank erosion,
reduction of shear
stress, and improved
overall hydraulic
function.
Reconnect
channels with
historic
floodplains and
re-establish
wetland
hydrology and
function in relic
wetland areas.
Remove man-made
impoundments,
accumulated sediments,
and culvert crossings
from streams. Remove
historic farm
overburden from relic
wetlands. Restore
stream channels with
bankfull dimensions
relative to the
floodplain. Restore
stream plan form to
promote development
of mutually beneficial
stream/wetland
complex.
Streams: Stream
profile and pattern
must remain stable
(note description of
stability in Section
8.1).
Wetlands: Free
groundwater surface
within 12 inches of the
ground surface for 9.2
% (19 consecutive
days) of the growing
season (April 4
through October 27)
for wetland areas.
Cross-section
monitoring,
Visual
assessment, and
groundwater
gage monitoring
Stable stream
channels with
entrenchment
ratios over 2.2
and bank height
ratios below
1.2.1
Dispersion of high
flows on the
floodplain, increase
in biogeochemical
cycling within the
system, and
recharging of
riparian wetlands.
Improve instream
habitat.
Remove man-made
impoundments and
culvert crossings within
easement. Install habitat
features such as
constructed riffles, cover
logs, and brush toes into
restored/enhanced
streams. Add woody
materials to channel
beds. Construct pools of
varying depth.
There is no required
performance standard
for this metric.
Visual
assessment
The visual
inspection of
instream aquatic
habitat would
progress,
showing increase
complexity over
time.
Increase in available
habitat niches for
macroinvertebrates
and fish leading to
an increase in
biodiversity over
time.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 44 December 8, 2017
Goal Treatment Performance
Standards
Monitoring
Metric Outcome Likely Functional
Uplift
Reduce sediment
and nutrient input
from adjacent
farm fields
Construct two step pool
stormwater conveyance
and up to three dry
detention BMPs to slow
and treat runoff from
farm fields before
entering Site streams.
There is no required
performance standard
for this metric.
None
Stormwater
conveyance and
dry detention
BMPs remain
functional, trap
sediment and
treat agricultural
runoff.
Reduction in
floodplain sediment
inputs from runoff,
improved aquatic
habitat and water
quality.
Restore and
enhance native
floodplain and
wetland
vegetation.
Plant native tree and
understory species in
open and shaded
riparian areas where
currently insufficient.
In open areas planted;
Survival of 210
planted stems per
acre at MY7. Interim
survival of at least 320
planted stems at MY3
and at least 260
planted stems per
acre at MY5. No
success criteria is
associated with
shaded area planting.

Permanent and
mobile 100
square meter
vegetation plots
within planted
open areas.
Shaded areas
planted will be
visual assessed.
Planted open
area stem
densities will be
at or above 210
planted stems
per acre at MY7.
Reduction in
floodplain sediment
inputs from runoff,
increased bank
stability, increased
LWD and organic
material in streams,
increased
biogeochemical
cycling in floodplain,
and improved
riparian habitat.
Permanently
protect the
project site from
harmful uses.
Establish a conservation
easement on the Site.
Record and close
conservation
easement prior to
implementation.
Visual
assessment
Site remains
protected by
conservation
easement in
perpetuity.
Protection of the
Site from
encroachment into
the conservation
easement and direct
impact to stream
and wetlands.
Supports all
functions.
9.1 Monitoring Components
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 23 and 24. Approximate locations of
the proposed vegetation plots and groundwater gage monitoring components are illustrated in Figure
11.1 and 11.2.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 45 December 8, 2017
Table 23: East Side Monitoring Components – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Parameter Monitoring Feature
Quantity/Length by Reach
UT1
Reach 1
UT1
Reach 2
UT1
Reach 3
UT1
Reach 4 UT1A UT1B Frequency Notes
Dimension Riffle Cross-sections 1 4 2 N/A N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 1 Pool Cross-sections 1 3 2 N/A N/A N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Substrate Reach wide (RW)
Pebble Count 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW N/A N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 3
Hydrology Crest Gage (CG) and/or
Transducer (SG) 1 SG 1 CG & SG Semi-Annual 4
Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile
Plots 15 (10 permanent, 5 mobile) N/A N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5
Visual
Assessment Y Y Y N/A N/A N/A Semi-Annual
Exotic and
nuisance
vegetation
Semi-Annual 6
Project Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference Photos Photographs 18 1 1 1 Annual
1. Cross-sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of
water, and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as-built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations
indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair
work.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling will be collected during the baseline monitoring only. Substrate assessments in subsequent monitoring years will consist of reachwide
substrate monitoring.
4. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers, if used, will
be set to record stage once every 2 hours. The transducer will be inspected and downloaded semi-annually. A transducer will be installed on the intermittent portion of UT1 Reach
1 and UT2A to document 30 days of continuous flow.
5. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for the open areas planted. 2% of the open planted acreage (30.66 Ac) will be
monitored with permanent plots within the first 50’ stream buffer and 1% of the open planted acreage (36.5 Ac) will be monitored with mobile plots beyond the first 50’ stream
buffer. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted
stems and species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 46 December 8, 2017
Table 24: West Side Monitoring Components – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Parameter Monitoring
Feature
Quantity/Length by Reach
Frequency Notes UT2
Reach 1
UT2
Reach 2 UT2A UT2B UT3
Reach 1
UT3
Reach 2
UT3
Reach 3
Wetland Re-
establishment
Dimension Riffle Cross-sections 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5,
and 7 1 Pool Cross-sections 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Profile Longitudinal
Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Substrate Reach wide (RW)
pebble count 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5,
and 7 3
Stream
Hydrology
Crest Gage(CG)
and/or Transducer
(SG)
1 CG & SG 1 CG &
SG
1 CG &
SG 1 CG & SG N/A Semi- Annual 4
Wetland
Hydrology
Groundwater
Gages 9 Quarterly
Vegetation CVS Level
2/Mobile Plots 25 (15 permanent, 10 mobile) Year 1, 2, 3, 5,
and 7 5
Visual Assessment Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Semi- Annual
Exotic and nuisance
vegetation Semi- Annual 6
Project Boundary Semi- Annual 7
Reference Photos Photographs 20 Annual
1. Cross-sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water,
and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as-built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations
indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling will be collected during the baseline monitoring only. Substrate assessments in subsequent monitoring years will consist of reachwide substrate
monitoring.
4. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers, if used, will be
set to record stage once every 2 hours. The transducer will be inspected and downloaded semi-annually. A transducer will be installed on the intermittent portion of UT2A to document
30 days of continuous flow.
5. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems and
species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. 2% of the non-shaded planted acreage will be monitored with permanent plots within the 50’ stream buffer, and 1% of the
non-shaded planted acreage will be monitored with mobile plots beyond the 50’ stream buffer. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 47 December 8, 2017
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan
The Site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for
the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment
system within the non-reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The
use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A-
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for stewardship, monitoring,
stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as
needed. No livestock, fencing, or crossings are currently present or planned for the project area. Any
future livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility the owner of the
underlying fee to maintain.
The Site Protection Instrument can be found in Appendix 1.
Table 25: Long-term Management Plan – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Long-Term Management Activity Long-Term Manager Responsibility Landowner Responsibility
Signage will be installed and
maintained along the Site
boundary to denote the area
protected by the recorded
conservation easement.
The long-term steward will be
responsible for inspecting the Site
boundary and for maintaining or
replacing signage to ensure that the
conservation easement area is clearly
marked.
The landowner shall report
damaged or missing signs to the
long-term manager, as well as
contact the long-term manager if
a boundary needs to be marked,
or clarification is needed
regarding a boundary location. If
land use changes in future and
fencing is required to protect the
easement, the landowner is
responsible for installing
appropriate approved fencing.
The Site will be protected in its
entirety and managed under the
terms outlined in the recorded
conservation easement.
The long-term manager will be
responsible for conducting annual
inspections and for undertaking
actions that are reasonably calculated
to swiftly correct the conditions
constituting a breach. The USACE, and
their authorized agents, shall have the
right to enter and inspect the Site and
to take actions necessary to verify
compliance with the conservation
easement.
The landowner shall contact the
long-term manager if clarification
is needed regarding the
restrictions associated with the
recorded conservation easement.
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of Site construction, Wildlands will implement the post-construction monitoring
defined in Sections 8 and 9. Project maintenance will be performed during the monitoring years to
address minor issues as necessary (Appendix 8). If, during annual monitoring it is determined the Site’s
ability to achieve Site performance standards are jeopardized, Wildlands will notify the members of the
IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 48 December 8, 2017
12.0 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 26 are projections based upon the proposed design. The Site is
submitted for mitigation credit in the Yadkin 03040101. Upon completion of construction, the project
components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as-built condition.
The credit ratios proposed for the Site have been developed in consultation with the Interagency Review
Team (IRT) as summarized in technical memoranda dated July 19, 2016, and January 25, 2017. This
correspondence is included in Appendix 9.
1. The requested stream restoration credit ratio is 1:1, for mitigation activities that include
reconstruction of the channels to a stable form and connection of the channels to the adjacent
floodplain and will be generally performed on channels that are “not functioning” from the
existing conditions functional pyramid assessment. This work will result in restoration of the
dimension, pattern, and profile of the channels. The riparian buffers will be removed from
agricultural production and planted with native tree species. Best management practices will be
installed upstream of UT1 Reach 1, UT1 Reach 3, and UT2B to treat concentrated agricultural
runoff as part of the restoration work.
2. The requested Preservation credit ratio is 10:1, for reaches that are properly “functioning” (F)
and do not require additional work for ecological uplift. These reaches have been protected in
perpetuity by a conservation easement. This credit ratio is consistent with the most recent IRT
guidance for preservation reaches.
3. The entire length of UT1 Reach 4 is proposed for preservation credit at 10:1 credit, but the
upstream most 400 LF will receive Enhancement I-type treatment as a transition from the
upstream restoration reach. Additionally, buffer restoration will occur in the right floodplain.
Buffers proposed throughout the Site meet the minimum required 50-foot standard width for Piedmont
streams, and in most cases, far exceed it. Approximately 75% of restoration reaches have buffers greater
than the buffer standard (75 to greater than 150 feet for purposes of credit calculation). A detailed
buffer credit calculation based on the October 24, 2016, USACE guidance for Additional Credit for
Buffers Exceeding Minimum Standard Widths was completed to accurately account for credit additions
throughout the Site. Wildlands analyzed buffer width across the project site to calculate credit increases
based on buffer widths. To complete these calculations, CAD software was used to offset the proposed
easement in toward the creek by a standard 50-foot buffer. This standard buffer width was reviewed to
assess where the buffer was wider than standard based on the belt width of the stream at outer
meander bends. Figures in Appendix 9 illustrate the variances from a standard buffer width of 50 feet.
Credit percent increases were cut in half and applied to either the left or right bank as appropriate.
Appendix 9 contains detailed credit calculations.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 49 December 8, 2017
Table 26: Project Asset Table – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Riparian Buffer
Type R RE R RE R RE R RE
Totals 13,058 106 9.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components
Project
Component or
Reach ID
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Proposed
Stationing Location
Approach
(P1, P2, etc.)
Restoration
(R) or
Restoration
Equivalent
(RE)
Restoration
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit1, 2
UT1 R1, R2a, R2b,
R3 6,015 101+39 - 158+60 P1, P2 R 5,721 1 6,698
UT1 R4 659 158+60 – 165+19 P4,
Preservation RE 659 10 66
UT1A 230 180+00 - 182+82 Preservation RE 282 10 28
UT1B 48 190+00 - 191+24 Preservation RE 124 10 12
UT2 R1, R2 2,527 200+00 – 217+03 P1, P2 R 1,703 1 1,933
UT2A 1,184 400+34 - 406+89 P1 R 655 1 699
UT2B 699 500+00 – 507+84 P1, P2 R 784 1 893
UT3 R1, R2, R3 2,008 300+13 – 327+15 P1, P2 R 2,702 1 2,835
West Side
Wetlands N/A N/A Re-
establishment R 9.5 1 9.5
Component Summation
Restoration Level Proposed
Stream (LF)
Riparian
Wetland
(Acres)
Non-Riparian Wetland
(AC)
Buffer
(sq.ft.)
Upland
(AC)
Restoration 11,565 9.5 N/A N/A N/A
Preservation 1,065 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
1. No direct credit for BMPs.
2. Credits reported have been adjusted based on buffer width deviations from standard 50-foot buffer width. Detailed
calculations included in Appendix 9.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 50 December 8, 2017
13.0 References
Anthony, T., Hunter, B., Austin, K., Myers, B., Blackwell, D., Miler, D., Cornelius, J., Pardue, G., Doub, T.,
Swain, T., Hamby, A., Wooten, B., Hennings, B., Wooten, C. R. 2011. Yadkin County Land Use Plan.
http://www.yadkincountync.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/965
Chartrand, S.M., Jellinek, M., Whiting, P.J., Stamm, J. 2011. Geometric scaling of step-pools in mountain
streams: Observations and implications. Geomorphology 129:141-151.
Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company. New
York.
Giese, G.I and Robert R. Mason Jr. 1993. Low-Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2403.
Harman, W.A. and C.J. Jones. 2016. Functional Lift Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in
North Carolina: Data Collection and Analysis Manual. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC.
Harman, W.A. and C.J. Jones. 2016. Functional Lift Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in
North Carolina: Spreadsheet User Manual Version 2. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC.
Harman, W. R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Harman 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.
Hosking, J. R. M., and J. R. Wallis. 1993. Some statistics useful in regional frequency analysis, Water
Resour. Res., 29(2), 271–281, doi:10.1029/92WR01980.
Kessler, John, personal communication, December 29, 2015.
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resources
Management. 1996. Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) Field Methods. Montgomery County,
Maryland.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey of Yadkin County.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section, scale
1:500,00, in color.
NCGS, 2013. Mineral Resources. http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-
resources/north-carolina-geological-survey/mineral-resources
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Yadkin County, NC.
North Carolina State University (NCSU), 2010. DrainMod Related Publications.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/soil_water/drainmod/drainmod_papers.html#wetland
Reavis, Hughes personal communication, December 23, 2015.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 51 December 8, 2017
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March 2001.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximateion. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Shore, Franklin, personal communication, June 20, 2017.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Shields, D. F., Copeland, R. R, Klingman, P. C., Doyle, M. W., and Simon, A. 2003. Design for Stream
Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(8): 575-582.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Federal Public Notice: Notification of Issuance of
Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District.
October 24, 2016.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2014. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Yadkin County, NC.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/Yadkin.html
Walker, Alan, unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve.
FIGURES
0304010109005003040101080060
03040101070060
03040101130010
03040101140010
03040101140020
03040101130020
03040102020030
03040102020020
03040101160010
03040101200010
03040102020040
03040101200020
03040102020060
03040102010080
Harmony Woods
North Deep
Creek Bluffs
Davie County
Open Space
Yadkin
County Open
Space
Land Trust for
Central North
Carolina Easement
NC Agriculture
Development and
Farmland Preservation
Trust Fund Easement
NC Clean Water
Management
Trust Fund Easement
NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
Easement
Piedmont Land
Conservancy
Easement
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin 03040101
Yadkin County, NC¹0 2.5 Miles
Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14 Digit)
Water Supply Watershed LEGEND
Targeted Local Watershed
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
NC Historic Preservation Areas
303d Listed Streams
Yadkinville
!
!
!
!
!
!South Deep Creek
UT3A UT2 R2UT2AUT3 R2UT
2
BUT2 R3U
T
2

R
1UT3 R1UT1 R2UT1 R3U
T
1

R
1
U
T
1

R
4
UT
1
A UT
1B
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 2 Site Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Site
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Open Water
Existing Wetland
Project Streams
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Non Project Stream
Drainage A
Contours (4 ft)
!Reach Break
¹
West Side
East Side
2014 Aerial Imagery
UT3UT2UT1UT1
A
U
T
1
BSouth Deep CreekUT2AUT
2
B
Figure 3 Existing Watershed Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
0 1,000 2,000 Feet ¹
2014 Aerial Photography
Proposed Conservation Easement
UT1 (286 acres)
UT2 (170 acres)
UT3 (392 acres)
UT1A (92 acres)
UT1B (31 acres)
UT2A (27 acres)
UT2B (6 acres)
Project Stream
Non Project Stream
Contours (4 FT)
0 1,200 2,400 Feet
Figure 4 Topographic Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC¹
Proposed Conservation Easement
Lone Hickory, USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
!
!
!
!
!
!
XWXW
XWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XWXWXWXW
XW
XW
XWXW
XW
XW
UT3A South Deep CreekDmA
DoB
FaD
CrA StB
TaE
FsF
FaE
SmD
FaE
FaEDoB
TaE
SmF CcC2
FtF
FeD3
FdE2
WoF
WwF
CrA
RdE
DhA
FdE2
FdD2
CaB
RdD
CcB2
CcC2
FdD2
CcC2
TeE2
UT1 R2UT1 R3U
T
1

R
1
U
T
1

R
4
UT
1
A UT
1BUT2 R2UT2AUT3 R2
UT
2
BUT2 R3U
T
2

R
1UT3 R10 250 500 Feet
Figure 5 Soils Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Stream
Non Project Stream
Drainage A
!Reach Break
XW Exposed Bedrock
CaB- Clifford fine sandy loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
CcB2 - Clifford sandy clay loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes, moderately eroded
CcC2 - Clifford sandy clay loam, 6 to 10
percent slopes, moderately eroded
CrA- Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
DhA- Dan River and Codorus soils, 0 to 2
percent slopes, occasionally flooded
DmA- Dan River and Comus soils, 0 to 4
percent slopes, occasionally flooded
DoB- Delila fine sandy loam, 0 to 6
percent slopes
FaD- Fairview fine sandy loam, 10 to 15
percent slopes
FaE- Fairview fine sandy loam, 15 to 25
percent slopes
FdD2- Fairview sandy clay loam, 10 to 15
percent slopes, moderately eroded
FdE2- Fairview sandy clay loam, 15 to 25
percent slopes, moderately eroded
FeD3- Fairview clay loam, 10 to 15 percent
slopes, severely eroded
FsF- Fairview-Stott Knob complex, 25 to 45
percent slopes
FtF- Fairview-Stott Knob complex, 25 to 45
percent slopes, stony
RdD - Rhodhiss-Stott Knob complex, 8 to
15 percent slopes, stony
RdE- Rhodhiss-Stott Knob complex, 15 to
25 percent slopes, stony
SmD - Siloam sandy loam, 10 to 15
percent slopes
SmF- Siloam sandy loam, 25 to 50 percent
slopes
StB- Starr loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes,
rarely flooded
TaE- Toast fine sandy loam, 15 to 25
percent slopes
TeE2- Toast sandy clay loam, 15 to 25
percent slopes, moderately eroded
WoF- Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield
complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes
WwF- Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield
complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes, stony
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@ASouth Dee
p
Cr
e
ek
Open Water B
Open Water A
Open Water C
Wetland I
UT3A
XS 6
XS 7
XS 8
X
S

1
1
XS 3
XS 10
XS 9 XS 14XS 5
XS 1XS 2
XS 4 XS 13XS

1
2
GWG 8
GWG 7
GWG 6
GWG 5
GWG 4
GWG 3
GWG 2
GWG 1
Barotroll UT2 R2UT2AUT3 R2
UT
2
BUT2 R3U
T
2

R
1UT3 R10 250 500 Feet
Figure 6.1 Existing Conditions Map - West Side
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Open Waters
Existing Wetlands
Existing Perennial Stream
Existing Intermittent Stream
Non Project Stream
Cross Sections
Ditch
Drainage A
@A Groundwater Gage
&(Stream Bed Gravels Found
!Reach Break
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
Open Water C
Wetland I
X
S

5
XS 3XS 14XS 1XS 2
XS 4 XS 13XS

6
XS 4
XS 3
XS 1XS 6
XS 2
XS 5
UT
2
B
U
T
2

R
1UT2 R2UT2 R2UT
1
A
UT
1

R
1 UT
1B
U
T
1

R
4
U
T
1

R
3
UT1 R2
Wetland E
Wetland F
Wetland G
Wetland HFormer
Pond 1
Former
Pond 3
Former Pond 2
Former Pond 4
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 6.2 Existing Conditions Map - East Side
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Former Impoundment
Existing Perennial Stream
Existing Intermittent Stream
Non Project Stream
Cross Section
Ditch
!Reach Break
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
Lone Hickory Rd
Figure 7 FEMA Floodplain Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
¹0 500 1,000 Feet
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
#
#
!
!
!
!
!""""""
"
"
"
""
""
""
"
""
"""""
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""""""
""
""
""
""
"
"
"""""
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"South Dee
p
Cr
e
ek
UT3 Reac
h 1UT3 Reach 2UT3 Reach 3UT
2A
UT
2

R
e
a
c
h

1
UT2B
UT2 Reach
2
UT3A
BMP 4
Potential
BMP 5
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 8.1 Concept Design Map - West Side
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Wetland Re-establishment
Proposed Stream Restoration
Non Project Stream
Drainage A
Proposed Grading
!Reach Break
#Proposed BMP Location
Wetland Boring Classification
"Buried Hydric
"Hydric
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
#
#
#
#
#
!
!
!
!
!
Open Water C
Wetland I UT
1
R
e
a
c
h

4
UT
1

R
e
a
c
h

3
UT1 Reach 2BUT
1
R
e
a
ch

1
UT
1
B
UT
1
A
UT1 Reach 2ABMP 3
BMP 2
BMP 1
BMP 4
Potential
BMP 5
Wetland G
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 8.2 Concept Design Map - East Side
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Non Project Stream
Proposed Grading
!Reach Break
#Proposed BMP Location
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#*
UT to Kelly Branch
Lone Hickory Onsite Reference
UT to South Fork Catabwa - Vile Preserve
Pilot Mountain Trib
UT to South Crowders
Deep Creek Mitigation Site
UT to Lyle
Cooleemee Plantation
Figure 9 Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
¹
2013 Aerial Photography
#*Project Location
!Reference Reach
0 10 20 Miles
Lipscomb Grove

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Figure 10 Discharge Analysis
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
2013 Aerial Photography
y = 89.039x0.7223R² = 0.9069
y = 55.699x 0.7855R² = 0.9931
y = 51.766x 0.6319R² = 0.7982
1
10
100
1000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Discharge (cfs)Drainage Area (square miles)
Lone Hickory Design Discharge Plot
Rural Data Rural Upper 95% Limit
Rural Lower 95% Limit Alan Walker Curve
Qmax - Existing Site Streams Reference Reach Curve
USGS Rural Piedmont Calculator 1.2-yr Predictions Design Discharges
Power (Rural Data)Power (Alan Walker Curve)
Power (Reference Reach Curve)
#
#
@A @A
@A @A
@A
@A
@A @A
@A
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!
!
!
!
!
@?
@?
@?
@?South De
e
p
Cr
e
ek
UT3 Reac
h 1UT3 Reach 2UT3 Reach 3UT
2A
UT
2

R
e
a
c
h

1
UT2B
UT2 Reach
2
UT3A
BMP 4
Potential
BMP 5
GWG 1 GWG 2
GWG 3 GWG 4
GWG 5
GWG 6
GWG 7 GWG 8
GWG 9
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 11.1 Monitoring Plan - West Side
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Planting - Wetland
Planting - Open
Planting - Pasture
Planting - Shaded
Stream Restoration
Non Project Stream
Drainage A
Proposed Cross Section
!Reach Break
#Proposed BMP Location
@A Proposed Groundwater Gage
"Proposed Vegetation Plot
@?Stream/Crest Gage
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
#
#
#
#
#
!
!
!
!
!
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
@?
@?
@?
Open Water C UT
1
R
e
a
c
h

4
UT
1
R
e
a
c
h

3
UT1 Reach 2BUT
1
R
e
a
c
h

1
UT
1
B
UT
1
A
UT1 Reach 2AX
S

5
XS 3XS 14XS 1XS 2
XS 4 XS 13XS

6
BMP 3
BMP 2
BMP 1
BMP 4
Potential
BMP 5
Wetland G
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 11.2 Monitoring Plan - East Side
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Planting - Wetland
Planting - Open
Planting - Pasture
Planting - Shaded
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Preservation
Non Project Stream
Proposed Cross Section
!Reach Break
#Proposed BMP Location
"Proposed Vegetation Plot
@?Stream/Crest Gage
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
South De
e
p
Creek
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 12 Stream and Wetland Impacts
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Wetland Impacts
Stream Impacts
Non Project Streams
!Reach Breaks
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
APPENDIX 1
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Appendix 1
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 1 December2017
Appendix 1 Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed in Table 1. All parcels are optioned for purchase by Wildlands Engineering,
Inc. (Wildlands). Upon transfer of lands to Wildlands, a conservation easement will be recorded on the
parcels and includes streams and wetlands being restored and preserved along with their corresponding
riparian buffers. A temporary construction access easement is also recorded on adjacent parcels which
allows the fill and relocation of UT3 off the property boundary and onto the Site.
The recorded temporary construction easements are included in this appendix.
Table 1: Site Protection Instrument – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Current Landowner PIN County
Under Option
to Purchase
by Wildlands?
Memorandum of
Option/Temporary
Access and
Conservation
Easement Deed Book
(DB) and Page Number
(PG)
Acreage to be
Protected
Reavico Farms, Inc.
580500888433
580500847703
580500677286
Yadkin Yes DB: 1173 PG: 0001 87.10
Ann R. Steelman
Howard F. Steelman 580500785291 Yadkin Yes DB: 1173 PG: 0019 11.78
Nancy R. Shore
Michael S. Shore
Hughes M. Reavis
Cynthis H. Reavis
Joel D. Reavis
Jennifer B. Reavis
Janet R. Wall
Charles M. Wall
580500778441 Yadkin Yes DB: 1173 PG: 0008 4.30
Danny W. Williams*
Sherrie Williams* 580500672235 Yadkin No DB: 01174 PG:384-395 N/A
John J. Kessler*
Allison Kessler* 580500681228 Yadkin No DB: 01174 PG:384-395 N/A
Ruth H. Myers* 5805586073 Yadkin No DB: 01174 PG:384-395 N/A
*Agreement for temporary construction easement
The conservation easement template that will be used for recordation is included in this appendix. All
site protection instruments require 60-day advance notification to the USACE and or DMS prior to any
action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the
State.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 1 of 11

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
_______________ COUNTY
SPO File Number:
DMS Project Number:
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this ________day of ________________, 20__, by Landowner name goes here
, (“Grantor”), whose mailing address is Landowner address goes here , to the State of
North Carolina, (“Grantee”), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of
Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The
designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as
required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 2 of 11

protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and

WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between ( insert name and
address of full delivery contract provider ) and the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, to provide stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract
Number __________.

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this
instrument; and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 3 of 11

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in __________ Township, ___________ County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately ________
acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book _____ at Page ____
of the _________ County Registry, North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of if known,
insert name of stream, branch, river or waterway here.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.

The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:

Tracts Number ________________ containing a total of _________ acres as shown on the plats
of survey entitled “Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services, Project Name: ___________, SPO File No.__________, EEP Site No. ___________,
Property of _________________________,” dated ___________, 20__ by name of surveyor,
PLS Number __________ and recorded in the ______________ County, North Carolina Register
of Deeds at Plat Book _______ Pages __________.

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

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

I. DURATION OF EASEMENT

Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor’s heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 4 of 11

II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 5 of 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 6 of 11

III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES

A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore, construct, manage,
maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other riparian resources in
the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long-term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the
rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.

B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in-stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.

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

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

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

IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 7 of 11

power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages
from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.

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

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

D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor’s acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.

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

V. MISCELLANEOUS

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

B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 8 of 11

obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 9 of 11

VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT

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

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

AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 10 of 11

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

___________________________________ (SEAL)

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF _________________

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

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

________________________________________
Notary Public

My commission expires:

______________________________

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 29 April 2015
Page 11 of 11

Exhibit A

[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]

APPENDIX 2
WETLAND JD FORMS
UT2
BUT3
UT2AUT2UT
1
A UT
1B
UT10 500 1,000 Feet
Figure 3 Site Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Potential Open Waters of the US
Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.2
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Open Water B
Open Water A
Open Water C
Wetland I
UT
2
BUT3
UT2AUT2DP1
DP2
DP9
DP8
SCP 10
SCP 6
SCP 5
SCP 7
SCP 8
0 250 500 Feet
Figure 3.1 Site Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Potential Open Waters of the US
Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Potential Perennial Non-Wetland Water of the US
Potential Intermittent Non-Wetland Water of the US
!(Data Points
!(Stream Classification Points (SCP)
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(UT1Wetland E
Wetland F
Wetland G
Wetland H
DP3
DP4
DP5
DP6
SCP 1
SCP 2
0 100 200 Feet
Figure 3.2 Site Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Potential Perennial Non-Wetland Water of the US
Potential Intermittent Non-Wetland Weater of the US
!(Data Points
!(Stream Classification Points (SCPs)
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
!(
!(
!(
!(
UT
1
A UT
1B
UT1DP6
SCP 4
SCP 3
Wetland G
Wetland H
0 500 1,000 Feet
Figure 3.3 Site Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Potential Wetland Waters of the US
Potential Perennial Non-Wetland Waters of the US
!(Data Points
!(Stream Classification Points (SCPs)
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Lone Hickory FDP Yadkin 7-13-2016
Wildlands Engineering Inc.NC DP3- Wetland E and F
Alea Tuttle, Tracey Marshall Yadkinville
old pond bed concave unk
MLRA 136 (Southern Piedmont)36.0842685°-080.6620892°
DoB (Delila fine sandy loam)
Hydrology disturbed and soil naturally problematic, resulting from land use history of water retention structures. Several ephemeral drainage features and the
intermittent UT1 channel contribute hydrologic and sediment inputs to Wetland E, Iron rich groundwater input provides the origin of perennial flow in UT1 at the
southernmost edge of Wetland E, resulting in naturally problematic higher chroma soils. An old dam structure separates Wetland E and Wetland F, which share similar
characteristics. The UT1 channel undergoes a series of deep headcuts advancing through legacy sediments of these old pond beds, resulting in dramatic changes in
the base level of groundwater. As headcuts advance upstream, wetland hydrology is lost in the abandoned terrace, hydric vegetation gradually becomes less prevalent,
and hydric soil indicators become less prominent. The surrounding landscape slopes steeply toward the old impoundments in a narrow valley bottom.
✔
✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔
✔✔✔
✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔
✔
✔2
✔0 ✔
previous inspection 1-7-2016, AT & IE
Intermittent portion of UT1, and other contributing ephemeral drainage ditches indicate rainwater
naturally accumulates in this area. Some micro-topographic relief (microhighs) with indicators of
hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV
DP3- Wetland E and F
Salix nigra
Diospyros virginiana
Prunus serotina
Acer rubrum
Juglans nigra 5
10
5
5
10
35
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
FACU
OBL
FAC
FACU
FAC
3
3
100
17.5 7
none
✔
none
Bidens frondosa
Murdannia keisak
Polygonum sagittatum
Pilea pumila
Polygonum persicaria
60
5
10
10
5
2
92
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
FAC
FACW
OBL
OBL
FACW
FACW
Microstegium vimineum
46 18.4
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP3- Wetland E and F
0-2
2-5
5-12
7.5YR 4/4
10YR 5/2
2.5Y 3/2
100
90
100
7.5YR 4/6 10 C PL
SILT LOAM
SILT LOAM
SAND
PROBLEMATIC IRON-RICH GROUNDWATER
✔
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Lone Hickory FDP Yadkin 7-13-2016
Wildlands Engineering Inc.NC DP4- Upland
Alea Tuttle, Tracey Marshall Yadkinville
hillslope convex
MLRA 136 (Southern Piedmont)36.0843508°-80.6620021°
TaE (Toast fine sandy loam)
Data point is on a western facing hillslope draining toward wetlands E, F, and G. The area is in >10
year old pine plantation with closed canopy and very little understory.
✔
✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔
✔
✔✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV
DP4- Upland
Juglans nigra
Pinus palustris 70%
20%
90%
Yes
Yes
FAC
FACU
3
6
50
45%18%0
0
85 255
42 168
0
127 423
3.33
Rubus argutus
5%
2%
7%
Yes
Yes
FAC
FACU
Diospyros virginiana
3.5%1.4%
Verbesina occidentalis
10%
20%
30%
Yes
Yes
FAC
FACU
Microstegium vimineum
15%6%
Vitis sp.1%
1%
Yes NI
✔0.5%0.2%
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP4- Upland
0-6
6-12
7.5 YR 4/6
7.5 YR 4/6
100
90 5YR 5/8 10 C PL
sandy loam
loam
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Lone Hickory FDP Yadkin 7-13-2016
Wildlands Engineering Inc.NC DP5- Wetland G
Alea Tuttle, Tracey Marshall Yadkinville
old pond bed concave unk
MLRA 136 (Southern Piedmont)36.0855927° -80.6628162°
DoB (Delila fine sandy loam)
Hydrology is disturbed, resulting from land use history of water retention structures. A perennial stream and several ephemeral drainage
features contribute hydrologic and sediment inputs to Wetland G. Perennial stream UT1 cuts through the center of wetland and becomes
braided in areas due to the change in slope and sediment load. Multiple headcuts are forming at the northernmost edge of the wetland,
where a small drainage ditch and a drain pipe influence the hydrology, and UT1 returns to a single thread channel. The surrounding
landscape slopes steeply toward the old impoundment. Occasional areas of standing surface water.
✔
✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔
✔✔✔
✔✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
1
✔2
✔0 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV
DP5- Wetland G
Salix nigra 10%
10%
Yes OBL 3
4
75%
✔
2%
2%
Yes FACULiriodendron tulipifera
1%0.5%
Microstegium vimineum
Pilea pumila
Polygonum sagittatum
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Juncus effusus
Murdannia keisak
Solidago gigantea
Carex lurida
25
25
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
100
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
OBL
FAC
FACW
OBL
FAC
FACW
OBL
FACW
OBL
Leersia oryzoides
50 20
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP5- Wetland G
0-4
4-12
2.5Y 3/1
2.5Y 4/2
90
100
2.5Y 4/4 10 C PL
sandy silty loam
mucky sandy loam
✔
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Lone Hickory FDP Yadkin 7-13-2016
Wildlands Engineering Inc.NC DP6 Wetland H
Alea Tuttle, Tracey Marshall Yadkinville
valley bottom concave
MLRA 136 (Southern Piedmont)36.0862963°-80.6627752°
DoB (Delila fine sandy loam)
Hydrology is significantly disturbed; origin of saturation and flow emanating from the dam wall of Wetland G, where there is
iron-rich groundwater seepage and a poorly functioning drainage pipe. This linear wetland has flowing water pressed
against valley wall to east with access to a moderately wide floodplain bench to west, however there were no indicators of
recent flooding on bench. Terminus of wetland at UT1 is stabilized by a large flat boulder as takes a sharp turn north.
✔
✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔
2
✔0
✔0 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV
DP6 Wetland H
2
4
50
0
6% 12
6% 18
6% 24
18 54
3
✔
Acer negundo
5%
2%
7%
Yes
Yes
FACU
FAC
Ligustrum sinense
3.5 1.4
Polystichum acrostichoides
Deparia acrostichoides
Dryopteris carthusiana
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Carex sp.
Pilea pumila
Microstegium vimineum
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
5%
5%
2%
17
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
UPL
FACU
FAC
FAC
FACW
NI
FACW
FAC
Sanicula canadensis
8.5%3.4%
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP6 Wetland H
0-5
5-12
2.5Y 3/1
2.5Y 4/1
95%
98%
2.5Y 5/4
2.5Y 5/6
5%
2%
C
C
PL
PL
sand
silty sand
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Lone Hickory FDP Yadkin 7-13-2016
Wildlands Engineering Inc.NC DP8 Wetland I
Alea Tuttle, Tracey Marshall Yadkinville
floodplain concave
MLRA 136 (Southern Piedmont) 36.0940960°-80.6672008°
DoB (Delila fine sandy loam)
Small sparsely vegetated concave area of saturation with thin layer of muck at the base of a hillslope in farmfield.
Presence of culvert to drain under farm road suggests this area is perennially saturated under typical climatic
conditions. Evidence of tilling and maintenance with herbicide due to location within a field planted in row crops.
✔
✔✔✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔✔
✔✔
✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔
1
✔0
✔0 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV
DP8 Wetland I
3
4
75
✔
Pilea pumila
Ludwigia sp.
Ipomoea sp.
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
OBL
FACW
OBL
NI
Leersia oryzoides
2%<1%
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP8 Wetland I
0-1
1-9
9-12
2.5 Y 4/2
2.5 Y 4/2
2.5 Y 3/1
100%
100%
80% 2.5 Y 4/3 20% D M
organic muck
mucky sand
sand
A10 indicator
S1 indicator
S6 indicator
✔
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Lone Hickory FDP Yadkin 7-13-2016
Wildlands Engineering Inc.NC DP9 - Upland
Alea Tuttle, Tracey Marshall Yadkinville
terrace none
MLRA 136 (Southern Piedmont)36.0941224°-80.6672458°
DoB (Delila fine sandy loam)
Data point in farm field adjacent to ditch, Planted in soybeans.
✔
✔✔✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔
✔
✔✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Five Strata) – Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV

UDGLXV
DP9 - Upland
Dactylis sp.
50%
10%
60%
Yes
Yes
NI
NI
Glycine max
30% 12%
✔
field planted in soybeans
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
DP9 - Upland
0-12 7.5YR 4/4 98% 2.5Y/R 3/6 2% C PL silt loam iron masses
✔
soil in tilled field planted in row crops (soybeans)
APPENDIX 3
DWR STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORMS
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Appendix 3
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 1 December 2017
Appendix 3 DWR Stream Identification Forms
The results of the DWR Stream Identification Forms are listed in the table below. DWR forms can be
found in this appendix and in the digital submission to DMS. DWR forms were completed by Wildlands
for all project streams.
Table 1: DWR Form Summary – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Stream Geomorphology
Score
Hydrology
Score
Biology
Score Total Score
UT1 (Intermittent) 10.5 6 7 23.5
UT1 (Perennial) 11.5 11.5 7.5 30.5
UT1A 16 8.5 12 36.5
UT1B 15 8.5 10 33.5
UT2 22.5 9 12 43.5
UT2A (Intermittent) 4.5 9 7.5 21
UT2A (Perennial) 3.5 9 11.5 24*
UT2B 7.5 10.5 13 31
UT3 22 8.5 10.5 41
*This portion of UT2A scored below the NCDWR point threshold for perennial streams (30 points) however
due the presence of fish (not mosquitofish, Gambusia) was classified as perennial.
APPENDIX 4
DATA, ANALYSIS, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, FIGURES, AND MAPS
min max min max min max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross-
sectional area Abkf SF
avg velocity
during bankfull
event
vbkf fps
width at
bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth
at bankfull dmax feet
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width
to depth ratio wbkf/dbkf
low bank height feet
bank height
ratio BHR
floodprone area
width wfpa feet
entrenchment
ratio ER
max pool depth
at bankfull dpool feet
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf
pool width at
bankfull wpool feet
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf
Bkf pool cross-
sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf
pool-pool pacing p-p feet 5 20 29 42 18 32
pool-pool
spacing ratio p-p/Wbkf 1.0 4.2 3.3 4.7 1.8 3.2
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schannel feet/foot
sinuosity K
belt width wblt feet 6 12 12 14
meander width
ratio wblt/wbkf 1.3 2.5 1.2 1.4
meander length Lm feet 9 19 14 43
meander length
ratio Lm/wbkf 1.9 4.0 1.4 4.3
linear
wavelength LW 25 41 38 51
linear
wavelength
ratio
LW/wbkf 5.2 8.5 3.8 5.1
radius of
curvature Rc feet 3 8 5 12
radius of
curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf 0.6 1.7 0.5 1.2
E5b G4
0.07 0.37
Parameter Notation Units
UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2
4.8 8.9
1.4 1.3
3.8 7.2
2.9 4.8
5.3 3.4
3.8 2.6
0.8 0.8
6.2 11.0
1.4 1.4
1.8 1.8
13.1 13.2
2.7 1.5
1.2 0.8
5.3 8.1
1.1 0.9
N/A
0.0411 0.0454
0.0295 0.0256 0.0101
1.13
0.0049
E4
0.45
13.4
4.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.08 1.04
4.4 6.0
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
9.0
0.9
9.1
0.7
1.7
31.1
3.1
1.7
1.3
10.0
1.9
1.3
7.5
3.3
UT1 Reach 3
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97135
Appendix 4
December 2017
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 1, UT1 Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
4.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.3 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
6.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
6.4 width-depth ratio
--- W flood prone area (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
4.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes
Cross Section (ft)(ft)(ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 1, UT1 Reach 1 0.00925.77 FALSE (XS1)XS1
longitudinal station ---1.43 925.28 FALSE (XS1)XS1
alignment 5.12 924.74 FALSE (XS1)XS1
feature 11.86 923.55 FALSE (XS1)XS1
18.15 923.05 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Bankfull Stage 23.76 922.61 FALSE (XS1 ltb)XS1 l
elevation 917.06 ---25.26 921.42 FALSE (XS1)XS1
27.42 919.76 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Low Bank Height 28.78 918.97 FALSE (XS1)XS1
elevation 921.38 29.94 918.21 FALSE (XS1)XS1
30.75 918.06 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Flood Prone Area 32.85 918.01 FALSE (XS1)XS1
width fpa ---33.99 917.94 FALSE (XS1 bkf)XS1
34.84 917.14 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Channel Slope 35.46 916.18 FALSE (XS1)XS1
percent slope ---36.41 915.94 FALSE (XS1 lew)XS1
36.87 915.77 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Flow Resistance 37.09 915.70 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Manning's "n"---37.52 915.65 FALSE (XS1)XS1
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---38.09 915.84 FALSE (XS1 rew)XS1
38.34 916.26 FALSE (XS1)XS1
For Stream Type:39.06 916.68 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Is braided channel?FALSE 39.32 916.76 FALSE (XS1 bkf)XS1
Sinuosity, k 40.06 916.83 FALSE (XS1)XS1
D50 ---40.95 918.73 FALSE (XS1)XS1
41.33 921.38 FALSE (XS1 rtb)XS1 r
Note:46.26 921.38 FALSE (XS1)XS1
47.04 921.31 FALSE (XS1)XS1
56.91 921.75 FALSE (XS1)XS1
66.39 921.46 FALSE (XS1)XS1
70.86 921.66 FALSE (XS1)XS1
77.78 922.36 FALSE (XS1)XS1
85.87 923.14 FALSE (XS1)XS1
88.35 923.68 FALSE (XS1)XS1
91.18 924.95 FALSE (XS1 riffle)XS1
View Downstream
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
0 102030405060708090100Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Pool
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 2, UT1 Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.8 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
5.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
6.2 width-depth ratio
13.1 W flood prone area (ft)
2.7 entrenchment ratio
3.8 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 2, UT1 Reach 1 0.00924.62 FALSE (XS2)XS2 --
longitudinal station ---6.26 923.65 FALSE (XS2)XS2
alignment 12.20 923.12 FALSE (XS2)XS2
feature 20.77 922.46 FALSE (XS2 ltb)XS2 l
21.50 921.01 FALSE (XS2)XS2
Bankfull Stage 24.01 919.10 (XS2)XS2
elevation 916.78 ---26.35 917.46 (XS2)XS2
27.40 917.21 (XS2)XS2
Low Bank Height 28.69 917.03 (XS2 bkf)XS2
elevation 920.59 29.45 916.86 (XS2)XS2
30.28 916.44 (XS2)XS2
Flood Prone Area 30.99 916.03 (XS2)XS2
width fpa 13.1 11.5 31.39 915.73 (XS2)XS2
31.63 915.56 FALSE (XS2 lew)XS2
Channel Slope 32.07 915.48 FALSE (XS2)XS2
percent slope ---32.52 915.47 FALSE (XS2)XS2
33.12 915.43 FALSE (XS2)XS2
Flow Resistance 33.39 915.61 FALSE (XS2 rew)XS2
Manning's "n"---33.68 916.38 FALSE (XS2)XS2
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---33.93 916.50 FALSE (XS2 bkf)XS2
34.44 916.78 FALSE (XS2)XS2
For Stream Type:35.71 917.76 FALSE (XS2)XS2
Is braided channel?FALSE 36.51 917.89 (XS2)XS2
Sinuosity, k 37.83 918.69 FALSE (XS2)XS2D50---40.59 920.59 FALSE (XS2 rtb)XS2
45.38 920.88 FALSE (XS2)XS2
Note:51.36 921.63 FALSE (XS2)XS2
60.47 921.51 FALSE (XS2)XS2
69.78 922.42 FALSE (XS2)XS2
75.01 922.93 FALSE (XS2)XS2
80.02 924.60 FALSE (XS2)XS2
83.73 925.53 FALSE (XS2)XS2
View Downstream
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
0 102030405060708090Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Riffle
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 3, UT1 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
6.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.1 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
9.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
10.8 width-depth ratio
--- W flood prone area (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
2.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf wapp3--e
reference ID 3, UT1 Reach 2 0.00870.84 FALSE (XS3 pool)XS3---
longitudinal station ---12.55 868.47 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
alignment 53.66 865.46 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
feature 63.74 865.25 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
79.80 864.64 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
Bankfull Stage 86.26 865.05 FALSE (XS3 ltb)XS3 l ----
elevation 862.378 ---87.60 863.69 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
88.95 862.34 (XS3)XS3 ----
Low Bank Height 89.48 861.80 (XS3)XS3 ----
elevation 865.05 89.92 861.38 (XS3 lew)XS3 ----
89.87 861.09 (XS3)XS3 ----
Flood Prone Area 90.70 860.98 (XS3)XS3 ----
width fpa ---91.29 861.04 (XS3)XS3 ----
92.10 861.29 (XS3 rew)XS3 ----
Channel Slope 94.10 861.63 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
percent slope ---94.14 861.68 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
95.87 862.24 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
Flow Resistance 96.99 862.38 FALSE (XS3 bkf)XS3 ----
Manning's "n"---98.19 862.75 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---99.16 864.63 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
100.93 866.55 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
For Stream Type:101.72 866.94 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
Is braided channel?FALSE 103.19 867.86 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
Sinuosity, k 103.53 868.34 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----D50 ---105.49 870.04 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
107.72 870.42 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
Note:108.32 870.67 FALSE (XS3)XS3 ----
FALSE ----
FALSE ----
FALSE ----
View Downstream
860
862
864
866
868
870
872
0 102030405060708090100110Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Pool
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 4, UT1 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
7.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.9 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.3 max depth (ft)
10.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
11.0 width-depth ratio
13.2 W flood prone area (ft)
1.5 entrenchment ratio
2.6 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf wapp3--e
reference ID 4, UT1 Reach 2 0.00870.54 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ---
longitudinal station ---5.20 869.49 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
alignment 11.63 868.31 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
feature 52.78 865.12 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
60.28 864.99 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
Bankfull Stage 69.30 864.42 (XS4)XS4 ----
elevation 862.192 ---78.29 864.30 (XS4)XS4 ----
82.31 864.14 (XS4)XS4 ----
Low Bank Height 84.21 864.29 (XS4)XS4 ----
elevation 864.29 85.79 863.87 (XS4)XS4 ----
86.71 863.17 (XS4)XS4 ----
Flood Prone Area 87.64 862.40 (XS4)XS4 ----
width fpa 13.2 13.2 88.06 861.08 (XS4 lew)XS4 ----
88.63 860.98 (XS4)XS4 ----
Channel Slope 89.48 860.95 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
percent slope ---90.45 861.01 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
91.18 860.92 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
Flow Resistance 92.52 861.06 FALSE (XS4 rew)XS4 ----
Manning's "n"---93.18 861.54 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---94.36 861.81 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
96.63 862.19 FALSE (XS4 bkf)XS4 ----
For Stream Type:97.59 862.43 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
Is braided channel?FALSE 101.05 864.28 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
Sinuosity, k 102.06 865.98 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----D50 ---103.23 867.31 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
104.06 867.81 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
Note:105.94 868.73 FALSE (XS4)XS4 ----
109.46 870.31 FALSE (XS4 riffle)XS4----
FALSE ----
FALSE ----
View Downstream
860
862
864
866
868
870
872
0 102030405060708090100110Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Riffle
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 5, UT1 Reach3
Bankfull Dimensions
13.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.0 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
11.7 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1 hyd radi (ft)
7.5 width-depth ratio
31.1 W flood prone area (ft)
3.1 entrenchment ratio
1.7 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf wapp3--e
reference ID 5, UT1 Reach3 0.00787.30 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ---
longitudinal station ---5.72 785.48 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ----
alignment 7.11 785.18 FALSE (XS5 ltb)XS5 l ----
feature 12.18 785.33 FALSE (XS5 ltb)XS5 l ----
13.79 785.03 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ----
Bankfull Stage 16.48 784.57 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ----
elevation 783.441 ---17.80 784.10 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ----
18.71 783.44 FALSE (XS5 bkf)XS5 ----
Low Bank Height 19.05 783.33 FALSE (XS5 lew)XS5 ----
elevation 784.85 19.95 782.85 FALSE (XS5 lew)XS5 ----
20.23 781.68 FALSE (XS5 lew)XS5 ----
Flood Prone Area 20.89 781.55 (XS5)XS5 ----
width fpa 31.1 31.1 21.62 781.56 (XS5)XS5 ----
22.86 781.79 (XS5)XS5 ----
Channel Slope 24.45 781.81 (XS5)XS5 ----
percent slope ---25.46 781.76 (XS5)XS5 ----
26.60 782.01 (XS5 rew)XS5 ----
Flow Resistance 27.31 782.27 (XS5)XS5 ----
Manning's "n"---28.14 782.72 (XS5)XS5 ----
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---28.36 783.18 (XS5 bkf)XS5 ----
28.56 783.36 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ----
For Stream Type:29.60 783.87 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ----
Is braided channel?FALSE 30.52 784.43 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ----
Sinuosity, k 32.26 784.85 FALSE (XS5 rtb)XS5 ----D50 ---35.02 784.89 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ----
39.17 785.62 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ----
Note:43.12 785.87 FALSE (XS5)XS5 ----
49.36 786.27 FALSE (XS5 riffle)XS5----
FALSE ----
FALSE ----
View Downstream
780
782
784
786
788
0 1020304050Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Riffle
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 6, UT1 Upper Reach 3
Bankfull Dimensions
9.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.0 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
10.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9 hyd radi (ft)
8.8 width-depth ratio
--- W flood prone area (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
2.8 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf wapp3--e
reference ID 6, UT1 Upper Reach 3 0.00787.60 FALSE (XS6)XS6 poo---
longitudinal station ---8.66 786.51 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
alignment 11.54 786.07 FALSE (XS6 ltb)XS6 l ----
feature 16.83 783.80 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
19.05 783.38 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
Bankfull Stage 22.05 783.11 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
elevation 782.813 --- 24.20 782.88 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
25.90 783.02 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
Low Bank Height 27.58 782.81 FALSE (XS6 bkf)XS6 ----
elevation 785.84 29.23 782.45 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
30.00 782.24 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
Flood Prone Area 30.77 781.71 (XS6)XS6 ----
width fpa ---32.08 781.50 (XS6 lew)XS6 ----
33.13 781.39 (XS6)XS6 ----
Channel Slope 33.77 781.20 (XS6)XS6 ----
percent slope ---35.13 781.14 (XS6)XS6 ----
35.76 781.37 (XS6)XS6 ----
Flow Resistance 36.00 781.38 (XS6 rew)XS6 ----
Manning's "n"---36.22 782.33 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---36.33 782.70 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
36.87 783.00 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
For Stream Type:37.88 785.62 FALSE (XS6 rtb)XS6 ----
Is braided channel?FALSE 40.38 785.84 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
Sinuosity, k 46.23 785.69 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----D50 ---53.96 785.83 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
59.96 785.97 FALSE (XS6)XS6 ----
Note:FALSE ----
FALSE ----
FALSE ----
FALSE ----
View Downstream
780
782
784
786
788
0 102030405060Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Pool
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull
12/22/2015; UT1 Pond 1 Headcut on initial site visit 12/29/2015; UT1 Pond 1 Headcut (1 wk)
1/7/2016; UT1 Pond 1 Headcut (2 wk) 7/15/2016; UT1 Pond 1 Headcut (7 months)
6/21/2017, UT1 Pond 1 Headcut (18 months)

UT1 – Reach 2A. Incision, bank erosion, and instream deposition of fines

UT1 – Reach 2A. Heavy sediment load, valley wall and bank erosion near bedrock outcrop

UT1 – Reach 2B, Consistent bank erosion, mass wasting of valley wall, and embedded riffle substrate.

UT1 – Reach 2B, Consistent bank erosion, fine sediments in stream channel.
min max min max min max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross-
sectional area Abkf SF
avg velocity
during bankfull
event
vbkf fps
width at
bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth
at bankfull dmax feet
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width
to depth ratio wbkf/dbkf
low bank height feet
bank height
ratio BHR
floodprone area
width wfpa feet
entrenchment
ratio ER
max pool depth
at bankfull dpool feet
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf
pool width at
bankfull wpool feet
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf
Bkf pool cross-
sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf
pool-pool pacing p-p feet 24 30 22 44 23 68
pool-pool
spacing ratio p-p/Wbkf 2.8 3.4 2.9 5.7 2.7 8.1
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schannel feet/foot
sinuosity K
belt width wblt feet
meander width
ratio wblt/wbkf
meander length Lm feet
meander length
ratio Lm/wbkf
linear
wavelength LW
linear
wavelength
ratio
LW/wbkf
radius of
curvature Rc feet
radius of
curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.0
4.4
12.3
1.4
1.2
1.7
6.8
0.8
5.6
1.0
1.021.01
0.0205
0.0154
1.6
0.0062
0.0123
Parameter
1.5
1.9
8.8
9.5
13.1
1.1
9.8
Notation Units
0.14
G4
UT2 Reach 1 UT2 Reach 2
0.26
G5
2.6
2.3
10.7
1.1
5.7
3.4
8.7
0.9
0.7
6.1
2.3
7.7
1.2
0.8
1.1
0.7
12.3
3.5
UT2 Reach 3
G5
0.27
5.7
1.8
N/A
0.0043
1.05
N/A
N/A
N/A
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.2
1.1
10.2
1.8
0.0086
3.1
13.0
1.5
1.5
2.1
8.4
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97135
Appendix 4
December 2017
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 1, UT2 Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
5.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.8 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
7.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
8.3 width-depth ratio
--- W flood prone area (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
3.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 1, UT2 Reach 1 0.00782.69 FALSE (XS1 POOL)XS--
longitudinal station ---6.38 781.54 FALSE (XS1)XS1
alignment 11.06 780.64 FALSE (XS1)XS1
feature 13.14 780.19 FALSE (XS1)XS1
15.80 779.26 FALSE (XS1 LTB)XS1
Bankfull Stage 16.97 778.34 FALSE (XS1)XS1
elevation 771.32 ---17.97 777.01 FALSE (XS1)XS1
19.36 775.63 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Low Bank Height 20.66 773.89 FALSE (XS1)XS1
elevation 774.85 22.28 772.66 FALSE (XS1)XS1
22.89 771.91 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Flood Prone Area 24.62 771.52 FALSE (XS1)XS1
width fpa ---25.67 771.39 FALSE (XS1)XS1
27.46 771.32 FALSE (XS1 BKF)XS1
Channel Slope 27.85 771.16 FALSE (XS1)XS1
percent slope --- 28.83 770.44 FALSE (XS1)XS1
29.20 770.40 FALSE (XS1 LEW)XS1
Flow Resistance 30.13 770.17 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Manning's "n"---31.00 770.15 FALSE (XS1)XS1
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---31.66 770.10 FALSE (XS1)XS1
32.59 770.33 FALSE (XS1 REW)XS
For Stream Type:33.17 770.60 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Is braided channel?FALSE 34.30 771.37 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Sinuosity, k 34.82 774.49 FALSE (XS1 RTB)XS1D50---37.85 774.85 FALSE (XS1)XS1
47.20 774.63 FALSE (XS1)XS1
Note:56.77 774.83 FALSE (XS1)XS1
66.70 775.14 FALSE (XS1)XS1
78.35 775.02 FALSE (XS1)XS1
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
768
770
772
774
776
778
780
782
784
0 1020304050607080Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Pool
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 2, UT2 Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.7 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
9.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
13.1 width-depth ratio
12.3 W flood prone area (ft)
1.4 entrenchment ratio
4.4 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 2, UT2 Reach 1 0.00779.18 FALSE (XS2)XS2 --
longitudinal station ---5.94 776.93 FALSE (XS2)XS2
alignment 10.09 776.01 FALSE (XS2 LTB)XS2
feature 13.66 773.27 FALSE (XS2)XS2
13.92 771.79 FALSE (XS2)XS2
Bankfull Stage 14.88 771.06 (XS2)XS2
elevation 770.542 ---15.66 770.57 (XS2)XS2
16.63 770.54 (XS2)XS2
Low Bank Height 17.15 770.54 (XS2 BKF)XS2
elevation 773.65 17.45 770.16 (XS2)XS2
18.31 769.70 (XS2 LEW)XS2
Flood Prone Area 20.44 769.65 (XS2)XS2
width fpa 12.3 12.3 21.59 769.62 (XS2)XS2
22.81 769.67 FALSE (XS2)XS2
Channel Slope 23.93 769.89 FALSE (XS2 REW)XS
percent slope ---24.63 770.41 FALSE (XS2)XS2
25.40 770.60 FALSE (XS2 BKF)XS2
Flow Resistance 26.60 771.33 FALSE (XS2)XS2
Manning's "n"---27.34 773.65 FALSE (XS2 RTB)XS2
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---30.51 774.03 FALSE (XS2)XS2
39.32 773.59 FALSE (XS2)XS2
For Stream Type:50.14 773.81 FALSE (XS2)XS2
Is braided channel?FALSE 61.04 773.99 (XS2)XS2
Sinuosity, k 74.20 774.36 FALSE (XS2)XS2D50---FALSE
FALSE
Note:FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
768
770
772
774
776
778
780
782
0 1020304050607080Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Riffle
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 3, UT2 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
9.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.8 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
9.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0 hyd radi (ft)
8.2 width-depth ratio
--- W flood prone area (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
1.8 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 3, UT2 Reach 2 0.00763.37 FALSE (XS3)XS3 --
longitudinal station ---9.64 763.18 FALSE (XS3)XS3
alignment 17.56 762.56 FALSE (XS3)XS3
feature 24.91 762.32 FALSE (XS3)XS3
29.67 762.13 FALSE (XS3 LTB)XS3
Bankfull Stage 30.45 761.57 FALSE (XS3)XS3
elevation 760.936 ---31.84 760.93 FALSE (XS3)XS3
32.88 760.32 (XS3)XS3
Low Bank Height 34.13 759.69 (XS3)XS3
elevation 762.13 35.82 759.58 (XS3)XS3
36.84 759.45 (XS3)XS3
Flood Prone Area 37.75 759.57 (XS3)XS3
width fpa ---38.61 759.72 (XS3 LEW)XS3
39.75 759.82 (XS3)XS3
Channel Slope 40.52 760.49 FALSE (XS3)XS3
percent slope --- 40.84 761.57 FALSE (XS3)XS3
43.87 762.71 FALSE (XS3)XS3
Flow Resistance 50.97 762.91 FALSE (XS3)XS3
Manning's "n"---58.61 763.21 FALSE (XS3)XS3
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---66.09 763.63 FALSE (XS3)XS3
72.92 763.89 FALSE (XS3)XS3
For Stream Type:FALSE
Is braided channel?FALSE FALSE
Sinuosity, k FALSED50---FALSE
FALSE
Note:FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
758
760
762
764
766
0 1020304050607080Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Pool
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 4, UT2 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
6.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.7 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
8.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
9.8 width-depth ratio
10.7 W flood prone area (ft)
1.4 entrenchment ratio
2.3 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 4, UT2 Reach 2 0.00762.79 FALSE (XS4 RIFFLE)X--
longitudinal station ---4.28 762.69 FALSE (XS4)XS4
alignment 9.01 762.34 FALSE (XS4)XS4
feature 15.56 761.96 FALSE (XS4)XS4
19.10 762.04 FALSE (XS4)XS4
Bankfull Stage 21.43 761.95 (XS4)XS4
elevation 760.49 ---23.66 761.38 (XS4)XS4
24.48 760.49 (XS4)XS4
Low Bank Height 25.27 760.18 (XS4)XS4
elevation 761.95 25.56 759.83 (XS4)XS4
26.00 759.60 (XS4 LEW)XS4
Flood Prone Area 27.75 759.69 (XS4)XS4
width fpa 10.7 10.7 28.83 759.53 (XS4)XS4
30.07 759.46 (XS4)XS4
Channel Slope 30.74 759.33 FALSE (XS4)XS4
percent slope ---31.24 759.41 FALSE (XS4 REW)XS4
32.02 760.32 FALSE (XS4)XS4
Flow Resistance 33.69 762.06 FALSE (XS4)XS4
Manning's "n"---34.40 762.24 FALSE (XS4)XS4
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---37.92 762.40 FALSE (XS4)XS4
43.83 762.59 FALSE (XS4)XS4
For Stream Type:51.60 762.84 FALSE (XS4)XS4
Is braided channel?FALSE 59.26 763.20 FALSE (XS4)XS4
Sinuosity, k 64.03 763.21 FALSE (XS4)XS4D50---FALSE
FALSE
Note:FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
758
760
762
764
766
0 10203040506070Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Riffle
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 11, UT2 Reach 3
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.4 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
9.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
12.3 width-depth ratio
13.0 W flood prone area (ft)
1.5 entrenchment ratio
3.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 11, UT2 Reach 3 0.00758.15 FALSE (XS11 RIFFLE)X--
longitudinal station ---13.14 758.24 FALSE (XS11 RIFFLE)
alignment 25.14 758.15 FALSE (XS11 RIFFLE)
feature 34.39 757.89 FALSE (XS11 RIFFLE)
41.14 758.01 FALSE (XS11 RIFFLE)
Bankfull Stage 43.58 758.22 FALSE (XS11 RIFFLE)
elevation 755.83 ---45.75 758.24 FALSE (XS11)XS11
48.20 758.19 (XS11 LTB)XS1
Low Bank Height 48.71 757.43 (XS11)XS11
elevation 758.19 49.28 756.62 (XS11)XS11
49.99 755.86 (XS11)XS11
Flood Prone Area 50.60 755.17 (XS11)XS11
width fpa 13 13.0 51.45 754.82 (XS11 LEW)XS
51.66 754.73 (XS11)XS11
Channel Slope 52.27 754.71 (XS11)XS11
percent slope --- 53.06 754.69 (XS11)XS11
53.76 754.74 FALSE (XS11)XS11
Flow Resistance 54.79 754.77 FALSE (XS11 REW)XS
Manning's "n"---55.21 755.07 FALSE (XS11)XS11
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---55.82 755.17 FALSE (XS11)XS11
56.33 755.67 FALSE (XS11 BKF)XS1
For Stream Type:57.26 755.78 FALSE (XS11)XS11
Is braided channel?FALSE 58.52 755.83 FALSE (XS11)XS11
Sinuosity, k 59.80 755.85 FALSE (XS11)XS11D50---61.03 756.31 FALSE (XS11)XS11
61.56 756.54 (XS11)XS11
Note:62.18 757.06 FALSE (XS11)XS11
63.15 758.24 FALSE (XS11)XS11
64.35 759.04 FALSE (XS11)XS11
65.23 759.44 FALSE (XS11 RTB)XS
67.39 759.29 FALSE (XS11)XS11
69.74 759.07 FALSE (XS11)XS11
71.77 758.90 FALSE (XS11)XS11
74.91 758.86 FALSE (XS11)XS11
81.25 758.82 FALSE (XS11)XS11
85.74 758.82 FALSE (XS11)XS11
View Downstream
754
756
758
760
0 102030405060708090Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Riffle / Run
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 12, UT2 Reach 3
Bankfull Dimensions
10.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.2 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
10.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0 hyd radi (ft)
8.4 width-depth ratio
--- W flood prone area (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
2.6 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 12, UT2 Reach 3 0.00758.09 FALSE (XS12 POOL)XS--
longitudinal station ---10.83 758.20 FALSE (XS12)XS12
alignment 20.69 758.09 FALSE (XS12)XS12
feature 28.51 757.84 FALSE (XS12)XS12
33.50 757.82 FALSE (XS12)XS12
Bankfull Stage 38.07 758.07 FALSE (XS12)XS12
elevation 755.67 ---40.98 758.10 FALSE (XS12)XS12
42.29 758.04 (XS12 LTB)XS1
Low Bank Height 43.20 757.65 (XS12)XS12
elevation 758.1 44.14 757.30 (XS12)XS12
44.60 757.00 (XS12)XS12
Flood Prone Area 45.08 756.24 (XS12)XS12
width fpa ---45.62 755.67 (XS12 BKF)XS
46.58 755.27 (XS12)XS12
Channel Slope 46.85 754.63 (XS12 LEW)XS
percent slope ---47.30 754.34 (XS12)XS12
48.43 754.18 FALSE (XS12)XS12
Flow Resistance 49.25 754.13 FALSE (XS12)XS12
Manning's "n"---50.14 754.31 FALSE (XS12)XS12
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---51.85 754.43 FALSE (XS12)XS12
53.03 754.54 FALSE (XS12)XS12
For Stream Type:54.03 754.62 FALSE (XS12 REW)XS
Is braided channel?FALSE 54.43 755.24 FALSE (XS12 BKF)XS
Sinuosity, k 54.73 755.31 FALSE (XS12)XS12D50---55.96 758.79 (XS12)XS12
56.99 759.25 (XS12 RTB)XS
Note:59.22 759.35 FALSE (XS12)XS12
61.63 759.07 FALSE (XS12)XS12
66.05 759.07 FALSE (XS12)XS12
71.47 758.91 FALSE (XS12)XS12
76.69 759.04 FALSE (XS12)XS12
85.05 758.61 FALSE (XS12)XS12
90.01 758.49 FALSE (XS12)XS12
View Downstream
753
755
757
759
761
0 102030405060708090Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Pool
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull
min max min max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross-
sectional area Abkf SF 2.2 2.3 1.3 1.4
avg velocity
during bankfull
event
vbkf fps 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.8
width at
bankfull wbkf feet 3.4 4.7 3.9 4.1
maximum depth
at bankfull dmax feet 0.5 0.6
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet 0.5 0.7
bankfull width
to depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 5.1 9.5 11.4 13.0
low bank height feet 2.4 2.7 3.3 4.0
bank height
ratio BHR 2.7 3.1 6.5 7.2
floodprone area
width wfpa feet 5.4 11.4 5.1 6.4
entrenchment
ratio ER 1.6 2.4 1.2 1.6
max pool depth
at bankfull dpool feet
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf
pool width at
bankfull wpool feet
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf
Bkf pool cross-
sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf
pool-pool pacing p-p feet
pool-pool
spacing ratio p-p/Wbkf
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schannel feet/foot
sinuosity K
belt width wblt feet
meander width
ratio wblt/wbkf
meander length Lm feet
meander length
ratio Lm/wbkf
linear
wavelength LW
linear
wavelength
ratio
LW/wbkf
radius of
curvature Rc feet
radius of
curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf
0.3
N/A
0.0107
N/A
G5 G5
0.02 0.04
0.9
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Parameter Notation Units
UT2A UT2B
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
0.0028 0.0027
1.00 1.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0052
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Channelized stream channel with limited pattern and bed form profile variability.
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97135
Appendix 4
December 2017
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 9, UT2A
Bankfull Dimensions
2.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.4 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
4.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
5.1 width-depth ratio
5.4 W flood prone area (ft)
1.6 entrenchment ratio
2.7 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 9, UT2A 0.00760.58 FALSE (XS9 Run)XS9 R--
longitudinal station ---8.40 760.49 FALSE (XS9)XS9
alignment 18.24 760.29 FALSE (XS9)XS9
feature 28.06 759.93 FALSE (XS9)XS9
34.75 759.91 FALSE (XS9)XS9
Bankfull Stage 37.92 759.84 FALSE (XS9 LTB)XS9
elevation 758.36 ---38.54 759.64 FALSE (XS9)XS9
39.57 759.22 FALSE (XS9)XS9
Low Bank Height 40.08 758.73 (XS9)XS9
elevation 759.91 40.65 757.68 (XS9 LEW)XS9
41.26 757.47 (XS9)XS9
Flood Prone Area 42.84 757.72 (XS9)XS9
width fpa 5.4 5.4 43.32 757.69 FALSE (XS9 REW)XS9
43.66 758.36 FALSE (XS9)XS9
Channel Slope 44.90 759.21 FALSE (XS9)XS9
percent slope --- 45.55 759.66 FALSE (XS9 RTB)XS9
46.93 759.96 FALSE (XS9)XS9
Flow Resistance 49.98 759.98 FALSE (XS9)XS9
Manning's "n"---56.38 760.07 FALSE (XS9)XS9
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---63.40 760.21 FALSE (XS9)XS9
71.89 760.48 FALSE (XS9)XS9
For Stream Type:83.31 760.38 FALSE (XS9)XS9
Is braided channel?FALSE
Sinuosity, kD50 ---
Note:FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
756
758
760
762
0 102030405060708090Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Run
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 10, UT2A
Bankfull Dimensions
2.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.7 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
5.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4 hyd radi (ft)
9.5 width-depth ratio
11.4 W flood prone area (ft)
2.4 entrenchment ratio
3.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 10, UT2A 0.00760.49 FALSE (XS10 RUN)XS--
longitudinal station ---11.51 760.40 FALSE (XS10)XS10
alignment 22.99 760.33 FALSE (XS10)XS10
feature 30.81 759.93 FALSE (XS10)XS10
34.52 760.06 FALSE (XS10)XS10
Bankfull Stage 36.75 760.09 FALSE (XS10 LTB)XS
elevation 757.7 ---37.90 759.84 FALSE (XS10)XS10
39.10 758.94 FALSE (XS10)XS10
Low Bank Height 40.10 758.47 FALSE (XS10)XS10
elevation 759.55 41.09 758.14 (XS10)XS10
41.57 757.70 (XS10)XS10
Flood Prone Area 42.11 757.52 (XS10 LEW)XS
width fpa 11.4 7.6 43.13 757.39 (XS10)XS10
43.64 756.89 (XS10)XS10
Channel Slope 44.24 756.82 (XS10)XS10
percent slope --- 44.99 756.88 FALSE (XS10)XS10
45.97 757.47 FALSE (XS10 REW)XS
Flow Resistance 47.01 758.43 FALSE (XS10)XS10
Manning's "n"---48.24 758.89 FALSE (XS10)XS10
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---49.06 759.15 FALSE (XS10)XS10
49.89 759.52 FALSE (XS10)XS10
For Stream Type:50.57 759.55 FALSE (XS10 RTB)XS
Is braided channel?FALSE 53.88 759.72 FALSE (XS10)XS10
Sinuosity, k 63.77 760.12 FALSE (XS10)XS10D50---73.36 760.63 (XS10)XS10
84.79 760.84 (XS10)XS10
Note:88.47 760.92 FALSE (XS10)XS10
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
756
758
760
762
0 102030405060708090Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Run
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 13, UT2B
Bankfull Dimensions
1.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.1 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.5 max depth (ft)
4.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
13.0 width-depth ratio
5.1 W flood prone area (ft)
1.2 entrenchment ratio
6.5 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 13, UT2B 0.00760.86 FALSE (XS13 RUN)XS--
longitudinal station ---8.33 760.83 FALSE (XS13)XS13
alignment 18.07 760.78 FALSE (XS13)XS13
feature 23.39 760.74 FALSE (XS13)XS13
24.81 760.56 FALSE (XS13 LTB)XS
Bankfull Stage 24.85 760.56 (XS13)XS13
elevation 757.23 ---25.66 760.22 (XS13)XS13
26.12 759.74 (XS13)XS13
Low Bank Height 26.79 758.72 (XS13)XS13
elevation 760.03 28.24 757.23 (XS13)XS13
29.20 757.01 (XS13)XS13
Flood Prone Area 30.18 756.73 (XS13)XS13
width fpa 5.1 5.1 30.79 756.72 (XS13)XS13
31.71 756.88 (XS13)XS13
Channel Slope 32.16 757.06 (XS13)XS13
percent slope ---33.17 758.03 (XS13)XS13
34.18 759.20 (XS13)XS13
Flow Resistance 35.52 759.90 FALSE (XS13)XS13
Manning's "n"---36.21 760.03 FALSE (XS13 RTB)XS
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---43.24 760.37 FALSE (XS13)XS13
53.67 760.78 FALSE (XS13)XS13
For Stream Type:60.77 761.01 FALSE (XS13)XS13
Is braided channel?FALSE FALSE
Sinuosity, kD50 ---
Note:FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
756
758
760
762
0 102030405060Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Run
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 14, UT2B
Bankfull Dimensions
1.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.9 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.6 max depth (ft)
4.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
11.4 width-depth ratio
6.4 W flood prone area (ft)
1.6 entrenchment ratio
7.2 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 14, UT2B 0.00760.62 FALSE (XS14 POOL)XS--
longitudinal station ---9.10 760.56 FALSE (XS14)XS14
alignment 16.99 760.43 FALSE (XS14)XS14
feature 24.37 760.64 FALSE (XS14)XS14
26.78 760.58 FALSE (XS14 LTB)XS
Bankfull Stage 27.05 760.44 FALSE (XS14)XS14
elevation 756.87 ---27.75 759.88 FALSE (XS14)XS14
27.81 759.88 FALSE (XS14)XS14
Low Bank Height 28.83 759.34 FALSE (XS14)XS14
elevation 760.29 29.17 758.72 FALSE (XS14)XS14
29.88 757.81 (XS14)XS14
Flood Prone Area 30.19 757.27 (XS14)XS14
width fpa 6.4 4.9 30.38 756.86 (XS14)XS14
31.39 756.32 (XS14)XS14
Channel Slope 32.02 756.50 (XS14)XS14
percent slope ---33.22 756.49 (XS14)XS14
33.76 756.50 (XS14)XS14
Flow Resistance 33.92 756.49 FALSE (XS14)XS14
Manning's "n"---34.32 756.87 FALSE (XS14)XS14
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---34.67 757.13 FALSE (XS14)XS14
36.23 758.48 FALSE (XS14)XS14
For Stream Type:37.57 759.25 FALSE (XS14)XS14
Is braided channel?FALSE 38.45 759.93 FALSE (XS14)XS14
Sinuosity, k 39.53 760.29 FALSE (XS14)XS14
D50 ---39.94 760.13 FALSE (XS14 RTB)XS
41.66 760.12 FALSE (XS14)XS14
Note:50.09 760.49 FALSE (XS14)XS14
58.20 760.71 FALSE (XS14)XS14
62.31 760.82 FALSE (XS14)XS14
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
756
758
760
762
0 102030405060Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Run
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
min max min max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross-
sectional area Abkf SF
avg velocity
during bankfull
event
vbkf fps
width at
bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth
at bankfull dmax feet
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width
to depth ratio wbkf/dbkf
low bank height feet
bank height
ratio BHR
floodprone area
width wfpa feet
entrenchment
ratio ER
max pool depth
at bankfull dpool feet
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf
pool width at
bankfull wpool feet
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf
Bkf pool cross-
sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf
pool-pool pacing p-p feet 12 87 48 185
pool-pool
spacing ratio p-p/Wbkf 1.1 7.8 4.8 18.5
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schannel feet/foot
sinuosity K
belt width wblt feet 4 10
meander width
ratio wblt/wbkf 0.4 0.9
meander length Lm feet 15 28
meander length
ratio Lm/wbkf 1.3 2.5
linear
wavelength LW 22 61
linear
wavelength
ratio
LW/wbkf 2.0 5.4
radius of
curvature Rc feet 4 8
radius of
curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf 0.4 0.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Parameter Notation Units
UT3 Reach 1 UT3 Reach 2
13.7 10.2
4.0 2.0
G4 G5
0.59 0.65
1.2 1.0
9.1 9.9
11.2 10.0
1.8 2.1
17.4 >150
1.3 >14.9
4.7 3.0
2.6 1.4
6.7
0.7 0.7
1.9 2.7
1.6 2.7
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
1.06 1.01
0.0145 0.0050
0.0107 0.0034
10.2 13.9
0.7 1.4
7.4
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97135
Appendix 4
December 2017
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 5, UT3 Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
13.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.2 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
12.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1 hyd radi (ft)
9.1 width-depth ratio
17.4 W flood prone area (ft)
1.6 entrenchment ratio
2.6 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 5, UT3 Reach 1 0.00769.25 FALSE (XS5 RIFFLE)X--
longitudinal station ---6.93 768.61 FALSE (XS5)XS5
alignment 9.08 768.75 FALSE (XS5)XS5
feature 13.61 768.86 FALSE (XS5)XS5
16.54 768.72 FALSE (XS5)XS5
Bankfull Stage 20.37 768.27 FALSE (XS5)XS5
elevation 764.59 33.78 768.03 FALSE (XS5)XS5
39.04 767.34 FALSE (XS5 LTB)XS5
Low Bank Height 41.26 766.60 FALSE (XS5)XS5
elevation 767.48 43.01 765.54 FALSE (XS5)XS5
45.47 764.59 FALSE (XS5)XS5
Flood Prone Area 46.32 764.13 (XS5 BKF)XS5
width fpa 17.4 17.4 48.34 763.72 (XS5)XS5
49.61 763.64 (XS5)XS5
Channel Slope 50.24 763.12 (XS5)XS5
percent slope --- 50.60 762.96 (XS5 LEW)XS5
52.47 762.90 (XS5)XS5
Flow Resistance 54.07 762.89 (XS5)XS5
Manning's "n"---55.92 762.79 (XS5 REW)XS
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---56.88 765.18 (XS5)XS5
58.07 765.75 FALSE (XS5)XS5
For Stream Type:59.21 766.52 FALSE (XS5)XS5
Is braided channel?FALSE 60.60 767.48 FALSE (XS5 RTB)XS5
Sinuosity, k 64.76 767.47 FALSE (XS5)XS5D50---75.14 767.68 FALSE (XS5)XS5
89.59 768.10 FALSE (XS5)XS5
Note:100.38 767.86 FALSE (XS5)XS5
105.47 767.86 FALSE (XS5)XS5
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
760
762
764
766
768
770
772
0 102030405060708090100110Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Riffle
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 6, UT3 Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
10.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.4 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
9.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1 hyd radi (ft)
5.5 width-depth ratio
--- W flood prone area (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
2.7 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 6, UT3 Reach 1 0.00771.30 FALSE (XS6 POOL)XS--
longitudinal station ---8.55 769.64 FALSE (XS6)XS6
alignment 16.33 768.95 FALSE (XS6)XS6
feature 27.62 768.93 FALSE (XS6)XS6
40.55 768.73 FALSE (XS6)XS6
Bankfull Stage 51.75 768.01 FALSE (XS6 LTB)XS6
elevation 764.369 ---54.31 766.97 FALSE (XS6)XS6
55.92 766.29 FALSE (XS6)XS6
Low Bank Height 58.41 765.27 FALSE (XS6)XS6
elevation 767.72 59.92 764.18 FALSE (XS6)XS6
60.87 763.75 FALSE (XS6)XS6
Flood Prone Area 61.19 762.81 (XS6 LEW)XS6
width fpa ---62.61 762.70 (XS6)XS6
64.08 762.54 (XS6)XS6
Channel Slope 64.83 762.45 (XS6)XS6
percent slope ---65.57 762.45 (XS6)XS6
65.97 762.61 (XS6 REW)XS
Flow Resistance 67.11 764.37 (XS6 BKF)XS6
Manning's "n"---68.38 764.74 FALSE (XS6)XS6
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---69.09 765.32 FALSE (XS6)XS6
69.91 766.34 FALSE (XS6)XS6
For Stream Type:71.43 767.30 FALSE (XS6 RTB)XS6
Is braided channel?FALSE 73.40 767.72 FALSE (XS6)XS6
Sinuosity, k 75.87 767.64 FALSE (XS6)XS6D50---81.55 767.40 FALSE (XS6)XS6
94.17 767.85 FALSE (XS6)XS6
Note:106.10 767.90 FALSE (XS6)XS6
125.64 768.02 FALSE (XS6)XS6
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
760
762
764
766
768
770
772
774
0 102030405060708090100110120130Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Pool
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 7, UT3 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
10.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.0 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
11.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9 hyd radi (ft)
9.9 width-depth ratio
150.0 W flood prone area (ft)
14.9 entrenchment ratio
1.4 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 7, UT3 Reach 2 0.00762.06 FALSE (XS7 RIFFLE)XS--
longitudinal station ---10.59 761.98 FALSE (XS7 RIFFLE)X
alignment 24.96 762.99 FALSE (XS7 RIFFLE)X
feature 33.86 762.57 FALSE (XS7 RIFFLE)X
40.38 762.16 FALSE (XS7 RIFFLE)X
Bankfull Stage 45.60 762.25 (XS7 LTB)XS7
elevation 761.32 ---47.09 761.89 (XS7)XS7
48.12 761.32 (XS7)XS7
Low Bank Height 49.61 761.24 (XS7)XS7
elevation 762.18 50.32 760.92 (XS7)XS7
51.38 760.56 (XS7 BKF)XS7
Flood Prone Area 51.92 760.08 (XS7)XS7
width fpa 150 106.3 52.65 759.63 (XS7)XS7
52.80 759.48 (XS7 LEW)XS7
Channel Slope 53.31 759.23 (XS7)XS7
percent slope --- 54.16 759.26 (XS7)XS7
54.61 759.47 (XS7)XS7
Flow Resistance 55.23 759.55 FALSE (XS7)XS7
Manning's "n"---55.40 759.69 FALSE (XS7 REW)XS7
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---55.95 759.82 FALSE (XS7)XS7
56.41 760.27 FALSE (XS7)XS7
For Stream Type:56.92 760.51 FALSE (XS7 BKF)XS7
Is braided channel?FALSE 57.00 760.50 FALSE (XS7)XS7
Sinuosity, k 57.82 761.10 (XS7)XS7D50---58.43 761.50 (XS7)XS7
59.49 761.79 (XS7)XS7
Note:61.61 762.18 FALSE (XS7 RTB)XS7
63.79 762.18 FALSE (XS7)XS7
74.62 762.59 FALSE (XS7)XS7
80.74 762.99 FALSE (XS7)XS7
96.02 763.10 FALSE (XS7)XS7
106.26 763.27 FALSE (XS7)XS7
View Upstream
758
760
762
764
0 102030405060708090100110Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Riffle
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull Floodprone Area
Right Click On Picture and go to
Change Picture.
Select Browse and Path To Picture
you want to add.
Cross Section Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 97135)761.44
Existing Conditions
Cross Section 8, UT3 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
13.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.7 width (ft)
2.1 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
9.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4 hyd radi (ft)
3.3 width-depth ratio
--- W flood prone area (ft)
--- entrenchment ratio
1.4 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 8/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
easting northing Distance Elevation Omit Notes :
Cross Section (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Bkf
reference ID 8, UT3 Reach 2 0.00761.44 FALSE (XS8 POOL)XS8--
longitudinal station ---8.15 761.51 FALSE (XS8)XS8
alignment 16.73 761.95 FALSE (XS8)XS8
feature 24.70 762.63 FALSE (XS8)XS8
33.75 762.23 FALSE (XS8)XS8
Bankfull Stage 39.39 761.90 FALSE (XS8)XS8
elevation 761 --- 44.42 761.99 (XS8)XS8
46.17 761.88 (XS8 LTB)XS8
Low Bank Height 47.77 761.44 (XS8)XS8
elevation 762.17 48.65 761.29 (XS8)XS8
49.46 761.37 (XS8)XS8
Flood Prone Area 50.01 761.00 (XS8 BKF)XS8
width fpa ---50.50 759.60 (XS8 LEW)XS8
51.03 758.52 (XS8)XS8
Channel Slope 52.09 758.40 (XS8)XS8
percent slope --- 53.17 758.33 (XS8)XS8
54.79 758.50 FALSE (XS8)XS8
Flow Resistance 55.18 759.03 FALSE (XS8)XS8
Manning's "n"---56.12 759.49 FALSE (XS8 REW)XS8
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f"---56.27 760.57 FALSE (XS8)XS8
57.30 761.53 FALSE (XS8 RTB)XS8
For Stream Type:58.67 761.35 FALSE (XS8)XS8
Is braided channel?FALSE 64.99 761.85 FALSE (XS8)XS8
Sinuosity, k 71.68 762.17 FALSE (XS8)XS8D50---85.18 762.35 FALSE (XS8)XS8
96.17 762.35 FALSE (XS8)XS8
Note:109.47 762.42 FALSE (XS8)XS8
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
View Downstream
756
758
760
762
764
0 102030405060708090100110Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Pool
Existing Conditions (8/2016)Bankfull
0 400 800 Feet
Reavico Farms Property 1957 survey (A)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC¹
Current Reavico Farm Road
Current Day Parcel Line
Proposed Conservation Easement
1 inch = 400 feet
0 400 800 Feet
Reavico Farms Property 1957 survey (B)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC¹
Current Reavico Farm Road
Current Day Parcel Line
1 inch = 400 feet
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
1963
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
1963
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
1982
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
1982
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
1982
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
1993
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
1993
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
1998
= 750'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
2005
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
2005
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
2006
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
2006
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
2008
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
2008
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
2009
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
2009
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
2010
= 500'
INQUIRY #:
YEAR:
4502666.1
2010
= 500'
DescriptionNotation Units min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min maxstream typedrainage areaDA sq mibankfull dischargeQbkfcfsbankfull cross-sectional areaAbkfSF6.4 8.7 4.5 5.3 3.5 4.1 13.6 14.9average bankfull velocityvbkffpswidth at bankfullwbkffeet6.1 8.4 6.1 6.2 7.0 8.6 14.7 18.1maximum depth at bankfulldmaxfeet1.3 1.4 1.0 1.1mean depth at bankfulldbkffeet1.0 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0bankfull width to depth ratiowbkf/dbkf5.8 8.0 7.4 8.3 14.9 18.314.6 24.1depth ratiodmax/dbkf1.3 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.31.6 2.0low bank height2.0 2.91.6 1.8bank height ratioBHR1.4 2.1floodprone area widthwfpafeet26 31 45 49entrenchment ratioER3.7 4.35.7 6.4sinuosityKbelt widthwbltfeet17.9 34.2 12 3145 71 22 30meander width ratiowblt/wbkf2.8 5.3 NA NA 1.8 4.6 9.6 13.3 NA NA 2.4 3.0 3.5 5.5 1.3 1.8meander lengthLmfeet27 94 NA NA 45 72 NA NA 39 44 95 130 58 70meander length ratioLm/wbkf4.2 14.7 NA NA7.4 8.6 NA NA 5.1 7.0 7.4 10.1 3.5 4.3radius of curvatureRcfeet8 26 NA NA 9 20 NA NA 19 32 18 33 14 38radius of curvature ratioRc/ wbkf1.2 4.1 NA NA1.5 2.4 NA NA 2.7 3.7 1.4 2.6 0.9 2.3valley slopeSvalleyfeet/ footchannel slopeSchannelfeet/ footriffle slopeSrifflefeet/ foot0.0150 0.1200 0.0229 0.0615 0.0202 0.0664 0.0055 0.0597 0.0019 0.0090 0.0027 0.0130riffle slope ratioSriffle/Schannel0.4 3.2 1.2 3.3 2.2 7.31.0 10.5 0.7 3.2 1.0 4.8pool slopeSpoolfeet/ foot0.000 0.011 0.001 0.009 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.013pool slope ratioSpool/Schannel0.00 0.30 0.06 0.49 0.03 0.610.00 0.23 0.00 0.89 0.00 4.81pool-to-pool spacingLp-pfeet7 5213772863 1528291031935pool spacing ratioLp-p/wbkf0.8 6.0 1.9 11.5 3.9 8.71.9 3.6 2.2 8.0 1.2 2.1maximum pool depth at bankfulldpoolfeet1.3 3.0pool depth ratiodpool/dbkf1.3 3.0pool width at bankfullwpoolfeetpool width ratiowpool/wbkfpool bankfull cross-sectional areaApoolSFpool area ratioApool/Abkf1.1 1.41.0 1.1d16mmd35mmd50mmd84mmd95mmd99mm8.0Deep Creek MitigationC50.674117.12.422.619.61.519.61.1Reachwide CountFine SandSilt/Clay0.20.21.60.013510.5Riffle CountREFERENCE REACHES1.18.90.170.544.00.00283.22.34.50.74.51.00.00571.32.96.1 -0.077.31.42.0UT to S. Fork Catawba - Vile Preserve E50.94540.00780.84.0Reachwide CountVery Coarse SandUT to Lyle Creek C50.25184.70.51.01.121180.08.20.01940.01852.04.010.51.69.52.6Reachwide CountGravel0.21.50.00680.02603.80.0010.144516.869.7115.79.2N/AN/AN/A1.00.91.29.20.70.513.41.60.81.020322.51.38.06.44.54.4>20488.60.712.51.41.01.013.31.51.62.39.6Reachwide CountCoarse Gravelsilt clay0.91.620.11.42.2810.02570.0091UT to South CrowdersE40.22222.90.253.29.4451401.4N/AN/AN/AN/Amedium gravelNA0.04040.03781.20.04910.03 - 0.065N/ACooleemee PlantationC50.68261.81.61.1NA0.0034140+8.8+1.030.007011.01.41.0200+30+1.60.006812.92.31.49.61.0180.08.00.8Reachwide CountCoarse Gravel12.119.70.002713.30.814.875.92.02.21.0UT to Kelly Branch9.10.17123.6Pilot Mountain Trib3.26.70.8C45.31.06.00.9Particle Size Distribution from d5049.5B40.2732128.05.61.053.01.3255N/AN/AN/AN/ALone Hickory UT3 - Onsite Reference190.08A4
Design Geomorph Parameters
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs 11 15 30 38
bankfull cross-
sectional area Abkf SF 3.0 4.2 8.1 9.5
average velocity
during bankfull
event
vbkf fps 4.1 3.7 3.8 4
width at bankfull wbkf feet 6.5 7.8 10.7 11.8
maximum depth
at bankfull dmax feet 0.60 0.70 1.00 1.00
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8
maximum depth
ratio dmax/davg 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.5
bankfull width to
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 14.2 14.6 14.3 14.6
low bank height feet 0.6 0.7 1 1.00
bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2
floodprone area
width wfpa feet 15 50 15 50 25 100 25 100
entrenchment
ratio ER 2.2+ 2.2+2.2+ 2.2+2.2+ 2.2+2.2+ 2.2+
Slope
valley slope Svalley
feet/
foot
channel slope Schnl
feet/
foot
Profile
riffle slope Sriffle
feet/
foot 0.020 0.041 0.011 0.055 0.018 0.045 0.016 0.048
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl 0.32 0.66 0.39 1.9 1 2.48 1 3.04
pool slope Sp
feet/
foot 0.000 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 0.000 0.0000
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
pool-to-pool
spacing Lp-p feet 14 26 16 39 34 109 48 113
pool spacing
ratio Lp-p/wbkf 2.2 4.0 2.1 5.0 3.2 10.2 4.1 9.6
pool cross-
sectional area SF 5 7.4 12 14.0
pool area ratio 1.6 2 1.5 1.5
maximum pool
depth feet 1.7 1.8 3.2 2.9
pool depth ratio 3.7 3.4 4.3 3.6
pool width at
bankfull feet 8.0 9.5 13.5 14.5
pool width ratio 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2
sinuosity K
belt width wblt feet 31 67 35 71
meander width
ratio wblt/wbkf 2.9 6.3 3.0 6.0
meander length Lm feet 102 190 102 196
meander length
ratio Lm/wbkf 9.6 17.8 8.6 16.6
radius of
curvature Rc feet 20 38 19 38
radius of
curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf 1.869 3.6 1.61 3.2
EAST SIDE
UT1 Reach 2A UT1 Reach 2B
Notation Units
UT1 Reach 3UT1 Reach 1
A4 C4B4C4
0.440.07
Cross-Section
0.12 0.32
12-1412-14 12-1413-16
0.02250.0648 0.02030.0313
0.01800.0622
Pattern
1.301.247982115
0.01560.0290
Design Geomorph Parameters
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min Max
stream type
drainage area1 DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs 14 20 4 8 45 45 55
bankfull cross-
sectional area Abkf SF 3.9 7.8 2.1 4.1 12.1 16.2 21.1
average velocity
during bankfull
event
vbkf fps 3.4 2.6 1.9 2.0 3.6 2.7 1.8
width at bankfull wbkf feet 7.5 11 5.5 7.5 13 16.2 19.0
maximum depth
at bankfull dmax feet 0.8 1.00 0.60 0.90 1.40 1.70 2.00
mean depth at
bankfull dbkf feet 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.1
maximum depth
ratio dmax/davg 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.8
bankfull width to
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 14 16 14 14 14.4 16.2 17.1
low bank height feet 0.8 1.00 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.7 2.00
bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2
floodprone area
width wfpa feet 120+ 17 130+ 250+ 24 280 100+ 12 150 100+ 11 17 75 18 29 100+ 36 81 42 219
entrenchment
ratio ER 1.4 2.2+2.2+2.2+1.4 2.2+1.4 2.2+2.2+2.2+
valley slope Svalley
feet/
foot 0.0045 0.013 0.0057 0.0170 0.0060 0.040 0.0030 0.0140
channel slope Schnl
feet/
foot 0.0030 0.012 0.0050 0.0140 0.0040 0.028 0.0020 0.0110
Profile
riffle slope Sriffle
feet/
foot 0.020 0.034 0.003 0.025 0.006 0.045 0.004 0.056 0.012 0.017 0.002 0.022 0.002 0.008
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl 1.0 1.7 1.1 2.1 1.2 3.2 1.0 2.0 1.1 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.2 3.8
pool slope Sp
feet/
foot 0.000 0.0040 0.000 0.0024 0.000 0.0028 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.0022 0.000 0.0022 0.000 0.0004
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2
pool-to-pool
spacing Lp-p feet 8 45 39 77 19 39 26 53 169 1014 57 113 67 133
pool spacing
ratio Lp-p/wbkf 1.0 6.0 3.5 7.0 3.5 7.0 3.5 7.0 13.0 78.0 3.5 7.0 3.5 7.0
pool cross-
sectional area SF 4 10 8 19 2 5 4 10 18 30 16 40 21 53
pool area ratio 1.1 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.5
maximum pool
depth feet 1.8 1.1 1.8 2.4 1.1 2.5 1.3 0.6 1.4 1.6 0.8 1.9 3.1 1.9 3.3 3.5 1.5 3.5 3.9 1.7 3.9
pool depth ratio 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.4 1.5 3.5 3.3 1.5 3.5 2.9 1.5 3.5 3.4 2.0 3.5 3.5 1.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 3.5
pool width at
bankfull feet 10.5 16.0 7.5 11.0 16.0 19.8 25.0
pool width ratio 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.3
sinuosity K
belt width wblt feet 39 88 19 44 26 60 57 130 67 152
meander width
ratio wblt/wbkf 3.5 8.0 3.5 8.0 3.5 8.0 3.5 8.0 3.5 8.0
meander length Lm feet 72 154 36 77 49 105 105 227 124 26
meander length
ratio Lm/wbkf 6.5 14.0 6.5 14.0 6.5 14.0 6.5 14.0 6.5 14.0
radius of
curvature Rc feet 20 39 10 19 14 23 29 57 34 67
radius of
curvature ratio Rc/ wbkf 1.8 3.5 1.8 3.5 1.8 3.0 1.8 3.5 1.8 3.5
N/A2
UT2 Reach 2 UT2A UT2B
WEST SIDE
B4 C4 C4 C/Cb4
0.14 0.26 0.02 0.05
Notation Units
UT2 Reach 1
12-14 13-16 12-14 12-14
0.88
UT3 Reach 1 UT3 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 3
B4c C4 C4
0.63 0.63
Cross-Section
1.1 1.3 1.2 1.20
0.0120
Slope
0.028 0.0022
0.020 0.0110 0.0020
1.1 1.4
13-16 12-16 12-14
1. Proposed drainage areas may differ from existing based on the rework of the stream network.
2. Pattern data not applicable for B channels
3. Areas where stream and bankfull slopes are atypical for tying to existing reaches are not included within design parameter ranges
1.20
Pattern
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.82‐45.00‐40.00‐35.00‐30.00‐25.00‐20.00‐15.00‐10.00‐5.000.005.00Precipitation (in)Water Table Depth (in)DateLone Hickory Drainmod Model: Well 4 CalibrationPrecipWell 4 ObservedGround SurfaceGround Surface‐ 1 footModeled
Start of Growing Season 201704/05/2017JanFebMarAprMay0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.4‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year Baseline ‐2017RainfallReference Gage DepthCriteria LevelLone Hickory Reference Gage‐Deep Creek Mitigation Site
Project:Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project ID:97135
Wetland Component:Project Riparian Wetlands
Growing Season:April 4 to October 27
Units Inches
Gauge Type Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater
Serial # 5E+05 Serial # 480265 Serial # 479985 Serial # 479241
Gauge ID : LH GWG-1 Gauge ID: LH GWG-2 Gauge LH GWG-3 Gauge LH GWG-4
Offset: 0 Offset: 0 Offset: 0 Offset: 0
Date Depth Q S Depth Q S Depth Q S Depth Q S
11/1/2016 0.00 E A 0.00 E A 0.00 E A 0.00 E A
11/2/2016 0.00 E A 0.00 E A 0.00 E A 0.00 E A
11/3/2016 60.00 60.51 45.86 51.38
11/4/2016 60.00 59.91 45.68 51.59
11/5/2016 60.00 60.13 45.80 51.56
11/6/2016 60.00 59.91 45.69 51.35
11/7/2016 60.00 59.80 45.69 51.30
11/8/2016 60.00 59.55 45.55 50.84
11/9/2016 60.00 58.95 45.18 50.45
11/10/2016 60.00 59.15 45.29 50.73
11/11/2016 60.00 59.13 45.43 50.60
11/12/2016 60.00 59.12 45.36 51.16
11/13/2016 60.00 59.29 45.46 50.73
11/14/2016 60.00 58.72 45.08 49.95
11/15/2016 60.00 58.62 44.92 49.93
11/16/2016 60.00 58.44 44.90 49.95
11/17/2016 60.00 58.50 44.92 50.29
11/18/2016 60.00 58.33 44.88 49.98
11/19/2016 60.00 58.04 44.56 49.69
11/20/2016 60.00 58.03 44.57 49.46
11/21/2016 60.00 58.28 44.93 49.86
11/22/2016 60.00 58.29 44.90 50.05
11/23/2016 60.00 58.03 44.61 49.57
11/24/2016 60.00 57.53 44.23 48.90
11/25/2016 60.00 57.49 44.16 48.83
11/26/2016 60.00 57.20 43.88 48.68
11/27/2016 60.00 57.65 44.32 48.83
11/28/2016 60.00 57.28 43.80 48.32
11/29/2016 60.00 56.67 43.39 47.78
11/30/2016 60.00 56.39 43.23 47.50
12/1/2016 60.00 56.30 41.97 47.88
12/2/2016 60.00 56.71 42.11 48.18
12/3/2016 60.00 56.48 41.83 47.73
12/4/2016 60.00 56.20 41.65 47.41
12/5/2016 52.43 55.85 34.66 46.87
12/6/2016 44.84 55.40 23.99 46.24
12/7/2016 43.54 55.07 21.87 45.95
12/8/2016 43.69 54.76 29.12 45.72
12/9/2016 44.25 54.91 33.23 46.45
12/10/2016 44.59 55.33 34.96 46.67
12/11/2016 43.92 54.69 34.77 45.94
12/12/2016 43.33 53.57 33.94 44.87
12/13/2016 43.44 53.35 34.76 45.30
12/14/2016 43.43 53.02 34.90 45.03
12/15/2016 43.78 53.18 35.49 45.57
12/16/2016 44.22 53.40 36.11 46.05
12/17/2016 42.99 52.44 34.80 44.65
12/18/2016 42.24 51.62 35.08 44.60
12/19/2016 43.00 51.80 35.68 45.37
12/20/2016 44.07 51.87 35.16 44.80
12/21/2016 42.96 51.37 35.01 44.38
12/22/2016 41.83 50.46 34.72 43.75
12/23/2016 42.42 50.72 35.49 44.60
12/24/2016 42.02 50.03 34.54 43.45
12/25/2016 41.42 49.69 34.96 43.75
12/26/2016 41.37 49.47 34.66 43.38
12/27/2016 40.94 48.78 33.69 42.47
12/28/2016 40.95 48.60 34.44 42.84
12/29/2016 40.79 47.99 33.66 42.22
12/30/2016 41.30 48.12 34.20 42.89
12/31/2016 41.45 48.21 34.30 43.01
1/1/2017 40.81 47.37 34.07 42.41
1/2/2017 36.83 39.91 19.34 34.55
1/3/2017 28.50 16.57 5.52 15.29
1/4/2017 35.40 5.18 8.79 12.55
1/5/2017 37.30 8.94 14.49 16.10
1/6/2017 37.67 11.49 19.36 19.47
1/7/2017 38.54 12.76 21.00 20.86
1/8/2017 40.70 11.78 21.88 19.74
1/9/2017 40.05 11.52 23.50 19.79
1/10/2017 38.43 8.25 21.48 16.93
1/11/2017 36.45 3.70 12.85 11.15
1/12/2017 34.79 1.83 9.44 8.75
1/13/2017 36.23 2.94 13.95 10.93
1/14/2017 36.77 3.57 17.41 12.52
1/15/2017 36.87 5.16 20.80 15.04
1/16/2017 37.12 6.72 22.99 17.40
1/17/2017 36.99 6.84 24.14 18.41
1/18/2017 36.98 6.22 23.59 17.52
1/19/2017 37.38 10.27 25.72 21.22
1/20/2017 35.96 6.41 19.02 15.36
1/21/2017 34.96 1.52 14.62 9.24
1/22/2017 34.23 0.80 8.82 6.75
1/23/2017 25.69 -0.05 4.71 5.55
1/24/2017 32.75 1.32 6.55 7.40
1/25/2017 35.33 2.59 11.30 9.85
1/26/2017 35.79 4.20 16.43 12.88
1/27/2017 37.16 8.46 21.72 17.90
1/28/2017 37.58 11.66 24.42 21.09
1/29/2017 37.45 13.77 26.16 23.27
1/30/2017 37.87 16.18 28.00 25.72
1/31/2017 38.12 17.75 29.01 27.05
2/1/2017 37.85 18.72 29.58 27.96
2/2/2017 38.01 19.95 30.24 29.09
2/3/2017 38.02 20.65 30.49 29.51
Project:Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project ID:97135
Wetland Component:Project Riparian Wetlands
Growing Season:April 4 to October 27
Units Inches
Gauge Type Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater
Serial # 5E+05 Serial # 480265 Serial # 479985 Serial # 479241
Gauge ID : LH GWG-1 Gauge ID: LH GWG-2 Gauge LH GWG-3 Gauge LH GWG-4
Offset: 0 Offset: 0 Offset: 0 Offset: 0
Date Depth Q S Depth Q S Depth Q S Depth Q S
2/4/2017 38.66 22.34 31.63 31.11
2/5/2017 37.98 21.69 30.88 30.35
2/6/2017 38.21 22.62 31.56 31.28
2/7/2017 37.87 22.31 30.96 30.62
2/8/2017 37.81 22.30 30.88 30.49
2/9/2017 37.22 8.00 20.68 17.54
2/10/2017 37.84 13.43 25.72 21.92
2/11/2017 37.59 14.00 27.03 23.35
2/12/2017 37.52 14.62 27.59 24.12
2/13/2017 37.88 17.19 29.19 26.24
2/14/2017 38.14 19.06 29.87 27.31
2/15/2017 37.37 12.45 24.72 20.71
2/16/2017 37.60 10.41 24.33 18.64
2/17/2017 37.67 13.44 26.74 21.92
2/18/2017 37.94 15.57 28.43 24.30
2/19/2017 37.99 17.50 29.52 26.16
2/20/2017 38.19 19.66 30.60 27.92
2/21/2017 38.09 20.74 30.76 28.48
2/22/2017 37.70 20.81 30.77 28.54
2/23/2017 37.81 19.82 30.92 28.80
2/24/2017 37.89 20.14 31.03 28.98
2/25/2017 37.69 20.42 30.90 29.04
2/26/2017 38.48 23.56 32.82 31.75
2/27/2017 38.42 24.72 32.96 32.37
2/28/2017 38.23 24.82 32.64 32.03
3/1/2017 37.77 24.10 31.96 31.13
3/2/2017 33.73 2.23 9.70 9.26
3/3/2017 36.86 6.42 18.84 14.41
3/4/2017 38.02 10.70 24.03 19.09
3/5/2017 38.16 13.33 26.42 21.80
3/6/2017 38.19 15.17 28.07 23.75
3/7/2017 38.02 15.71 28.57 24.44
3/8/2017 37.85 16.50 29.35 25.51
3/9/2017 38.06 18.62 30.05 26.62
3/10/2017 37.92 19.67 30.49 27.41
3/11/2017 38.45 22.38 31.85 29.68
3/12/2017 38.17 23.33 32.11 30.35
3/13/2017 38.56 24.52 32.51 31.11
3/14/2017 38.01 23.26 32.09 30.40
3/15/2017 38.75 25.08 33.80 32.75
3/16/2017 38.99 26.05 34.08 33.55
3/17/2017 38.88 26.44 34.00 33.79
3/18/2017 38.06 25.11 32.51 32.15
3/19/2017 38.35 26.16 33.50 33.30
3/20/2017 38.64 26.72 33.59 33.58
3/21/2017 38.09 26.33 33.11 32.82
3/22/2017 38.10 27.22 33.77 33.72
3/23/2017 38.79 29.10 34.90 35.28
3/24/2017 38.46 28.96 34.48 34.87
3/25/2017 38.21 28.81 34.27 34.52
3/26/2017 38.05 28.82 34.37 34.35
3/27/2017 38.01 23.69 32.76 28.58
3/28/2017 30.74 3.48 5.50 6.20
Project:
DMS Project ID:
Wetland Component:
Growing Season:
Units
Gauge Type
Date
11/1/2016
11/2/2016
11/3/2016
11/4/2016
11/5/2016
11/6/2016
11/7/2016
11/8/2016
11/9/2016
11/10/2016
11/11/2016
11/12/2016
11/13/2016
11/14/2016
11/15/2016
11/16/2016
11/17/2016
11/18/2016
11/19/2016
11/20/2016
11/21/2016
11/22/2016
11/23/2016
11/24/2016
11/25/2016
11/26/2016
11/27/2016
11/28/2016
11/29/2016
11/30/2016
12/1/2016
12/2/2016
12/3/2016
12/4/2016
12/5/2016
12/6/2016
12/7/2016
12/8/2016
12/9/2016
12/10/2016
12/11/2016
12/12/2016
12/13/2016
12/14/2016
12/15/2016
12/16/2016
12/17/2016
12/18/2016
12/19/2016
12/20/2016
12/21/2016
12/22/2016
12/23/2016
12/24/2016
12/25/2016
12/26/2016
12/27/2016
12/28/2016
12/29/2016
12/30/2016
12/31/2016
1/1/2017
1/2/2017
1/3/2017
1/4/2017
1/5/2017
1/6/2017
1/7/2017
1/8/2017
1/9/2017
1/10/2017
1/11/2017
1/12/2017
1/13/2017
1/14/2017
1/15/2017
1/16/2017
1/17/2017
1/18/2017
1/19/2017
1/20/2017
1/21/2017
1/22/2017
1/23/2017
1/24/2017
1/25/2017
1/26/2017
1/27/2017
1/28/2017
1/29/2017
1/30/2017
1/31/2017
2/1/2017
2/2/2017
2/3/2017
Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater
Serial # 479239 Serial # 5E+05 Serial # 478764
Gauge LH GWG-5 Gauge LH GWG-6 Gauge LH GWG-7
Offset: 0 Offset: 0 Offset: 0
Depth Q S Depth Q S Depth Q S
0.00 E A 0.00 E A 0.00 E A
0.00 E A 0.00 E A 0.00 E A
57.41 51.86 48.08
54.98 51.58 47.98
53.47 51.88 47.98
52.40 51.55 47.70
51.81 51.55 47.61
51.28 51.09 47.16
50.54 50.53 46.56
50.58 50.78 46.71
50.49 50.65 46.56
50.47 50.91 46.76
50.70 50.98 46.57
49.94 50.08 45.86
49.84 49.89 45.79
49.73 49.86 45.56
49.73 50.15 45.86
49.64 49.89 45.61
49.44 49.53 45.23
49.30 49.38 45.13
49.58 49.64 45.34
49.64 49.75 45.64
49.43 49.32 45.20
48.85 48.73 44.56
48.82 48.64 44.34
48.51 48.44 44.23
48.90 48.77 44.59
48.46 48.16 43.98
47.66 47.58 43.25
47.37 47.34 42.97
47.34 47.37 43.22
47.86 47.81 43.64
47.79 47.43 43.32
47.60 47.09 42.96
47.12 46.44 42.43
46.87 46.04 40.77
46.67 46.00 40.80
46.49 45.50 40.73
47.05 45.88 41.16
47.77 46.07 41.41
47.14 45.29 40.67
46.17 44.27 39.39
46.20 44.57 39.68
46.09 44.35 39.50
46.30 44.69 39.99
47.09 45.29 40.47
46.16 43.94 39.14
45.48 43.50 39.03
46.13 44.46 39.76
46.52 43.99 39.37
45.84 43.45 38.86
45.03 42.68 38.20
45.54 43.45 38.91
45.11 42.39 37.93
44.83 42.58 38.14
44.86 42.22 37.82
44.31 41.27 36.96
44.04 41.45 37.09
43.60 40.91 36.48
44.07 41.59 37.16
44.53 41.65 37.23
43.78 40.91 36.63
41.94 33.99 25.32
26.26 11.41 3.81
15.45 7.38 11.34
21.25 10.37 17.92
24.66 12.89 21.11
27.59 13.46 22.50
28.39 12.68 23.65
26.27 13.11 24.02
23.13 10.33 22.40
13.15 4.88 13.47
6.16 2.83 12.37
9.45 4.74 16.42
11.92 6.20 18.43
13.85 8.43 19.79
16.98 10.75 21.24
18.10 11.38 21.64
16.25 11.05 21.40
19.83 15.45 22.64
13.37 9.87 17.97
6.84 3.70 15.20
3.07 1.54 10.64
1.69 0.20 -3.14
2.86 1.44 -1.74
4.37 3.05 3.19
7.27 5.21 10.33
12.07 9.51 17.17
15.56 12.68 19.88
17.80 15.44 21.34
20.41 18.40 22.82
22.34 20.27 23.69
23.47 21.51 24.19
24.72 22.94 24.85
25.40 23.70 25.31
Project:
DMS Project ID:
Wetland Component:
Growing Season:
Units
Gauge Type
Date
2/4/2017
2/5/2017
2/6/2017
2/7/2017
2/8/2017
2/9/2017
2/10/2017
2/11/2017
2/12/2017
2/13/2017
2/14/2017
2/15/2017
2/16/2017
2/17/2017
2/18/2017
2/19/2017
2/20/2017
2/21/2017
2/22/2017
2/23/2017
2/24/2017
2/25/2017
2/26/2017
2/27/2017
2/28/2017
3/1/2017
3/2/2017
3/3/2017
3/4/2017
3/5/2017
3/6/2017
3/7/2017
3/8/2017
3/9/2017
3/10/2017
3/11/2017
3/12/2017
3/13/2017
3/14/2017
3/15/2017
3/16/2017
3/17/2017
3/18/2017
3/19/2017
3/20/2017
3/21/2017
3/22/2017
3/23/2017
3/24/2017
3/25/2017
3/26/2017
3/27/2017
3/28/2017
Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater
Serial # 479239 Serial # 5E+05 Serial # 478764
Gauge LH GWG-5 Gauge LH GWG-6 Gauge LH GWG-7
Offset: 0 Offset: 0 Offset: 0
Depth Q S Depth Q S Depth Q S
27.07 25.49 26.48
26.59 25.03 26.04
27.42 25.90 26.51
27.38 25.78 26.36
27.50 25.79 26.28
11.72 11.87 23.18
17.95 17.42 24.46
19.70 18.76 24.56
20.69 19.65 24.70
23.21 22.01 25.71
25.30 23.36 26.10
17.30 16.57 24.23
14.62 15.01 23.91
18.89 18.14 24.60
21.59 20.55 25.36
23.76 22.29 25.94
25.91 24.06 26.60
26.63 24.75 26.69
26.84 24.93 26.26
25.74 25.31 26.11
25.09 25.64 26.22
25.20 25.64 25.97
28.24 27.66 27.72
29.63 28.35 28.23
29.91 28.52 28.13
29.27 27.96 27.38
3.83 5.58 16.92
10.43 11.56 22.71
15.38 16.28 24.56
18.52 18.97 25.31
20.83 20.89 25.83
21.59 21.62 25.83
22.44 22.66 26.22
24.29 23.95 26.68
25.43 24.56 26.82
27.77 26.43 27.98
28.48 27.04 28.08
29.69 27.96 28.52
28.79 27.52 27.90
30.09 29.57 29.31
30.96 30.43 29.83
31.35 30.84 30.06
30.37 29.63 29.00
31.09 30.59 29.46
31.75 31.02 29.88
31.21 30.36 29.28
31.71 31.18 29.59
33.37 32.70 30.73
33.37 32.42 30.33
33.08 32.21 30.03
33.16 32.16 29.85
26.60 31.84 29.64
8.47 5.01 8.24
Project:
DMS Project ID:
Wetland Component:
Growing Season:
Units
Gauge Type
Date
11/1/2016
11/2/2016
11/3/2016
11/4/2016
11/5/2016
11/6/2016
11/7/2016
11/8/2016
11/9/2016
11/10/2016
11/11/2016
11/12/2016
11/13/2016
11/14/2016
11/15/2016
11/16/2016
11/17/2016
11/18/2016
11/19/2016
11/20/2016
11/21/2016
11/22/2016
11/23/2016
11/24/2016
11/25/2016
11/26/2016
11/27/2016
11/28/2016
11/29/2016
11/30/2016
12/1/2016
12/2/2016
12/3/2016
12/4/2016
12/5/2016
12/6/2016
12/7/2016
12/8/2016
12/9/2016
12/10/2016
12/11/2016
12/12/2016
12/13/2016
12/14/2016
12/15/2016
12/16/2016
12/17/2016
12/18/2016
12/19/2016
12/20/2016
12/21/2016
12/22/2016
12/23/2016
12/24/2016
12/25/2016
12/26/2016
12/27/2016
12/28/2016
12/29/2016
12/30/2016
12/31/2016
1/1/2017
1/2/2017
1/3/2017
1/4/2017
1/5/2017
1/6/2017
1/7/2017
1/8/2017
1/9/2017
1/10/2017
1/11/2017
1/12/2017
1/13/2017
1/14/2017
1/15/2017
1/16/2017
1/17/2017
1/18/2017
1/19/2017
1/20/2017
1/21/2017
1/22/2017
1/23/2017
1/24/2017
1/25/2017
1/26/2017
1/27/2017
1/28/2017
1/29/2017
1/30/2017
1/31/2017
2/1/2017
2/2/2017
2/3/2017
Groundwater Groundwater Rain
Serial # 479257 Serial # 450209 Serial #
Gauge LH GWG-8 Gauge LH REF Gauge RG1
Offset: 0 Offset: 0 Source:
Depth Q S Depth Q S Amount QS
0.00 E A 0.00 E A 0.00
0.00 E A 0.00 E A 0.00
57.38 0.00 E A 0.00
53.78 0.00 E A 0.00
51.47 0.00 E A 0.00
50.25 0.00 E A 0.00
49.62 0.00 E A 0.00
49.55 0.00 E A 0.00
49.08 0.00 E A 0.00
49.35 0.00 E A 0.00
49.52 0.00 E A 0.00
49.76 0.00 E A 0.00
50.17 0.00 E A 0.00
49.85 0.00 E A 0.00
49.77 0.00 E A 0.00
49.81 0.00 E A 0.00
50.06 0.00 E A 0.00
50.10 0.00 E A 0.00
49.99 0.00 E A 0.00
49.94 0.00 E A 0.00
50.30 0.00 E A 0.00
50.64 0.00 E A 0.00
50.48 0.00 E A 0.00
50.13 0.00 E A 0.03
50.20 0.00 E A 0.00
49.99 0.00 E A 0.00
50.67 0.00 E A 0.00
50.28 0.00 E A 0.00
49.76 0.00 E A 0.00
49.58 0.00 E A 0.55
49.40 0.00 E A 0.36
49.73 0.00 E A 0.00
49.67 0.00 E A 0.00
49.47 0.00 E A 0.10
49.01 0.00 E A 0.57
48.70 0.00 E A 0.20
48.03 0.00 E A 0.66
46.89 0.00 E A 0.02
46.60 0.00 E A 0.00
46.82 0.00 E A 0.00
46.13 0.00 E A 0.00
45.10 0.00 E A 0.00
44.91 0.00 E A 0.00
44.66 0.00 E A 0.00
44.81 0.00 E A 0.00
45.30 0.00 E A 0.00
44.36 0.00 E A 0.00
43.86 0.00 E A 0.04
44.22 0.00 E A 0.00
44.32 0.00 E A 0.00
43.91 0.00 E A 0.06
43.32 0.00 E A 0.00
43.83 0.00 E A 0.00
43.21 0.00 E A 0.01
43.08 0.00 E A 0.05
43.18 0.00 E A 0.00
42.46 0.00 E A 0.02
42.56 0.00 E A 0.00
41.94 0.00 E A 0.03
42.35 0.00 E A 0.00
42.54 0.00 E A 0.00
41.96 0.00 E A 0.00
29.60 0.00 E A 0.89
4.33 0.00 E A 0.59
5.46 0.00 E A 0.00
9.49 0.00 E A 0.00
11.63 0.00 E A 0.00
9.06 0.00 E A 0.66
10.17 0.00 E A 0.00
10.96 0.00 E A 0.00
7.99 0.00 E A 0.00
4.99 0.00 E A 0.00
4.99 0.00 E A 0.00
7.11 0.00 E A 0.00
8.38 0.00 E A 0.00
11.19 0.00 E A 0.00
12.80 0.00 E A 0.06
11.52 0.00 E A 0.00
12.62 0.00 E A 0.00
17.53 0.00 E A 0.00
12.08 0.00 E A 0.00
4.88 0.00 E A 0.44
4.01 0.00 E A 0.24
2.04 0.00 E A 2.09
3.33 0.00 E A 0.36
5.25 0.00 E A 0.12
8.60 0.00 E A 0.01
14.18 0.00 E A 0.00
17.05 0.00 E A 0.00
18.51 0.00 E A 0.00
21.95 0.00 E A 0.00
23.77 0.00 E A 0.00
24.87 0.00 E A 0.00
25.99 0.00 E A 0.00
26.06 0.00 E A 0.03
,
GHCND:USC003
19675
Project:
DMS Project ID:
Wetland Component:
Growing Season:
Units
Gauge Type
Date
2/4/2017
2/5/2017
2/6/2017
2/7/2017
2/8/2017
2/9/2017
2/10/2017
2/11/2017
2/12/2017
2/13/2017
2/14/2017
2/15/2017
2/16/2017
2/17/2017
2/18/2017
2/19/2017
2/20/2017
2/21/2017
2/22/2017
2/23/2017
2/24/2017
2/25/2017
2/26/2017
2/27/2017
2/28/2017
3/1/2017
3/2/2017
3/3/2017
3/4/2017
3/5/2017
3/6/2017
3/7/2017
3/8/2017
3/9/2017
3/10/2017
3/11/2017
3/12/2017
3/13/2017
3/14/2017
3/15/2017
3/16/2017
3/17/2017
3/18/2017
3/19/2017
3/20/2017
3/21/2017
3/22/2017
3/23/2017
3/24/2017
3/25/2017
3/26/2017
3/27/2017
3/28/2017
Groundwater Groundwater Rain
Serial # 479257 Serial # 450209 Serial #
Gauge LH GWG-8 Gauge LH REF Gauge RG1
Offset: 0 Offset: 0 Source:
Depth Q S Depth Q S Amount QS
,
GHCND:USC003
19675
27.59 0.00 E A 0.00
26.36 0.00 E A 0.05
27.68 0.00 E A 0.00
27.08 0.00 E A 0.00
27.22 0.00 E A 0.02
16.51 0.00 E A 0.43
23.50 0.00 E A 0.00
23.98 0.00 E A 0.00
24.42 0.00 E A 0.00
26.90 0.00 E A 0.00
27.47 0.00 E A 0.00
22.89 0.00 E A 0.46
23.14 1.75 0.00
25.12 2.34 0.00
26.47 4.03 0.00
27.75 5.67 0.00
28.84 7.45 0.00
28.92 8.42 0.00
28.15 7.53 0.09
27.15 6.87 0.07
27.43 8.13 0.00
27.65 8.78 0.00
30.90 11.67 0.00
31.69 13.21 0.00
31.54 13.57 0.00
30.29 12.35 0.04
14.18 -0.29 0.00
20.36 0.96 0.00
23.68 2.16 0.00
24.78 3.33 0.00
25.84 4.96 0.00
25.81 5.38 0.04
26.35 6.19 0.05
27.68 7.77 0.00
28.13 7.83 0.00
30.54 9.61 0.00
30.85 10.65 0.00
31.71 11.92 0.00
30.28 1.32 0.28
32.20 3.98 0.00
33.21 6.01 0.00
33.78 7.53 0.00
32.27 5.94 0.08
33.02 7.59 0.00
33.48 9.15 0.00
32.70 9.31 0.00
33.33 10.43 0.00
35.04 13.24 0.00
34.78 13.69 0.00
34.43 13.78 0.00
34.27 13.81 0.17
33.92 8.28 0.75
15.77 0.45 0.98
APPENDIX 5
APPROVED FHWA CATEGORICAL EXLUSION FORM
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project?Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1.Is this a “full-delivery” project?Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/057

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities

Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the species and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 8
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?

Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 9

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site 
Categorical Exclusion 
SUMMARY 

 Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion    
DMS #97135  1  
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a 
Federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous‐waste sites as well as accidents, 
spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment.  
As the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site is a full‐delivery project; an EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck 
was ordered for the site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc on June 29, 2016.  While the target 
property was not listed in any of the Federal, State, or Tribal environmental databases searched by EDR, 
three Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (LUST) were identified within one‐half mile of the project.   
The LUST site identified at the 1324 Lone Hickory Road residence is 0.2 miles southwest of the Lone 
Hickory Creek project area.  The site was cleaned up in 2010.  The second site, Renegar’s Food Mart, is 
0.2 miles southeast of the project and was cleaned up in 1992.  The final site is over 0.25 miles to the 
east of the project and was cleaned up in 2003. All three LUST sites have been closed and pose no 
environmental risk to the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site.  

Overall, the EDR assessment revealed no evidence of any “recognized environmental conditions” in 
connection with the target property. The Executive Summary of the EDR report is included in the 
Appendix.  The full report is available if needed. 
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) 
The National Historic Preservation Act declares a national policy of historic preservation to protect, 
rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American 
architecture, history, archaeology, and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal agencies take 
into account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion in, 
the National Register of Historic Places. 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) requested review and comment from the State Historic 
Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archeological and architectural resources related to the 
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site on June 24, 2016.  SHPO responded on July 8, 2016 and stated they were 
aware of “no historic resources which would be affected by the project” and would have no further 
comment.  All correspondence related to Section 106 is included in the Appendix. 
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) 
These acts, collectively known as the Uniform Act, provide for uniform and equitable treatment of 
persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non‐profit associations, or farms by federal and 
federally‐assisted programs, and establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies. 
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site is a full‐delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of the 
fair market value of the project property and the lack of condemnation authority by Wildlands was done 
by letter. A copy of the letter and email confirmation that each property owner received the information 
is included in the Appendix. 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the 
Secretary of the Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. 

 Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion    
DMS #97135  2  
The Yadkin County listed endangered species includes the Northern long‐eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis 
septentrionalis). The USFWS does not currently list any Critical Habitat Designations for the Federally‐
listed species within Yadkin County nor are they aware of any known occurrences of the NLEB within the 
County.   As a result of a pedestrian survey conducted on December 29, 2015, suitable habitat was 
found for the NLEB on the project parcel, but no individual species were found to exist.  The project site 
is over 60 miles from the nearest known hibernaculum.   
Wildlands requested review and comment from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on 
June 24, 2016 in respect to the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened or 
endangered species.  On August 9, 2016 a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form was 
submitted by the Federal Highway Administration to the USFWS.  USFWS acknowledged receipt of the 
form on August 9, 2016 and responded on August 31, 2016 stating that due to the project’s distance 
from any known hibernation site or maternity roost that “any incidental take that may result from 
associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule.” 
All correspondence with USFWS is included in the Appendix. 
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)  
The FPPA requires that, before taking or approving any federal action that would result in conversion of 
farmland, the agency must examine the effects of the action using the criteria set forth in the FPPA, and, 
if there are adverse effects, must consider alternatives to lessen them. 
The Lone Hickory Mitigation Site includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD‐1006 has 
been completed and submitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The completed 
form and correspondence documenting its submittal is included in the Appendix. 
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) 
The FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and the appropriate state wildlife agency on projects 
that alter or modify a water body. Reports and recommendations prepared by these agencies document 
project effects on wildlife and identify measures that may be adopted to prevent loss or damage to 
wildlife resources. 
The Lone Hickory Mitigation Site includes stream restoration. Wildlands requested comment on the 
project from both the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on June 
24, 2016. NCWRC responded on July 7, 2016 and stated that the project would “not impact wild trout 
resources or other known significant aquatic resources”.   USFWS responded on August 31, 2016 and 
had no objections to the project.  All correspondence with the two agencies is included in the Appendix. 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or 
export any migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by 
the MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a taking. 
Wildlands requested comment on the Lone Hickory Stream Mitigation Site from the USFWS in regards to 
migratory birds on June 24, 2016. The USFWS response on August 31, 2016, did not include any 
comments related to migratory bird species.  All correspondence with USFWS is included in the 
Appendix. 

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site 
Categorical Exclusion 
APPENDIX 
FORM-LBD-CCA
®kcehCoeG htiw tropeR ™paM suidaR RDE ehT
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
1044 Reavico Farm Road
Yadkinville, NC 27055
Inquiry Number: 4661375.2s
June 29, 2016
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 8
Orphan Summary 18
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting Source Map A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched PSGR-1
TC4661375.2s Page 1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2016 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC4661375.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA’s Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
1044 REAVICO FARM ROAD
YADKINVILLE, NC 27055
COORDINATES
36.0863610 - 36˚ 5’ 10.89’’Latitude (North):
80.6633820 - 80˚ 39’ 48.17’’Longitude (West):
Zone 17Universal Tranverse Mercator:
530306.2UTM X (Meters):
3993379.0UTM Y (Meters):
934 ft. above sea levelElevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
5947721 LONE HICKORY, NCTarget Property Map:
2013Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
20140524Portions of Photo from:
USDASource:
4661375.2s Page 2
4 NCDOT-SEIDERS PROP 2448 US HWY 601 LUST, IMD Higher 1617, 0.306, NE
A3 RENEGAR’S FOOD MARKE 1201 LONE HICKORY RD UST, Financial Assurance Higher 1092, 0.207, ESE
A2 RENEGAR’S FOOD MART LANE HICKORY/FISH BR LUST Higher 882, 0.167, SE
1 REAVIS RESIDENCE 1324 LONE HICKORY RD LUST, LUST TRUST Higher 577, 0.109, South
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
1044 REAVICO FARM ROAD
YADKINVILLE, NC 27055
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTIONSITE NAME ADDRESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC4661375.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR’s search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC4661375.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
US INST CONTROL Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
AST AST Database
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
VCP Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
HIST LF Solid Waste Facility Listing
SWRCY Recycling Center Listing
INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC4661375.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
ODI Open Dump Inventory
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS Spills Incident Listing
SPILLS 90 SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80 SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD Records Of Decision
RMP Risk Management Plans
RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS PCB Activity Database System
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV Indian Reservations
FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS Lead Smelter Sites
US AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES Mines Master Index File
FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
UXO Unexploded Ordnance Sites
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC4661375.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
DOCKET HWC Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
COAL ASH Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC Underground Injection Wells Listing
FUELS PROGRAM EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
ECHO Enforcement & Compliance History Information
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases.
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on
a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incidents Management Database contains an inventory
of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the Department of Environment, &
Natural Resources’ Incidents by Address.
A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/05/2016 has revealed that there are 3
LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____
REAVIS RESIDENCE 1324 LONE HICKORY RD S 0 - 1/8 (0.109 mi.) 1 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC4661375.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
Incident Phase: Closed Out
Incident Number: 37590
Current Status: File Located in Archives
RENEGAR’S FOOD MART LANE HICKORY/FISH BR SE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.167 mi.) A2 10
Incident Phase: Response
Incident Number: 14146
Current Status: File Located in House
NCDOT-SEIDERS PROP 2448 US HWY 601 NE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.306 mi.) 4 15
Incident Phase: Closed Out
Incident Number: 30203
Current Status: File Located in House
LUST TRUST: This database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for
reimbursements for expenses incurred while remediating Leaking USTs.
A review of the LUST TRUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/11/2016 has revealed that there is
1 LUST TRUST site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____
REAVIS RESIDENCE 1324 LONE HICKORY RD S 0 - 1/8 (0.109 mi.) 1 8
Site ID: 37590
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are regulated under
Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The data come from the Department of
Environment & Natural Resources’ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database.
A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/05/2016 has revealed that there is 1 UST
site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____
RENEGAR’S FOOD MARKE 1201 LONE HICKORY RD ESE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.207 mi.) A3 11
Tank Status: Current
Tank Status: Removed
Facility Id: 00-0-0000005751
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Records of Emergency Release Reports
IMD: Incident Management Database.
A review of the IMD list, as provided by EDR, and dated 07/21/2006 has revealed that there is 1 IMD
site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC4661375.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____
NCDOT-SEIDERS PROP 2448 US HWY 601 NE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.306 mi.) 4 15
Facility Id: 30203
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC4661375.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped. Count: 2 records.
Site Name Database(s)____________ ____________
JOYNER REFUSE DUMP OLI
YADKINVILLE REFUSE DISPOSAL OLI
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.40
9 2 0 9
2096 0
920960960 8 0 0
8009 60
960
8 40
920920
920
880 760
8 8 0
880 88 08 8 0 8076 0
880800 8008 00
800
8008 0 0
8 008 0 0
8 0 0 80 0 800 8 0 0
1 000
920 880
1000
8 80
1 0 00
1000920
920
10008 40
840840
8 4 0
8 4 0
8 4 0
84 08400840
8 4 0840 84 0
840 840 8 4 0
8808809608808 8 0
8 8088088
0
880880880
880 88088 0920880920
8 8 0
100 0
92
920920920
920920920
9209 2 0
2 0
8 8 0
880
880
8 8 0
1000
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 001 0 00
1
00010 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 0001 000 960960 96 0
9 6 0 96 0 96096 096096 09
60960
9 6 0
9
60960
9209 2 0
920 92
0920 92 0
888 8 0
EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.07 6 0
7 607 6 0
800880800
8008 0

0
0
8 0 0
88 0
9 60
10 001000 840840
8 4 0
8 4 0
8 4 0
960
8 808808
8
0
8809
20920920920
10001
0
001 0 0 0
0 0
96096

09
6096096
0
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000NPL
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Proposed NPL
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPNPL LIENS
Federal Delisted NPL site list
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Delisted NPL
Federal CERCLIS list
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500FEDERAL FACILITY
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SEMS
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SEMS-ARCHIVE
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000CORRACTS
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500RCRA-TSDF
Federal RCRA generators list
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-LQG
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-SQG
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-CESQG
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LUCIS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US ENG CONTROLS
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US INST CONTROL
Federal ERNS list
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPERNS
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000NC HSDS
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000SHWS
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SWF/LF
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500OLI
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LAST
TC4661375.2s Page 4
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
3 NR NR 1 1 1 0.500LUST
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN LUST
1 NR NR 0 0 1 0.500LUST TRUST
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250FEMA UST
1 NR NR NR 1 0 0.250UST
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250AST
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250INDIAN UST
State and tribal institutional
control / engineering control registries
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INST CONTROL
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN VCP
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500VCP
State and tribal Brownfields sites
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500BROWNFIELDS
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US BROWNFIELDS
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500HIST LF
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SWRCY
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN ODI
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500ODI
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500DEBRIS REGION 9
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUS HIST CDL
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUS CDL
Local Land Records
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPLIENS 2
Records of Emergency Release Reports
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPHMIRS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSPILLS
1 NR NR 1 0 0 0.500IMD
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSPILLS 90
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSPILLS 80
Other Ascertainable Records
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA NonGen / NLR
TC4661375.2s Page 5
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000FUDS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000DOD
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUS FIN ASSUR
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPEPA WATCH LIST
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.2502020 COR ACTION
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPTSCA
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPTRIS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPSSTS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000ROD
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRMP
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRAATS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPPRP
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPPADS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPICIS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPFTTS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPMLTS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPCOAL ASH DOE
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500COAL ASH EPA
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPPCB TRANSFORMER
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRADINFO
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPHIST FTTS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPDOT OPS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000CONSENT
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000INDIAN RESERV
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000FUSRAP
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500UMTRA
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPLEAD SMELTERS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUS AIRS
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250US MINES
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPFINDS
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000UXO
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPDOCKET HWC
0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500COAL ASH
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250DRYCLEANERS
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPFinancial Assurance
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPNPDES
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPUIC
0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250FUELS PROGRAM
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPECHO
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000EDR MGP
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.125EDR Hist Auto
0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.125EDR Hist Cleaner
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRGA HWS
TC4661375.2s Page 6
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
TargetDistance Total
Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRGA LF
0 NR NR NR NR NR TPRGA LUST
6 0 0 2 2 2 0- Totals --
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC4661375.2s Page 7
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Not reportedComments:
Not reportedRP County:
ADVANCE, NC 27006RP City,St,Zip:
129 NC HWY 801 S.RP Address:
3368131543Telephone:
C/O JANET WALLContact Person:
W.BRYCE/MARY REAVISCompany:
WSRegion:
CHRRegional Officer Project Mgr:
Not reportedTestlat:
36.0806 -80.6712Lat/Long Decimal:
TrueValid:
NError Code:
0Error Flag:
TrueRPOP:
TrueRPOW:
0Reel Num:
536CD Num:
TrueRPL:
4PETOPT:
Not reportedRBCA GW:
File Located in ArchivesCurrent Status:
0Release Detection:
Not reportedLUR Filed:
NoFlag1:
NoFlag:
UnknownMTBE1:
NoMTBE:
ResidentialLand Use:
Not reportedSite Risk Reason:
Not reportedPhase Of LSA Req:
Not reportedSite Priority:
Not reportedNORR Issue Date:
Not reportedNOV Issue Date:
Not reportedCorrective Action Plan Type:
LRisk Class Based On Review:
Not reportedRisk Classification:
NON COMMERCIALCommercial/NonCommercial UST Site:
0# Of Supply Wells:
NTank Regulated Status:
Soil to GroundwaterLevel Of Soil Cleanup Achieved:
04/09/2010Close Out:
Not reportedClosure Request:
01/14/2010Cleanup:
01/20/2010Date Occur:
02/01/2010Date Reported:
PProduct Type:
Leak-undergroundSource Type:
SLContamination Type:
37590Incident Number:
WS-8293UST Number:
Not reportedFacility ID:
LUST:
577 ft.
0.109 mi.
Relative:
Higher
Actual:
1007 ft.
< 1/8 YADKINVILLE, NC 27055
South LUST TRUST1324 LONE HICKORY RD. N/A
1 LUSTREAVIS RESIDENCE S110143931
TC4661375.2s Page 8
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
additional NC LUST TRUST: detail in the EDR Site Report.
Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access
0Sum 3rd Party Amt Applied:
03rd Party Deductable Amt:
0Deductable Amount:
Not reportedPriority Rank:
100% Non-CommercialCommercial Find:
TrueSite Eligible?:
Noncommercial; 100% eligible; $0 deductible.[CGS 6/23/10]Site Note:
37590Site ID:
Not reportedFacility ID:
LUST TRUST:
Not reportedClose-out Report:
Not reportedClosure Request Date:
Not reportedRS Designation:
Not reportedReclassification Report:
Not reportedSOC Signed:
Not reportedCorrective Action Planned:
Not reportedPublic Meeting Held:
Not reported45 Day Report:
Not reportedNORR Issued:
Not reportedNOV Issued:
Closed OutIncident Phase:
2010-04-09 00:00:00Last Modified:
PUst Number:
ASource:
3Cause:
2Err Type:
Not reportedSource Code:
Not reportedRelease Code:
Not reportedPirf/Min Soil:
Not reported5 Minute Quad:
Y7#5 Minute Quad:
Not reportedSamples Include:
NWells Affected Y/N:
Not reportedPriority Update:
Not reportedSite Priority:
7Location:
4Type:
3Operation Type:
4Ownership:
Not reportedOwner/Operator:
Soil contamination found at tank closureDescription Of Incident:
2010-02-01 00:00:00Date Reported:
2010-01-20 00:00:00Date Occurred:
37590Facility Id:
PIRF:
Not reported5 Min Quad:
REAVIS RESIDENCE (Continued)S110143931
TC4661375.2s Page 9
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Funding resumed NORR issued and request implementation of CAP onComments:
Not reportedRP County:
YADKINVILLE, NC 27055RP City,St,Zip:
215 EAST MAIN ST./PO BOX 184RP Address:
Not reportedTelephone:
KENNETH REAVISContact Person:
REAVIS OIL COMPANYCompany:
WSRegion:
SBWRegional Officer Project Mgr:
Not reportedTestlat:
36.0830 -80.6580Lat/Long Decimal:
FalseValid:
NError Code:
0Error Flag:
FalseRPOP:
FalseRPOW:
0Reel Num:
0CD Num:
FalseRPL:
3PETOPT:
Not reportedRBCA GW:
File Located in HouseCurrent Status:
0Release Detection:
Not reportedLUR Filed:
NoFlag1:
NoFlag:
UnknownMTBE1:
NoMTBE:
Not reportedLand Use:
Gross contaminant levelsSite Risk Reason:
Not reportedPhase Of LSA Req:
B115Site Priority:
01/09/1997NORR Issue Date:
06/25/1997NOV Issue Date:
air sparging and soil vapor extractionCorrective Action Plan Type:
HRisk Class Based On Review:
HRisk Classification:
COMMERCIALCommercial/NonCommercial UST Site:
0# Of Supply Wells:
RTank Regulated Status:
Not reportedLevel Of Soil Cleanup Achieved:
Not reportedClose Out:
Not reportedClosure Request:
07/31/1992Cleanup:
07/31/1992Date Occur:
04/18/1995Date Reported:
PProduct Type:
Leak-undergroundSource Type:
GWContamination Type:
14146Incident Number:
WS-4361UST Number:
00-0-000Facility ID:
LUST:
882 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster A
0.167 mi.
Relative:
Higher
Actual:
1012 ft.
1/8-1/4 YADKINVILLE, NC 27055
SE LANE HICKORY/FISH BRANDON RD. N/A
A2 LUSTRENEGAR’S FOOD MART S108407952
TC4661375.2s Page 10
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Not reportedClose-out Report:
Not reportedClosure Request Date:
Not reportedRS Designation:
Not reportedReclassification Report:
Not reportedSOC Signed:
Not reportedCorrective Action Planned:
Not reportedPublic Meeting Held:
Not reported45 Day Report:
2007-01-26 00:00:00NORR Issued:
Not reportedNOV Issued:
ResponseIncident Phase:
Not reportedLast Modified:
Not reported5 Min Quad:
quarterly monitoring to include supply wells 1 & 2
supply wells sampled. Requested reactiof as/sve ssytem and resume
2L in sample from MW-3, No contaminants detectyed in the 9 water
1/26/2007. 4/22/2013 sampling event detected MTBE & Naphthalene above
RENEGAR’S FOOD MART (Continued) S108407952
UnknownDecode for TCONS_KEY:
Not reportedLeak Detection Name:
Not reportedLeak Detection Key:
Catchment BasinSpill Protection Name:
4Spill Protection Key:
Ball Float ValveOverfill Protection Name:
5Overfill Protection Key:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
UnknownPiping System Key:
Single Wall FRPPiping Construction:
UnknownTank Construction:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
0Manifold Tank:
YesCompartment Tank:
YesMain Tank:
182321Root Tank Id:
3000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
3Product Key:
Not reportedPerm Close Date:
06/30/1992Installed Date:
CurrentTank Status:
01Tank Id:
-80.65797Longitude:
36.08298Latitude:
YadkinFIPS County Desc:
YADKINVILLE, NC 27055Contact City/State/Zip:
DBA RENEGAR’S FOOD MARKETContact Address2:
1221 LONE HICKORY RDContact Address1:
HALL . RENEGARContact:
00-0-0000005751Facility Id:
UST:
1092 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster A
0.207 mi.
Relative:
Higher
Actual:
1003 ft.
1/8-1/4 YADKINVILLE, NC 27055
ESE Financial Assurance1201 LONE HICKORY RD N/A
A3 USTRENEGAR’S FOOD MARKET U003562145
TC4661375.2s Page 11
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Single Wall FRPDecode for PCONS_KEY:
UnknownDecode for TCONS_KEY:
Not reportedLeak Detection Name:
Not reportedLeak Detection Key:
Catchment BasinSpill Protection Name:
4Spill Protection Key:
Ball Float ValveOverfill Protection Name:
5Overfill Protection Key:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
UnknownPiping System Key:
Single Wall FRPPiping Construction:
UnknownTank Construction:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
0Manifold Tank:
YesCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
182321Root Tank Id:
3000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
3Product Key:
Not reportedPerm Close Date:
06/30/1992Installed Date:
CurrentTank Status:
01BTank Id:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall FRPDecode for PCONS_KEY:
UnknownDecode for TCONS_KEY:
Not reportedLeak Detection Name:
Not reportedLeak Detection Key:
Catchment BasinSpill Protection Name:
4Spill Protection Key:
Ball Float ValveOverfill Protection Name:
5Overfill Protection Key:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
UnknownPiping System Key:
Single Wall FRPPiping Construction:
UnknownTank Construction:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
0Manifold Tank:
YesCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
182321Root Tank Id:
6000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
3Product Key:
Not reportedPerm Close Date:
06/30/1992Installed Date:
CurrentTank Status:
01ATank Id:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall FRPDecode for PCONS_KEY:
RENEGAR’S FOOD MARKET (Continued)U003562145
TC4661375.2s Page 12
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
UnknownLeak Detection Name:
-1Leak Detection Key:
UnknownSpill Protection Name:
1Spill Protection Key:
UnknownOverfill Protection Name:
1Overfill Protection Key:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
UnknownPiping System Key:
Single Wall SteelPiping Construction:
Single Wall SteelTank Construction:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
Not reportedManifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
2000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
3Product Key:
06/23/1992Perm Close Date:
03/23/1976Installed Date:
RemovedTank Status:
2Tank Id:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
UnknownLeak Detection Name:
-1Leak Detection Key:
UnknownSpill Protection Name:
1Spill Protection Key:
UnknownOverfill Protection Name:
1Overfill Protection Key:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
UnknownPiping System Key:
Single Wall SteelPiping Construction:
Single Wall SteelTank Construction:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
Not reportedManifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
2000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
3Product Key:
06/23/1992Perm Close Date:
03/23/1976Installed Date:
RemovedTank Status:
1Tank Id:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
RENEGAR’S FOOD MARKET (Continued)U003562145
TC4661375.2s Page 13
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
00-0-0000005751Facility ID:
NC Financial Assurance 1:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
UnknownLeak Detection Name:
-1Leak Detection Key:
UnknownSpill Protection Name:
1Spill Protection Key:
UnknownOverfill Protection Name:
1Overfill Protection Key:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
UnknownPiping System Key:
Single Wall SteelPiping Construction:
Single Wall SteelTank Construction:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
Not reportedManifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
280Tank Capacity:
DieselProduct Name:
1Product Key:
09/30/1992Perm Close Date:
03/21/1984Installed Date:
RemovedTank Status:
4Tank Id:
UnknownDecode for PSYS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall SteelDecode for TCONS_KEY:
UnknownLeak Detection Name:
-1Leak Detection Key:
UnknownSpill Protection Name:
1Spill Protection Key:
UnknownOverfill Protection Name:
1Overfill Protection Key:
Not reportedOther CP Tank:
UnknownPiping System Key:
Single Wall SteelPiping Construction:
Single Wall SteelTank Construction:
YesRegulated:
YesCommercial:
Not reportedManifold Tank:
NoCompartment Tank:
NoMain Tank:
Not reportedRoot Tank Id:
2000Tank Capacity:
Gasoline, Gas MixProduct Name:
3Product Key:
06/23/1992Perm Close Date:
03/23/1978Installed Date:
RemovedTank Status:
3Tank Id:
RENEGAR’S FOOD MARKET (Continued)U003562145
TC4661375.2s Page 14
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Not reportedEnded Date:
Not reportedStarted Date:
Colony Insurance CompanyFinancial Responsibility Name:
Insurance & Risk RetensionFinancial Responsibility Desc:
1Region:
RENEGAR’S FOOD MARKET (Continued) U003562145
WSRegion:
STFRegional Officer Project Mgr:
Not reportedTestlat:
36.0933 -80.6539Lat/Long Decimal:
FalseValid:
NError Code:
0Error Flag:
FalseRPOP:
FalseRPOW:
Not reportedReel Num:
0CD Num:
TrueRPL:
3PETOPT:
Not reportedRBCA GW:
File Located in HouseCurrent Status:
0Release Detection:
Not reportedLUR Filed:
NoFlag1:
NoFlag:
UnknownMTBE1:
NoMTBE:
ResidentialLand Use:
Not reportedSite Risk Reason:
1Phase Of LSA Req:
Not reportedSite Priority:
Not reportedNORR Issue Date:
Not reportedNOV Issue Date:
Not reportedCorrective Action Plan Type:
LRisk Class Based On Review:
HRisk Classification:
COMMERCIALCommercial/NonCommercial UST Site:
0# Of Supply Wells:
RTank Regulated Status:
Not reportedLevel Of Soil Cleanup Achieved:
01/07/2015Close Out:
Not reportedClosure Request:
11/13/2003Cleanup:
04/25/2003Date Occur:
06/23/2003Date Reported:
PProduct Type:
Leak-undergroundSource Type:
SLContamination Type:
30203Incident Number:
WS-6689UST Number:
Not reportedFacility ID:
LUST:
1617 ft.
0.306 mi.
Relative:
Higher
Actual:
950 ft.
1/4-1/2 YADKINVILLE, NC 27055
NE IMD2448 US HWY 601 N/A
4 LUSTNCDOT-SEIDERS PROP S105898019
TC4661375.2s Page 15
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
YesSoil Contam:
No Groundwater Contamination detectedGW Contam:
6/23/2003Submit Date:
4/25/2003Date Occurred:
30203Facility ID:
WSRegion:
IMD:
Not reportedClose-out Report:
Not reportedClosure Request Date:
Not reportedRS Designation:
Not reportedReclassification Report:
Not reportedSOC Signed:
Not reportedCorrective Action Planned:
Not reportedPublic Meeting Held:
Not reported45 Day Report:
2003-07-24 00:00:00NORR Issued:
2004-02-12 00:00:00NOV Issued:
Closed OutIncident Phase:
2015-01-07 00:00:00Last Modified:
EUst Number:
ESource:
Not reportedCause:
9Err Type:
Not reportedSource Code:
Not reportedRelease Code:
Not reportedPirf/Min Soil:
Not reported5 Minute Quad:
y7#5 Minute Quad:
Not reportedSamples Include:
nWells Affected Y/N:
Not reportedPriority Update:
Not reportedSite Priority:
8Location:
3Type:
6Operation Type:
4Ownership:
Not reportedOwner/Operator:
Contaminated soil was discovered during NC DOT widening project.Description Of Incident:
2003-06-23 00:00:00Date Reported:
2003-04-25 00:00:00Date Occurred:
30203Facility Id:
PIRF:
Not reported5 Min Quad:
on 01/06/2006.
reimbursement per letter dated 9/9/2003 from Leann Isha. Sent to CO
operate was Edith Hauser. Edith was eligible for trust fund
Seiders may not be statutory owner. Last living person to own and
NCDOT right of way survey dected TPH above 10ppm. LSA required. WandaComments:
Not reportedRP County:
YADKINVILLE-COURTNEY, NC 27055RP City,St,Zip:
1147 SESAME DRIVERP Address:
3364634791Telephone:
VICTOR SEIDERSContact Person:
WANDA SEIDERSCompany:
NCDOT-SEIDERS PROP (Continued) S105898019
TC4661375.2s Page 16
MAP FINDINGSMap ID
Direction
EDR ID NumberDistance
EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation
Not reportedClose-out Report:
Not reportedClosure Request Date:
Not reportedRS Designation:
Not reportedReclassification Report:
Not reportedSOC Sighned:
Not reportedCorrective Action Planned:
Not reportedPublic Meeting Held:
Not reported45 Day Report:
7/24/2003NORR Issued:
2/12/2004NOV Issued:
REIncident Phase:
Not reportedLast Modified:
30203Facility ID:
DWMAgency:
7GPS:
80.6486111111111Longitude Decimal:
36.0769444444444Latitude Decimal:
803855Longitude Number:
360437Latitude Number:
-80.64861111Longitude:
36.07694444Latitude:
Not reported5 Min Quad:
Not reported7.5 Min Quad:
Not reportedSamples Include:
ySampled By:
Not reportedWells Contam:
Not reportedNum Affected:
NoWells Affected:
STFDem Contact:
Not reportedPriority Update:
Not reportedPriority Code:
Not reportedSite Priority:
HRisk Site:
Not reportedSetting:
8Location:
Gasoline/dieselType:
Leak-undergroundSource:
Not reportedQty Recovered 1:
Not reportedQty Lost 1:
Not reportedMaterial:
CommercialOperation:
PrivateOwnership:
YADKINVILLE-COURTNEY, NC 27055-Oper City,St,Zip:
YADKINVILLE-COURTNEYOperator City:
1147 SESAME DRIVEOperator Address:
WANDA SEIDERSOwner Company:
3364634791Contact Phone:
VICTOR SEIDERSOperator:
Contaminated soil was discovered during NC DOT widening project.Incident Desc:
NCDOT-SEIDERS PROP (Continued) S105898019
TC4661375.2s Page 17

1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 ◦ (P) 704-332-7754 ◦ (F) 704-332-3306
June 24, 2016 

Renee Gledhill‐Earley 
State Historic Preservation Office 
4617 Mail Service Center 
Raleigh, NC 27699‐4617 

Subject:   Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  
Yadkin County, North Carolina    

Dear Ms. Gledhill‐Earley, 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might 
emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the Lone Hickory 
Mitigation Site. A USGS Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map with approximate project 
areas are enclosed. 

The Lone Hickory Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in‐kind mitigation for 
unavoidable stream channel impacts.  Several sections of channel have been identified as 
significantly degraded.  The project will include stream restoration on several unnamed 
tributaries to South Deep Creek.  The site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural 
use, including both cattle and row crops.   

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

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

Sincerely, 

Ruby M. Davis 
Environmental Scientist 
[e-mail] 

Attachment: 
USGS Topographic Map 
Overview Site Map 

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz 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

July 8, 2016

Ruby Davis
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Re: Lone Hickory Mitigation Site, Yadkin County, ER 16-1139
Dear Ms. Davis:
Thank you for your letter of June 24, 2016, 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 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

September 1, 2016

Reavico Farms, Inc.
Nancy R. and Michael S. Shore
Cynthia H. and Hughes M. Reavis
Jennifer B. and Joel D. Reavis
Janet R. and Charles M. Wall
Ann R. and Howard F. Steelman

Re: Lone Hickory Mitigation Site

Dear Nancy, Michael, Cynthia, Hughes, Jennifer, Joel, Janet, Charles, Anne and Howard:

In accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,
Wildlands hereby notifies you that: (i) Wildlands believes that the fair market value of your property that is part
of the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site is an amount equal to the purchase price; and (ii) Wildlands does not have the
power of eminent domain.

Sincerely,

Shawn D. Wilkerson
President

1
Andrea Eckardt
From:Nancy Shore <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, September 01, 2016 9:44 PM
To:Janet Wall
Cc:Robert Bugg
Subject:Re: Uniform Act Notification concerning our purchase of your property

Robert, Janet forwarded this e-mail to me when she saw my name was not on the original e-mail sent out. I am
sending my response to let you know I have now received a forwarded e-mail.

Nancy Shore
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 1, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Janet Wall <[e-mail]> wrote:
Email from Robert.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Robert Bugg" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sep 1, 2016 1:49 PM
Subject: Uniform Act Notification concerning our purchase of your property
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Joel & Jennifer Reavis"
<[e-mail]>, "Janet Wall" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>
Cc: "Lee Caffery" <[e-mail]>

Reavis family,

As we work through details of the closing next year the NC Division of Mitigation Services has
asked us to formally notify you that we that we believe that the purchase price of your property
is equal to its fair market value and that you are aware that we do not have the power of eminent
domain. (We are not purchasing your property via a government “taking”.)

Please see the attached letter. Will each of you please reply back with the simple words
“Received” so we know you got it? Feel free to call if you have any questions.

All is proceeding well with our process towards closing. Stream and wetland delineations are
complete. Survey work is underway and will be completed as soon as your tenant farmer
harvests his corn. (We can’t see over it!) We are planning on making the additional option fee
1
Andrea Eckardt
From:Joel & Jennifer Reavis <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, September 01, 2016 8:21 PM
To:Robert Bugg
Cc:[e-mail]; Janet Wall; Lee Caffery
Subject:Re: Uniform Act Notification concerning our purchase of your property
Received. 

Joel Reavis 

Sent from my iPad 

On Sep 1, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Robert Bugg <[e-mail]> wrote: 
Reavis family, 

As we work through details of the closing next year the NC Division of Mitigation Services has asked us 
to formally notify you that we  that we believe that the purchase price of your property is equal to its 
fair market value and that you are aware that we do not have the power of eminent domain.  (We are 
not purchasing your property via a government “taking”.) 

Please see the attached letter.  Will each of you please reply back with the simple words “Received” so 
we know you got it?  Feel free to call if you have any questions. 

All is proceeding well with our process towards closing.  Stream and wetland delineations are 
complete.  Survey work is underway and will be completed as soon as your tenant farmer harvests his 
corn.  (We can’t see over it!)  We are planning on making the additional option fee as required by our 
agreement in January and closing should be in early 4th quarter next year.  No other news. 

Thanks for your reply to this email!  I hope you are all doing well and enjoy a great Labor Day weekend. 

Robert W. Bugg, ALC  |  Director: Land Acquisition 
O: 704.332.7754  x105  M: 704.719.2100 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104  
Charlotte, NC 28203 

<Uniform Act Notification Letter.pdf>
1
Andrea Eckardt
From:Janet Wall <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, September 01, 2016 5:49 PM
To:Robert Bugg
Cc:[e-mail]; Joel Reavis; Hugh Reavis
Subject:Re: Uniform Act Notification concerning our purchase of your property
Received. I believe you left out the email for Nancy.

On Sep 1, 2016 1:49 PM, "Robert Bugg" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Reavis family,

As we work through details of the closing next year the NC Division of Mitigation Services has asked us to
formally notify you that we that we believe that the purchase price of your property is equal to its fair market
value and that you are aware that we do not have the power of eminent domain. (We are not purchasing your
property via a government “taking”.)

Please see the attached letter. Will each of you please reply back with the simple words “Received” so we
know you got it? Feel free to call if you have any questions.

All is proceeding well with our process towards closing. Stream and wetland delineations are
complete. Survey work is underway and will be completed as soon as your tenant farmer harvests his
corn. (We can’t see over it!) We are planning on making the additional option fee as required by our
agreement in January and closing should be in early 4th quarter next year. No other news.

Thanks for your reply to this email! I hope you are all doing well and enjoy a great Labor Day weekend.

Robert W. Bugg, ALC | Director: Land Acquisition
O: 704.332.7754 x105 M: 704.719.2100

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1
Andrea Eckardt
From:Hugh Reavis <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, September 01, 2016 6:19 PM
To:Robert Bugg; Joel & Jennifer Reavis; Janet Wall; [e-mail]
Cc:Lee Caffery
Subject:Re: Uniform Act Notification concerning our purchase of your property
Received
Hugh
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016, 3:49 PM Robert Bugg <[e-mail]> wrote:
Reavis family,

As we work through details of the closing next year the NC Division of Mitigation Services has asked us to
formally notify you that we that we believe that the purchase price of your property is equal to its fair market
value and that you are aware that we do not have the power of eminent domain. (We are not purchasing your
property via a government “taking”.)

Please see the attached letter. Will each of you please reply back with the simple words “Received” so we
know you got it? Feel free to call if you have any questions.

All is proceeding well with our process towards closing. Stream and wetland delineations are
complete. Survey work is underway and will be completed as soon as your tenant farmer harvests his
corn. (We can’t see over it!) We are planning on making the additional option fee as required by our
agreement in January and closing should be in early 4th quarter next year. No other news.

Thanks for your reply to this email! I hope you are all doing well and enjoy a great Labor Day weekend.

Robert W. Bugg, ALC | Director: Land Acquisition
O: 704.332.7754 x105 M: 704.719.2100

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1
Andrea Eckardt
From:Howard Steelman <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, September 01, 2016 4:39 PM
To:Robert Bugg
Subject:RE: Uniform Act Notification concerning our purchase of your property
Received Ann Steelman 

From: Robert Bugg [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 3:50 PM
To: [e-mail]; Joel & Jennifer Reavis; Janet Wall; [e-mail]
Cc: Lee Caffery
Subject: Uniform Act Notification concerning our purchase of your property

Reavis family, 

As we work through details of the closing next year the NC Division of Mitigation Services has asked us to formally notify 
you that we  that we believe that the purchase price of your property is equal to its fair market value and that you are 
aware that we do not have the power of eminent domain.  (We are not purchasing your property via a government 
“taking”.) 

Please see the attached letter.  Will each of you please reply back with the simple words “Received” so we know you got 
it?  Feel free to call if you have any questions. 

All is proceeding well with our process towards closing.  Stream and wetland delineations are complete.  Survey work is 
underway and will be completed as soon as your tenant farmer harvests his corn.  (We can’t see over it!)  We are 
planning on making the additional option fee as required by our agreement in January and closing should be in early 4th 
quarter next year.  No other news. 

Thanks for your reply to this email!  I hope you are all doing well and enjoy a great Labor Day weekend. 

Robert W. Bugg, ALC  |  Director: Land Acquisition 
O: 704.332.7754  x105  M: 704.719.2100 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104  
Charlotte, NC 28203 

1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC  28203 ◦ (P) 704‐332‐7754 ◦ (F) 704‐332‐3306 

August 9, 2016 

Marella Buncick 
US Fish and Wildlife Service 
Asheville Field Office 
160 Zillicoa Street 
Asheville, NC 28801 

Subject:  Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  ‐Yadkin County, North Carolina 

Dear Ms. Buncick, 

The Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (located at Reavico Farms Rd, Yadkinville, NC) is being 
developed to provide stream and wetland mitigation units to the Division of Mitigation Services 
in the Yadkin River Basin.  Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly 
degraded. The project will include stream restoration on several unnamed tributaries to South 
Deep Creek. The site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural use, including both cattle 
and row crops. 

According to your website (http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species‐by‐ current‐ 
rangecounty), the Northern long‐eared bat is the only federally‐listed species in Yadkin County.  

A USGS Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are 
enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Lone Hickory, 7.5‐Minute USGS 
Topographic Quadrangles. The red boundary is the easement boundary.  The new stream 
alignment will be through the pasture areas, so tree clearing is minimal. 

Sincerely, 

Andrea S. Eckardt 
Sr. Environmental Planner 

Attachment: 
USGS Topographic Map and Overview Site Map 
1
Andrea Eckardt
From:Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, August 09, 2016 10:33 AM
To:[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc:Andrea Eckardt; Wiesner, Paul
Subject:NLEB 4(d) Rule streamlined consultation - Lone Hickory Mitigation site
Attachments:Lone Hickory Mitigation site NLEB 4(d) consultation form 8-9-16.pdf; Lone Hickory site cover letter &
maps.pdf
Good morning Marella, Andrew, 

The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined consultation 
framework for the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site in Yadkinville, NC.  

Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form, in addition to background project 
information including maps.   

Thank you and have a great day, 

Donnie 

Notifying the Service Under the Framework
Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies (or designated non-federal representatives) should use the Northern Long-Eared Bat
4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form to notify the Service of their project and meet the
requirements of the framework.

Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form (Word document)

Information requested in the Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form serves
to

(1) notify the field office that an action agency will use the streamlined framework;

(2) describe the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and

(3) enable the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation for the
4(d) rule is required. This form requests the minimum amount of information required for
the Service to be able to track this information.

Providing information in the Streamlined Consultation Form does not address section 7(a)(2)
compliance for any other listed species.

Donnie Brew 
1
Andrea Eckardt
From:Buncick, Marella <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, August 09, 2016 1:48 PM
To:Brew, Donnie (FHWA)
Cc:[e-mail]; Andrea Eckardt; Wiesner, Paul
Subject:Re: NLEB 4(d) Rule streamlined consultation - Lone Hickory Mitigation site
Thanks Donnie. Paul, is this a site that the IRT will be reviewing?

marella

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]> wrote:
Good morning Marella, Andrew,

The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined consultation
framework for the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site in Yadkinville, NC.

Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form, in addition to background project
information including maps.

Thank you and have a great day,

Donnie

Notifying the Service Under the Framework
Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies (or designated non-federal representatives) should use the Northern Long-Eared Bat
4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form to notify the Service of their project and meet the
requirements of the framework.

Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form (Word document)
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

August 31, 2016

Ruby Davis
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

Dear Ms. Davis:

Subject: Lone Hickory Mitigation Project; Yadkin County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-16-574

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence dated June 24, 2016 (received August 31, 2016). You requested our comments
on potential impacts to federal trust resources that may result from the proposed project. The
Service submits the following comments in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).

Project Description
Based on the information provided, you intend to explore the potential to restore several
unnamed tributaries of the South Deep Creek that occur within the project area to provide in-
kind mitigation for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional streams. The project area appears to be
dominated by agricultural land cover and you indicate that the streams have been significantly
degraded. However, beyond this information, no additional project details were included in your
correspondence.

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
According to Service records, suitable summer roosting habitat may be present on site for the
federally threatened northern long-eared bat. However, the final 4(d) rule (effective as of
February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-eared bat associated with activities
2

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 (which may require tree clearing) would occur at a location
where any incidental take that may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule.

The Service has record of no other federally protected species in the project area. Therefore, we
consider the requirements under the Act to be complete and require no further action at this time.
Please be aware that obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.

We offer the following recommendations in the interest of protecting fish, wildlife, and other
natural resources.

Stream Channel and Bank Reconstruction/Restoration Activities
A natural, stable stream system is one that is able to transport a wide range of flows and
associated bed load (sediment) while maintaining channel features and neither degrading
(accelerating the erosion of banks and scour of the channel bed) nor aggrading (accelerating the
deposition of sediment within the channel). The majority of property damage associated with
flood events in areas that contain, or are adjacent to, streams often can be tied to human-caused
alterations within the stream corridor, such as the removal of streambank vegetation,
channelization, and/or dredging of the stream and the placement of fill within floodplains. To
avoid future damage and associated costs, it is critical that proposals to repair storm-damaged
property within stream corridors emphasize the restoration of natural, stable stream conditions.
Accordingly, we recommend the following:

1. All reconstruction work should follow natural channel design methodologies that are
based on the bank-full, or channel-forming, stage of the stream. Natural channel
conditions should be identified using a reference reach (nearby stream reaches that
exemplify restoration goals). Restoration design should match the pattern, dimension,
and profile of the reference reach to ensure the project’s success.

2. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area to the
extent possible.

3. Equipment should not be operated in the stream unless absolutely necessary. Machinery
should be operated from the banks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance. Equipment
should be: (a) washed to remove any contaminant residue prior to project construction,
(b) in good working order, and (c) checked to ensure there are no leaks of potential
contaminants (such as oil or other lubricants) prior to and during construction.

4. Deep-rooting woody vegetation should be established along banks where any channel
work is accomplished. Tree and shrub plantings should be spaced at intervals no greater
3

than 10 feet along banks. Vegetated riparian zone widths should be as wide as practical
but should extend at least 30 feet from the stream channel.

5. Reconstruction work should be staged such that disturbed areas are 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. 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).

6. Cross-sections (at intervals based on restoration reach size), longitudinal profiles, and
stream-pattern plans should be measured and mapped prior to and immediately following
any channel work. In addition, photographs should be taken to document the condition of
the project site prior to initiating the work and upon completion of the work. However,
since a project’s restoration success does not necessarily equate to biological success, the
ecological goals of the project should be clearly defined and assessed for improvement
after construction is completed.

Invasive Exotic Species
Without active management, including the revegetation of disturbed areas with native species,
this project may become a corridor for the movement of invasive exotic plant species. Exotic
species are a major contributor to species depletion and extinction, second only to habitat loss.
Exotics are a factor contributing to the endangered or threatened status of more than 40 percent
of the animals and plants on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants.1 It is estimated that at least 4,000 exotic plant species and 2,300 exotic animal species
are now established in the United States, costing more than $130 billion a year to control.2
Additionally, the U.S. Government has many programs and laws in place to combat invasive
species (see www.invasivespecies.gov). Specifically, Section 2(a)(3) of Executive Order
13112 - Invasive Species (February 3, 1999) directs federal agencies to “not authorize, fund, or
carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of
invasive species in the United States or elsewhere.” Despite their short-term erosion-control
benefits, many exotic species used in soil stabilization seed mixes are persistent once they are
established, thereby preventing the reestablishment of native vegetation. Many of these exotic
plants 3 are also aggressive invaders of nearby natural areas, where they are capable of displacing
already-established native species. Therefore, we strongly recommend that only species native
to the natural communities within the project area be used in association with all aspects of this
project.

1D.S. Wilcove, D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in
the United States. BioScience 48:607-615.
2D. Pimentel, L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous
species in the United States. BioScience 50:53-65.
3Lists of invasive exotic plants can be found at http://www.tneppc.org/ and http://www.invasive.org/eastern/srs/
(exotic wildlife links) on the Internet.
4

The Service supports the restoration objectives of this project. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225, if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-16-574.

Sincerely,

- - original signed - -

Janet A. Mizzi
Field Supervisor

1
Ian Eckardt
From:Ian Eckardt
Sent:Friday, July 29, 2016 2:31 PM
To:'Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC'
Subject:Completed AD1006 Form - Lone Hickory Mitigation Site - Yadkin County, NC
Attachments:Lone Hickory - AD1006 Form (Completed 7.29.2016).pdf
Milton, 

Thanks for your assistance with the AD1006 form.  Please find attached the completed form for the Lone Hickory 
Mitigation Site.  Please let me know if you need anything else for your records.   

Ian Eckardt |  Environmental Scientist 
O: 704.332.7754  x108  M: 704.517‐4988 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104  
Charlotte, NC 28203 

1
Ian Eckardt
From:Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, July 12, 2016 5:40 PM
To:Ian Eckardt
Subject:RE: Request for AD1006 Form - Lone Hickory Mitigation Site - Yadkin County, NC
Attachments:Letter_Lone Hickory Mitigation Site.pdf; Lone Hickory - AD1006.pdf
Importance:High
Ian: 

Please find attached the response to your request for AD1006 Form ‐ Lone Hickory Mitigation Site ‐ Yadkin County, NC 

If you have any question please let me know 

Milton Cortés
Assistant State Soil Scientist
USDA NRCS
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]

From: Ian Eckardt [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:28 PM 
To: Cortes, Milton ‐ NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Request for AD1006 Form ‐ Lone Hickory Mitigation Site ‐ Yadkin County, NC 

Milton, 

I have a request for a completed AD1006 form for another NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) stream 
restoration project (Lone Hickory Mitigation Site) located in Yadkin County.  Please find attached a Vicinity Map and Soils 
Map in addition to the AD1006 form with Parts I and III filled out.  The soil breakdown is included on the Soil Map.  

Thanks for your assistance and please let me know if you need any additional information.   

Ian Eckardt  |  Environmental Scientist 
O: 704.332.7754  x108  M: 704.517.4988 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104  
Charlotte, NC 28203 

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County And State
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form).
Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Major Crop(s)Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
Yes No

Acres: % %Acres:
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A.Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B.Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C.Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A.Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B.Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C.Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D.Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1.Area In Nonurban Use
2.Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3.Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4.Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5.Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6.Distance To Urban Support Services
7.Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8.Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9.Availability Of Farm Support Services
10.On-Farm Investments
11.Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12.Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a localsite assessment)160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)260
Site Selected:Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes No
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203 ◦ (P) 704-332-7754 ◦ (F) 704-332-3306

June 24, 2016 

Shannon Deaton  
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission  
Division of Inland Fisheries 
1721 Mail Service Center 
Raleigh, NC  27699 

Subject: Lone Hickory Mitigation Site 
  Yadkin County, North Carolina 

Dear Ms. Deaton, 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that 
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed 
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site.  A USGS Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map 
showing the approximate project area are enclosed.  The topographic figure was 
prepared from the Lone Hickory, 7.5‐Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles. 

The Lone Hickory Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in‐kind mitigation for 
unavoidable stream channel impacts.  Several sections of channel have been identified 
as significantly degraded.  The project will include stream restoration on several 
unnamed tributaries to South Deep Creek.  The site has historically been disturbed due 
to agricultural use, including both cattle and row crops.  

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

Sincerely, 

Ruby M. Davis 
Environmental Scientist 

Attachment: 
USGS Topographic Map 
Overview Site Map 
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
July 7, 2016

Ruby Davis
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

SUBJECT: Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
UTs to South Deep Creek, Yadkin County

Dear Ms. Davis:

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) received your
June 24, 2016 letter regarding a possible stream restoration project on unnamed tributaries (UTs)
to South Deep Creek in Yadkin County. You requested information concerning any issues that
might arise with respect to fish and wildlife. Our comments on this project are offered for your
consideration under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).

There was no information provided on project design or length.

This project will not impact wild trout resources or other known significant aquatic resources.
We recommend that riparian buffers that are to be reestablished be as wide as possible, given site
constraints and landowner needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on
perennial streams in order to maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream
shading, treatment of overland runoff, and wildlife habitat.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me at
[phone] if you have any questions about these comments.

Sincerely,
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator, Habitat Conservation Program

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site 
Categorical Exclusion 
FIGURES 

0 2 4 Miles
Vicinity Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC¹
Project Site
UT2UT3UT1Reach2UT2AUT1R
e
a
c
h
3
UT2C
U
T
1
Reac
h
1
UT1
AUT
1
R
e
a
c
h

4
U
T
1
BUT3AUT3B
0 500 1,000 Feet Overview Site Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC¹
Project Parcel
Project Area
Project Streams
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contours 4'
2014 Aerial Photography
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
USGS Topographic Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC¹
Project Parcel
Project Area
Lone Hickory, USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
South Deep CreekDmA
CrA StB
DoB
FaD
SmF
FaE
TaE
WoF
TaE
DoB
WoF
FaE
WwF
FtF
CrA
TaE
FaE
NeB2
TaE
DhA
CaB
RdE
FsF
FdD2
FdE2
FeD3
TeE2
FsF
0 500 1,000 Feet
Soils Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Site
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Streams
Offsite Streams
Soils
CaB- Clifford fine sandy loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
CrA- Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, occasionally flooded
DhA- Dan River and Codorus soils, 0 to
2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
DmA- Dan River and Codorus soils, 0
to 4 percent slopes, occasionally
flooded
DoB- Delila fine sandy loam, 0 to 6
percent slopes
FaD- Fairview fine sandy loam, 10 to
15 percent slopes
FaE- Fairview fine sandy loam, 15 to
25 percent slopes
FdD2- Fairview sandy clay loam, 10 to
15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
FdE2- Fairview sandy clay loam, 15 to
25 percent slopes, moderately eroded
FeD3- Fairview clay loam, 10 to 15
percent slopes, severely eroded
FsF- Fairview-Stott Knob complex, 25
to 45 percent slopes
FtF- Fairview-Stott Knob complex, 25
to 45 percent slopes, stony
NeB2- Nathalie sandy clay loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes, moderately eroded
RdE- Rhodhiss-Stott Knob complex, 15
to 25 percent slopes, stony
SmF- Siloam sandy loam, 25 to 50
percent slopes
StB- Starr loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes,
rarely flooded
TaE- Toast fine sandy loam, 15 to 25
percent slopes
TeE2- Toast sandy clay loam, 15 to 25
percent slopes, moderately eroded
WoF- Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield
complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes
WwF- Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield
complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes,
stony
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name
Acres in
Project Area
Percent in
Project Area
CaB Clifford fine sandy loam, 2-6% slopes 0.3 0.4%
CrB Codorus loam, 0-2% slopes 12.9 16.0%
DhA Dan River and Codorus soils, 0-2% slopes 0.5 0.6%
DmA Dan River and Codorus soils, 0-4% slopes 22.4 27.8%
DoB Delila fine sandy loam, 0-6% slopes 17.7 21.9%
FaD Fairview fine sandy loam, 10-15% slopes 10.7 13.3%
FaE Fairview fine sandy loam, 15-25% slopes 3.3 4.1%
FdD2 Fairview sandy clay loam, 10-15% slopes 0.2 0.2%
FdE2 Fairview sandy clay loam, 15-25% slopes 0.2 0.2%
FeD3 Fairview clay loam, 10-15% slopes 0.1 0.1%
FsF Fairview-Stott Knob complex, 25-45% slopes 0.2 0.2%
FtF Fairview-Stott Knob complex, 25-45% slopes, stony 0.7 0.9%
NeB2 Nathalie sandy clay loam, 2-6% slopes 0.9 1.1%
RdE Rhodhiss-Stott Knob complex, 15-25% slopes 0.2 0.2%
SmF Siloam sandy loam, 25-50% slopes 1.9 2.4%
StB Starr loam, 0-6% slopes 1.3 1.6%
TaE Toast fine sandy loam, 15-25% slopes 3.5 4.3%
TeE2 Toast sandy clay loam, 15-25% slopes 0*0.0%
WoF Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, 25-45% slopes 2.5 3.1%
WwF Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, 25-45% slopes, stony 1.2 1.5%
80.7 100.0%Totals for Project Area
* Less than a tenth of an acre.
APPENDIX 6
PLAN SHEETS
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin County, North Carolina
for
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
Title Sheet 0.1
General Notes and Symbols 0.2
Project Overview 0.3 - 0.5
Typical Sections 1.1 - 1.11
Stream Plan and Profile
UT1 2.1 - 2.14
UT2 2.15-2.18
UT2A 2.19-2.20
UT2B 2.21-2.22
UT3 2.23-2.28
Additional Grading Overview 3.0
BMP Grading 3.1-3.3
Wetland Grading 3.4
Planting 4.0 - 4.9
Details 6.1 - 6.8
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG!
IT'S THE LAW!
CALL 1-800-632-4949N.C. ONE-CALL CENTER
Sheet Index
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
License No. F-0831
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Emily G. Reinicker, PE
704-332-7754
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARY PLANS
ISSUED WITH FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
DECEMBER 8, 2017
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaTitle Sheet005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE0.1December 8, 2017N
SITE
Surveying:
Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA
88 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Nolan Carmack, PLS
828-575-9021
Owner:
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Ste 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Paul Wiesner
828-273-1673
DMS Project No. 97135
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101
Yadkinville, NC
601
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaGeneral Notes and Symbols005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE0.2December 8, 2017Existing Property Line
Existing Major Contour
Existing Minor Contour
Existing Overhead Electric
Existing Power Pole
Existing Temporary Construction Easement
Existing Fence
Existing Storm Pipe
Existing Farm Road
Existing Wetland
Existing Tree
Existing Groundwater Well
Existing Bedrock
Existing Road
Existing Treeline
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement
Proposed Thalweg Alignment
Proposed Bankfull
Proposed Major Contour
Proposed Minor Contour
Proposed Back of Bench
Proposed Safety Fence
Proposed Silt Fence
Proposed Log Sill
Proposed Lunker Log
Proposed Log J-Hook
Proposed Rock J-Hook
Proposed Boulder J-Hook with Sill
Proposed Log Vane
Proposed Rock Sill
Proposed Permanent Crossing
Proposed Temporary Crossing
Proposed Temporary Construction Entrance
10+00
OHE
TCE TCE TCE
100
100
CE CE CE
PROJECT NOTES:
Topographic survey was completed by Kee Mapping and Surveying in February 2017.
Parcel boundary survey completed by Kee Mapping and Surveying in July 2017.
Topographic data outside proposed conservation easement supplemented with Lidar
data from September 2015.
Riffle selection will be varied based on available materials at the Engineers'
discretion. Field coordination will be required.XXExisting Features Proposed Features Proposed Structures
Proposed Various Constructed Riffles Per Plans
Proposed Brush Toe
Proposed Wetland Restoration
Proposed Bank Grading in Preservation Areas
Proposed Structures
B B B
TCE TCE TCE
SAF SAF
[x][x]
W
0'200' 400' 600'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Overview.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaProject Overview005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE0.3December 8, 2017NTCETCETCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECE
CE
CECE
CE
CECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CECE
CE CECE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECE CE
CECEC
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECETCETCETCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECE
CE
CECE
CE
CECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CECE
CE CECE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECE CE
CECEC
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEUT1
UT1
UT
3
UT
3
UT2A
UT2UT2B 200+00
205+00210+00
215+00
400+00
405+00
406+89507+84500+00505+00300
+
0
0
305
+
0
0310+00315+00320+0032
5
+
0
0
BMP 1
BMP 2BMP 3BMP 4
165+54 100+01105+00
110+0
0
115+00
120+00
1
2
5
+
0
0
130
+
0
0135+00140+00145+00150+0015
5
+
0
0
16
0
+
0
0
MARIE EAGLE ANDHUSBAND, B. W. EAGLEPIN: 5805-63-8553DB: 116 PG: 617PORTION OFPB:3 PG:100
MICKEY WAYNE YOUNGPIN: 5805-65-9100DB: 422 PG: 770PORTION OFPB:3 PG:100
JACK I. LUNSFORD,JR.PIN: 5805-56-9514DB: 572 PG: 152TRACT: 2
DANNY RAYWILLIAMS ANDWIFE, SHERRY M.WILLIAMSPIN: 5805-67-2235DB: 650 PG: 494
DANNY RAYWILLIAMS ANDWIFE, SHERRY M.WILLIAMSPIN: 5805-57-7250DB: 256 PG: 503
SHERRY MYERS WILLIAMS ANDHUSBAND, DANNY RAY WILLIAMS PIN: 5805-58-6073DB: 1016 PG: 389
FRANK REAVIS ANDWIFE, LIZZIE B.REAVISPIN: 5805-58-7875DB: 72 PG: 185
JOHN J. KESSLER AND WIFE,ALLISON W. KESSLERPIN: 5805-68-1228DB: 667 PG: 28PB: 9 PG: 213
SAMUEL LOCKSLEY HALLPIN: 5806-50-9630DB: 1044 PG: 247
HARRY J. ROYALLPIN: 5805-98-2653DB: 457 PG: 18
WADE LEON SMITHAND WIFE PEGGYANN SMITHPIN: 5815-06-3113DB: 121 PG: 401
DAVID WOODROW TODDPIN: 5815-05-3530DB: 85 PG: 177
GEORGE ANDREWWILLARD, JRPIN: 5805-94-4333DB: 951 PG: 296
REAVICO FARMSPIN: 5805-73-6863DB: 117 PG: 209PB: 8 PG:421LOT 1REAVICO FARMSPIN: 5805-73-7928DB: 117 PG: 209PB: 8 PG:421LOT 230REAVICO FARMSPIN: 5805-00-74-7161DB: 117 PG: 209PB: 8 PG:421LOT 3WILLIAM T. RENEGAR ANDWIFE, CAROL G. RENEGARPIN: 5805-73-4256DB: 1181 PG: 618PB: 5 PG: 93LOT 2 CARL D. REAVIS, ROBERT B. REAVIS,RICHARD W. REAVIS, CONSTANCEDIANE REAVIS MARION, ANDCHRITINA MARIE REAVIS THOMPSONPIN: 5805-75-9089DB: 1043 PG: 8PB: 5 PG: 93LOT1
MARY LOU MILLER ANDHUSBAND, JOHN K. MILLERPIN: 5805-86-0763DB: 121 PG: 718PB:5 PG:93 LOT: 3
HARRY J. ROYALLPIN: 5805-98-2653DB: 457 PG: 18
KENNETH BOBBITTPIN: 5805-73-6691DB: 1015 PG: 293
S
O
U
T
H

D
E
E
P

C
R
E
E
K
UT3 REACH 1STA: 300+13LAT: N36o 05' 36.82"LON: W80o 40' 15.52"
UT2ASTA: 400+34LAT: N36o 05' 38.00"LON: W80o 40' 06.54"
UT2 REACH 1STA: 200+00LAT: N36o 05' 35.64"LON: W80o 40' 00.31"
UT2BSTA: 500+00LAT: N36o 05' 44.46"LON: W80o 39' 56.32"
UT1 REACH 1STA: 101+39LAT: N36o 05' 02.04"LON: W80o 39' 41.61"
UT1 REACH 2ASTA: 111+05
UT1 REACH 2BSTA: 128+51UT1ASTA: 182+82
UT1 REACH 3STA: 142+19
UT1 REACH 4 PRESERVATIONSTA: 158+60
END UT1 REACH 4 PRESERVATIONEND STA: 165+19
UT2 REACH 2STA: 206+23
UT3 REACH 2STA: 307+92
UT3 REACH 3STA: 319+51
UT1ASTA: 180+00LAT: N36o 05' 23.37"LON: W80o 39' 36.70"
UT1BSTA: 190+00LAT: N36o 05' 34.93"LON: W80o 39' 35.22"
UT1BSTA: 191+23
EXISTINGFARM ROAD (TYP)
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONEASEMENT
REAVICO FARMS, INCPIN: 5805-73-9256DB: 326 PG: 245
END UT3 REACH 3STA: 327+15
EXISTINGFARM ROAD (TYP)
ANN R. STEELMANPIN: 5805-78-5291DB: 241 PG: 102PB 5 PG: 93LOT 5
NANCY ELIZABETH R. SHORE, HUGHMOORHEAD REAVIS, JANET ETHEL R. WALL,JOEL DAVID REAVISPIN: 5805-77-8441DB: 768 PG: 319TRACT: 2PB:5 PG:93 LOT 4
REAVICO FARMS, INCPIN: 5805-67-7286DB: 117 PG: 209TRACT: 2PB: 3 PG: 74
REAVICO FARMS, INCPIN: 5805-84-7703DB: 117 PG: 209TRACT: 3
REAVICO FARMS, INCPIN: 5805-88-8433DB: 108 PG: 58
REAVICO FARMS, INCPIN: 5805-84-7703DB: 117 PG: 209REMAINING PORTION OFTRACT: 1
REAVICO FARMS, INCPIN: 5805-88-8433DB: 108 PG: 58
REAVICO FARMS, INCPIN:5805-84-7703DB:117 PG: 209REMAINING PORTION OFTRACT:4
0'150' 300' 450'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Overview.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaProject Overview - East005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE0.4December 8, 2017NNOTE: 2' CONTOURSSFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA
SFHA SFHA SFHA
SFHASFHA
SFHA SFHA
SF
H
A
SFHASFHA
SFHASFHASF
H
A
CE CECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE200+0
0
205+00
400
+
0
0500+0096095094093
0920910900890
920880870 97098089
0880870860850840830
820
82
0
810
800
790790
7
9
0
8
7
0
8
6
0
8
5
0
84
0
820
830840
810
812
800
800
790
830
840
850 890880870
860
850
840840
165+
5
4
100+01105+00
1
1
0
+
0
0
115+0
0
120
+
0
0125+001
3
0
+
0
0
135+00140+00145+00
150+00155+00160+00840
850 860870830810880780
8
0
0 8108
2
0
83
0
790
2.12.2
2.
3
2
.
4
2.
52.62.7
2.
8
2.
9
2
.
1
0
2.112.12
2.13
2.14
2.152.16
UT1
U
T
1
UT
1
UT1
BM
P

4
BMP 1
BMP 2BMP 3UT1A
UT1B
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Overview.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaProject Overview - West005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE0.5December 8, 2017N0'100' 200' 300'
(HORIZONTAL)
NOTE: 2' CONTOURS
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA SFHA SFHA SFHA SFHA
SFHA SFHA
SFHA
SFHA SFHASFHA SFHA SFHASFHASFHA
SFHA
SF
H
A
SFHASFH
A
S
FHA
SF
H
A
S
F
H
A
SF
H
A
S
F
H
A
SFHASFHA SFHASFHASFHASFH
A
SF
H
A
SFHA
S
FH
A
SFHASFHA SFHA SFHA
SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA SFHASFHASFHA
SFHASFHA
SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHATCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE200+00
205+00210+00
215+00
400+00
405+00
406+89507+84500+00505+00300
+
0
0
305
+
0
0310+00315+00320+0032
5
+
0
0
7607907
8
0
770
7
6
0
780
770
820 83084085086
0 870830810880780
800
810
820
830
830800790780
770
760
770
780
790
780800810
760
790
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.202.212.222.232.
2
4
2.25
2.26
2.
2
7
2.
2
8
2.29
2.30
UT3
UT3
UT2
UT2AUT2BS
O
U
T
H

D
E
E
P

C
R
E
E
K
BMP 4
E
X
I
S
T
ING
UT
3
UT
3
A
DRAINAGEA
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1 Reach 1Typical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.1December 8, 2017UT1 Reach 1 - Riffle
STA: 101+39 - 111+05
UT1 Reach 1 - Pool
STA: 101+39 - 111+05
6.5'
1.8'1.45'1.45'1.8'
0.7'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL3:1 3:1
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
0.6'
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
10:1
2.5:1
10:1
2.5:1
5' MIN 5' MIN
8.0'
2.7'1.3'1.3'2.7'
0.9'-1.6'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL3:1 3:1
PROPOSED THALWEG
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
10:1
2.5:1
5' MIN
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
10:1
2.5:1
5' MIN
2:1
1.6'
2:1
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1 Reach 2ATypical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.2December 8, 2017UT1 Reach 2A - Riffle
STA: 111+05 - 128+51
UT1 Reach 2A - Pool
STA: 111+05 - 128+51
7.8'
2.1'1.8'1.8'2.1'
0.8'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL3:1 3:1
PROPOSED THALWEG
0.7'
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
10:1
2.5:1
5' MIN
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
10:1
2.5:1
5' MIN
9.5'
4.2'1.1'4.2'
1.4'-2.3'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL3:1 3:1
PROPOSED THALWEG
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
10:1
2.5:1
5' MIN
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
10:1
2.5:1
5' MIN
2:1
2:1
0.3'
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1 Reach 2BTypical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.3December 8, 2017UT1 Reach 2B - Riffle
STA: 128+51 - 142+19
UT1 Reach 2B - Pool
STA: 128+51 - 142+19
10.7'
3.0'2.35'2.35'3.0'
1.15'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
3:1
3:1
PROPOSED THALWEG
1.0'
TIE TO EXISTING
GROUND PER PLANS
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
13.5'
4.25'0.75'8.5'
1.7'-3.2'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
5:1 2.5:1
PROPOSED THALWEG
TIE TO EXISTING
GROUND PER PLANS
3"-6" BERM TO BE BUILT ON DOWNSTREAMTHIRD OF MEANDER BENDS.BERM SHALL HAVE 2.5:1 SIDE SLOPES WITH 2FT TOP WIDTH.
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
0.6:1 MAX1.5:
1

M
A
X
1.15'1.15'
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1 Reach 3Typical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.4December 8, 2017UT1 Reach 3 - Riffle
STA: 142+19 - 158+60
UT1 Reach 3 - Pool
STA: 142+19 - 158+60
11.8'
3.0'2.90'2.90'3.0'
1.25'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
3:1
3:1
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
1.0'TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
14.5'
4.75'0.25'9.5'
1.9'-3.2'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
5:1
2.5:1
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
3"-6" BERM TO BE BUILT ON DOWNSTREAMTHIRD OF MEANDER BENDS.BERM SHALL HAVE 2.5:1 SIDE SLOPES WITH 2FT TOP WIDTH.
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
1.25'0.8:1 MAX1.6:
1

M
A
X
1.25'
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2 Reach 1Typical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.5December 8, 2017UT2 Reach 1 - Riffle
STA: 200+00 - 206+23
UT2 Reach 1 - Meander Pool
STA: 200+00 - 206+23
7.5'
2.1'1.65'1.65'2.1'
0.8'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL3:1 3:1
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
0.7'TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
10.5'
2.8'3.4'4.4'
1.1'-1.5'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
4:1 2.5:1
PROPOSED THALWEG
1.1'
1.6'0.75'1.00'
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
STA: 200+00 - 212+393"-6" BERM TO BE BUILT ON DOWNSTREAMTHIRD OF MEANDER BENDS.BERM SHALL HAVE 2.5:1 SIDE SLOPES WITH 2FT TOP WIDTH.
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2 Reach 2Typical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.6December 8, 2017UT2 Reach 2 - Riffle
STA: 206+23 - 217+03
UT2 Reach 2 - Pool
STA: 206+23 - 217+03
11.0'
2.7'2.80'2.80'2.7'
1.0'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL3:1 3:1
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
0.9'
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
16.0'
5.2'1.0'9.9'
1.1'-2.5'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL4:1 2:1
PROPOSED THALWEG
5.6'1.0'3.0'
1.1'TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
STA: 200+00 - 212+393"-6" BERM TO BE BUILT ON DOWNSTREAM
THIRD OF MEANDER BENDS.BERM SHALL HAVE 2.5:1 SIDE SLOPES WITH 2FT TOP WIDTH.
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2ATypical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.7December 8, 2017UT2A - Riffle
STA: 400+34 - 406+89
UT2A - Pool
STA: 400+34 - 406+89
5.5'
1.5'1.3'1.3'1.5'
0.6'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
3:1 3:1
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
0.5'TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
7.5'
1.8'2.1'3.6'
0.9'-1.4'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL4:1 2:1PROPOSEDTHALWEG0.9'
0.6'0.3'1.2'
TIE TO EXISTING
GROUND PER PLANS
0.6:1 MAX2.4:1
M
A
X
STA: 400+00 - 403+453"-6" BERM TO BE BUILT ON DOWNSTREAMTHIRD OF MEANDER BENDS.BERM SHALL HAVE 2.5:1 SIDE SLOPES WITH 2FT TOP WIDTH.
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2BTypical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.8December 8, 2017UT2B - Riffle
STA: 500+00 - 507+84
UT2B - Meander Pool
STA: 500+00 - 507+84
UT2B - In-Line Pool
STA: 500+00 - 507+84
7.5'
2.3'1.5'1.5'2.3'
0.85'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL3:1
3:1
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
0.75'TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
11.0'
3.0'3.2'4.8'
0.9'-1.9'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
4:1 2.5:1
PROPOSED THALWEG
1.2'
1.0'0.6'1.6'
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
1.3:1 MAX2.3:1
M
A
X
STA: 500+00 - 507+843"-6" BERM TO BE BUILT ON DOWNSTREAMTHIRD OF MEANDER BENDS.BERM SHALL HAVE 2.5:1 SIDE SLOPES WITH 2FT TOP WIDTH.
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
11.0'
4.8'1.4'4.8'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
3:1
3:1
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
1.6'
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3 Reach 1Typical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.9December 8, 2017UT3 Reach 1 - Riffle
STA: 300+13 - 307+92
UT3 Reach 1 - Pool
STA: 300+13 - 307+92
13.0'
2.6'3.90'
PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED BANKFULL
TIE TO EXISTING
GROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
2.6'3.90'
1.3'1.4'
3:13:1
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
16.0'
5.7'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSEDTHALWEG
4.6'5.7'
2.0'-3.3'
3:13:1
1.5'1.6'1.5'
1:
1

M
A
X 1:1 MAXTIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS 1.9'
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3 Reach 2Typical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.10December 8, 2017UT3 Reach 2 - Riffle
STA: 307+92 - 319+15
UT3 Reach 2 - Meander Pool
STA: 307+92 - 319+15
16.2'
2.0'4.80'
PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED BANKFULL
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
3.0'2.4'
1.6'1.7'
3:13:1
2.0'2.0'
0.8'
TIE TO EXISTING
GROUND PER PLANS
3:1
INNER BERM TO BE BUILT ON INSIDEBANK AS APPROACHING DOWNSTREAM
MEANDER BEND.
19.75'
6.25'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSEDTHALWEG
3.5'10.0'
2.5'-3.5'4:1
2.5:1
1.5'
0.5'
1.5'
1.5
:
1

M
A
X 1.5:1 MAX
2.5'
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-CoverNotes.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3 Reach 3Typical Sections005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE1.11December 8, 2017UT3 Reach 3 - Riffle
STA: 319+51 - 327+15
UT3 Reach 3 - Meander Pool
STA: 319+51 - 327+15
19.0'
2.0'2.25'3.00'2.3'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
10:1
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
2.0'2.25'3.00'2.3'
0.9'0.9'
1.8'2.0'
2.5:1
2.5:1
10:1
2.5:1
2.5:1TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
26.0'
7.5'6.5'12.0'
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL TIE TO EXISTING
GROUND PER PLANS
PROPOSED THALWEG
3.0'
3.0'-4.0'
2.5:1
4:1
7.5'2.5'4.0'
TIE TO EXISTINGGROUND PER PLANS
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.1December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'5'10'15'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
920
925
930
935
940
945
950
920
925
930
935
940
945
950
100+00 100+50 101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00 104+20
-4.0%
-5.0%
-5.0%
-4.5%
-2.2%
BEGIN (20 STEPS) STA = 100+98.33BEGIN BMP 1 - ROCK CASCADE ELEV = 940.59 STA = 101+39ELEV = 936.72STA = 101+47ELEV = 936.40 STA = 101+54ELEV = 936.00STA = 101+62ELEV = 935.50 STA = 101+70ELEV = 935.10STA = 101+74
ELEV = 933.50
STA = 101+77
ELEV = 934.60 STA = 102+26ELEV = 931.10STA = 102+36ELEV = 930.60STA = 102+41ELEV = 929.30 STA = 102+46ELEV = 930.10STA = 102+77ELEV = 928.70STA = 103+53ELEV = 927.00EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
END (20 STEPS) STA=104+20LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=922.09
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
100+01101+00
102+00 103+00
104
+
0
0
940
945
950 945935
930
950955
955
960
940
940 935930
930
925
925
CR-
L
R
STA: 101+39END BMP 1BEGIN UT1 - INTERMITTENT STREAMBEGIN UT1 REACH 1 - RESTORATION
EXISTING DEBRIS PILE TO BE REMOVED
STA: 100+98UT1BEGIN BMP 1 - ROCK CASCADE
OVERFLOW CHANNELFOR BMP 2
CR-LR
EXISTING FENCE TO BEREMOVED WITHIN EASEMENT
UT1
REMNANT DAM TO BEREMOVED ANDFLOODPLAIN GRADED
MATCH LINE - STA 104+20
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.2December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'5'10'15'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
890
895
900
905
910
915
920
925
930
890
895
900
905
910
915
920
925
930
104+20 104+50 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50 108+65
-2.1%STA = 104+49ELEV = 921.00STA = 106+63ELEV = 916.43STA = 108+42ELEV = 895.80EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
BEGIN (45 STEPS) STA=104+20LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=922.09
END (45 STEPS) STA=108+65LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=894.85
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
-11.5
%
104+00
105+00
106+00
107+00
108+00
930
935
930
930
935 92591
5
9
2
0 905911911925
920
925925 920
920
920
915915910910905905
900900CR-LR
FILL EXISTINGCHANNEL (TYP.)REMOVED
WITHI
N EASE
ME
NT
REMNANT DAM TO BE
REMOVED AND
FLOODPLAIN GRADED
MATCH LINE - STA 104+20MATCH LINE - STA 108+65
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.3December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'5'10'15'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
865
870
875
880
885
890
895
900
865
870
875
880
885
890
895
900
108+65 109+00 109+50 110+00 110+50 111+00 111+50 112+00 112+50 113+00
-2.0%-2.5%
-3.7%-2.5%-3.9%
-4.1%-4.2%
-4.3%STA = 111+05ELEV = 876.60STA = 111+20ELEV = 876.30STA = 111+26ELEV = 874.00 STA = 111+32ELEV = 876.10STA = 111+44ELEV = 875.80STA = 111+60ELEV = 874.80STA = 111+76ELEV = 874.20STA = 111+82ELEV = 872.70 STA = 111+88ELEV = 874.20STA = 111+96ELEV = 874.00
STA = 112+03
ELEV = 872.70 STA = 112+10ELEV = 874.00STA = 112+28ELEV = 873.30STA = 112+33
ELEV = 872.00 STA = 112+38ELEV = 873.00STA = 112+50ELEV = 872.40STA = 112+56
ELEV = 870.90 STA = 112+62ELEV = 872.00STA = 112+79ELEV = 871.30STA = 109+97ELEV = 889.10STA = 109+97ELEV = 889.10
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
BEGIN (25 STEPS) STA=108+65
LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=894.85
END (25 STEPS) STA=111+05LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=876.60
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
BEGIN (1 STEP) STA=111+32LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=876.10
END (1 STEP) STA=111+60LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=874.80 BEGIN (1 STEP) STA=112+62LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=872.00
END (1 STEP) STA=113+00LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=870.51
109+00
110+00
111+00
112+00
113+00875880
885
890
895
905
900
895
890
900895895
890
885
885
8
8
0
890
885880
875
UT1
CR-CR
CR-LR
CR-CR
CR-LR
CR-CR CR-CR CR-CR CR-LR
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CR-CR
STA: 111+05END UT1 REACH 1- RESTORATIONBEGIN UT1 REACH 2A - RESTORATION
REMNANT DAM TO BEREMOVED ANDFLOODPLAIN GRADEDMATCH LINE - STA 108+65MATCH LINE - STA 113+00
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.4December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
855
860
865
870
875
855
860
865
870
875
113+00 113+50 114+00 114+50 115+00 115+50 116+00 116+50 117+00 117+40
-1.1%-4.0%
-4.2%
-3.3%
-2.9%
-2.9%
-3.0%
-1.8%-2.5%-2.5%-2.1%-2.0%
-3.7%
-1.7%
-3.2%
-4.0%
-2.5%
-3.7%STA = 113+03ELEV = 870.30STA = 113+21ELEV = 870.10STA = 113+28ELEV = 868.00 STA = 113+35ELEV = 870.10STA = 113+45ELEV = 869.70STA = 113+63ELEV = 868.95STA = 113+78ELEV = 868.45STA = 113+84ELEV = 867.00 STA = 113+90ELEV = 868.05STA = 114+02ELEV = 867.70STA = 114+10ELEV = 866.40 STA = 114+18ELEV = 867.70STA = 114+32ELEV = 867.30STA = 114+39ELEV = 865.40 STA = 114+46ELEV = 866.80STA = 114+56ELEV = 866.50STA = 114+78ELEV = 866.10STA = 114+86ELEV = 865.90
STA = 114+91ELEV = 865.00STA = 114+96ELEV = 865.90STA = 115+14ELEV = 865.45STA = 115+22ELEV = 864.00 STA = 115+30ELEV = 865.45STA = 115+42ELEV = 865.20STA = 115+62ELEV = 864.80STA = 115+77
ELEV = 864.25 STA = 116+04ELEV = 862.80STA = 116+22ELEV = 861.80STA = 116+52ELEV = 861.30
STA = 116+72
ELEV = 860.65 STA = 116+92ELEV = 859.85STA = 117+04ELEV = 859.55
STA = 117+08ELEV = 858.20 STA = 117+12ELEV = 859.40STA = 117+27ELEV = 858.85STA = 117+32ELEV = 857.40 STA = 117+37ELEV = 858.50EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
BEGIN (1 STEP) STA=113+35LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=870.10
END (1 STEP) STA=113+63LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=868.95
BEGIN (1 STEP) STA=114+46LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=866.80
END (1 STEP) STA=114+78LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=866.10
BEGIN (6 STEPS) STA=115+30LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=865.45
END (6 STEPS) STA=117+40LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=858.48
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
-5.4
%
-5.6
%
113+00
114+00
115+00
116+0
0
117+00
865
860870
870875880
875
880885
890870 865860CR-LR
UT1
CR-CR
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CR-CR
CR-LR CR-CR CR-CR
CR-LR
CR-CR
CR-CR
CR-LR
CR-CR CR-CR CR-CRMATCH LINE - STA 113+00MATCH LINE - STA 117+40
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.5December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
845
850
855
860
845
850
855
860
117+40 118+00 118+50 119+00 119+50 120+00 120+50 121+00 121+50 121+80
-1.7%-4.5%
-3.0%
-1.2%
-2.9%
-1.9%
-2.5%
-2.9%
-1.9%-2.7%
-3.6%
-3.3%
-4.6%
-4.5%
-4.5%
-4.0%
-4.0%
-3.8%
-4.4%STA = 117+55ELEV = 858.20STA = 117+61ELEV = 857.00 STA = 117+67ELEV = 858.20STA = 117+77ELEV = 857.75
STA = 117+81ELEV = 856.90 STA = 117+87ELEV = 857.50STA = 117+97ELEV = 857.20STA = 118+05ELEV = 855.40 STA = 118+13ELEV = 856.80STA = 118+35ELEV = 856.53STA = 118+43
ELEV = 855.00 STA = 118+51ELEV = 856.20STA = 118+61ELEV = 855.91STA = 118+65
ELEV = 854.80
STA = 118+69ELEV = 855.64 STA = 118+79ELEV = 855.45STA = 118+85ELEV = 854.70 STA = 118+91ELEV = 855.30STA = 119+03ELEV = 855.00STA = 119+08ELEV = 854.00 STA = 119+13ELEV = 854.80STA = 119+25ELEV = 854.45STA = 119+32ELEV = 853.00 STA = 119+38ELEV = 854.15STA = 119+56ELEV = 853.80STA = 119+63ELEV = 852.10 STA = 119+70ELEV = 853.80STA = 119+85ELEV = 853.40
STA = 119+90ELEV = 852.00
STA = 119+96ELEV = 853.00 STA = 120+10ELEV = 852.50STA = 120+16ELEV = 850.80 STA = 120+22ELEV = 852.10STA = 120+40ELEV = 851.50STA = 120+68ELEV = 850.20STA = 120+78ELEV = 849.75STA = 121+08
ELEV = 848.40 STA = 121+23ELEV = 847.80STA = 121+43ELEV = 847.00STA = 121+60ELEV = 846.35EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
BEGIN (6) STA=120+22
LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=852.10 END (6) STA=121+80LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=845.49
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
118+00
119+
0
0
120+00 121+00
12
2
+
0
0860855860865
870
875
860
850855
855
860
865
870870
865
870
855 850
855
860
865855850854 846UT1
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CR-LRCR-CR CR-CR
CR-CR
CR-C
R
CR-CR CR-CR CR-CR
CR-CR CR-CR
CR-CR
CR-CR
CR-
C
R
CR-
C
RMATCH LINE - STA 117+40MATCH LINE - STA 121+80
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.6December 8, 2017Sheet Index
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
830
835
840
845
850
830
835
840
845
850
121+80 122+00 122+50 123+00 123+50 124+00 124+50 125+00 125+50 126+00 126+20
-3.5%
-2.2%
-1.1%
-3.3%
-3.8%
-2.0%-2.7%
-4.6%
-2.7%
-2.3%
-4.8
%
-2.0%
-3.7%
-1.4%
-3.4%
-1.8%
-3.0%STA = 121+84ELEV = 845.30STA = 121+94ELEV = 844.95STA = 121+99ELEV = 844.00 STA = 122+04ELEV = 844.65STA = 122+20ELEV = 844.30STA = 122+25ELEV = 843.50 STA = 122+30ELEV = 844.10STA = 122+48ELEV = 843.90STA = 122+55ELEV = 842.70 STA = 122+62ELEV = 843.70STA = 122+74ELEV = 843.30STA = 123+14ELEV = 841.25STA = 123+30ELEV = 840.65STA = 123+36ELEV = 839.50 STA = 123+42ELEV = 840.41STA = 123+55ELEV = 840.15STA = 123+62ELEV = 839.00 STA = 123+69ELEV = 840.15STA = 123+79ELEV = 839.88STA = 124+09ELEV = 838.50STA = 124+24ELEV = 838.09STA = 124+30ELEV = 837.00 STA = 124+36ELEV = 837.88STA = 124+54ELEV = 837.46STA = 124+85ELEV = 835.98 STA = 124+95ELEV = 835.46STA = 125+22ELEV = 834.92STA = 125+34ELEV = 834.47STA = 125+39ELEV = 833.80 STA = 125+44ELEV = 834.43STA = 125+60ELEV = 834.21STA = 125+84ELEV = 833.39STA = 126+04ELEV = 833.03EXISTINGGROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
BEGIN (3 STEPS) STA=122+62
LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=843.70
END (3 STEPS) STA=123+14
LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=841.25
BEGIN (2 STEPS) STA=123+69LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=840.15
END (2 STEPS) STA=124+09LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=838.50 BEGIN (3 STEPS) STA=124+36LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=837.88
END (3 STEPS) STA=125+22
LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=834.92 BEGIN (2 STEPS) STA=125+44LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=834.43 END (2 STEPS) STA=126+20LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=832.55
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
122+00
123+00
124+00
125+00
126+00
845
840835840
845
850
855
855
850845
860
850
855
860
865
870
840
845
850
84
6 8458448438
4
1
840837UT1
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CR-LR
CR-CR
CR-LR CR-LRCR-CR
CR-CR
CR-CR
CR-CR
CR-CR
CR-CR
CR-LR
CR-CR
83
5 834MATCH LINE - STA 121+80MATCH LINE - STA 126+20
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.7December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
820
825
830
835
840
820
825
830
835
840
126+20 126+50 127+00 127+50 128+00 128+50 129+00 129+50 130+00 130+50 130+70
-4.8
%
-1.6%
-4.0%
-2.8%
-2.9%
-3.2%
-3.1%
-2.6%
-3.4%
-2.3%
-2.3%
-2.3%STA = 126+26ELEV = 832.37STA = 126+37ELEV = 831.84STA = 126+46ELEV = 830.60 STA = 126+55ELEV = 831.50STA = 126+71ELEV = 831.24STA = 126+97ELEV = 830.20STA = 127+13ELEV = 829.75STA = 127+21ELEV = 828.68 STA = 127+29ELEV = 829.68STA = 127+54ELEV = 828.95 STA = 127+79ELEV = 828.16STA = 128+00ELEV = 827.51STA = 128+08ELEV = 825.70 STA = 128+15ELEV = 826.98STA = 128+34ELEV = 826.48STA = 128+43ELEV = 824.80 STA = 128+51ELEV = 825.96STA = 128+77ELEV = 825.09STA = 128+77
ELEV = 824.10 STA = 128+89ELEV = 824.10STA = 128+94ELEV = 824.79 STA = 129+02ELEV = 824.61STA = 129+02ELEV = 823.50 STA = 129+25ELEV = 823.50STA = 129+37ELEV = 824.11STA = 129+66
ELEV = 823.44
STA = 129+66ELEV = 822.30 STA = 129+95ELEV = 822.30STA = 130+10ELEV = 822.94STA = 130+42ELEV = 822.21STA = 130+42ELEV = 821.10 STA = 130+59ELEV = 821.10STA = 130+68ELEV = 822.01EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
BEGIN (2 STEPS) STA=126+55LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=831.50
END (2 STEPS) STA=126+97LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=830.20
BEGIN (1 STEP) STA=127+29LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=829.68
END (1 STEP) STA=127+79LOG ROCK CASCADE ELEV=828.16
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
126+00
127+00
128+00 129+00
130+00 131+00835
830 825835830825
825
855
850
845 84
0
840 8318278
2
5
825UT1
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CR-CR CR-
L
R
CR-CR
CR-
L
R
CR-CR CR-CR CR-CR
CR-CR CR-CRCR-CR CR-CRSTA: 128+51
END UT1 REACH 2A - RESTORATION
BEGIN UT1 REACH 2B - RESTORATIONSTA: 182+82END UT1A - PRESERVATION
UT1A182+00182+82834MATCH LINE - STA 126+20MATCH LINE - STA 130+70
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.8December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
810
815
820
825
830
810
815
820
825
830
130+70 131+00 131+50 132+00 132+50 133+00 133+50 134+00 134+50 135+00
-2.2%
-3.0%
-3.3%
-2.9%
-0.0%
-1.9%
-1.8%
-2.6%STA = 130+94ELEV = 821.46STA = 130+94
ELEV = 820.20 STA = 131+23ELEV = 820.20STA = 131+38ELEV = 821.06STA = 131+59ELEV = 820.40STA = 131+60ELEV = 818.70
STA = 131+90ELEV = 818.70STA = 132+05ELEV = 819.65STA = 132+26ELEV = 818.96STA = 132+26
ELEV = 817.50STA = 132+57ELEV = 817.50STA = 132+72ELEV = 818.26STA = 132+98ELEV = 817.50STA = 132+99ELEV = 816.20 STA = 133+21ELEV = 816.20STA = 133+32ELEV = 817.00STA = 133+50ELEV = 816.65STA = 133+51ELEV = 815.50 STA = 133+74ELEV = 815.50STA = 133+85ELEV = 816.35STA = 134+27ELEV = 815.60
STA = 134+27
ELEV = 814.50 STA = 134+57ELEV = 814.50STA = 134+72ELEV = 815.40STA = 134+96ELEV = 814.77STA = 134+96ELEV = 813.10
EXISTINGGROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
CECECECE130+0
0
131+00
132+00
13
3
+
0
0
13
4
+
0
0 135+00825
835
830
825
825
820
815
820825830 825
822820817CR-
C
R
UT1
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)CR-CRCR-RRCR-CHCR
-
R
R CR-JZCR-
W
R CR-CHCR
-
C
R
GRADE SWALE
TO DRAIN (TYP.)MATCH LINE - STA 130+70MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
3
5
+
0
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.9December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
805
810
815
820
805
810
815
820
135+00 135+50 136+00 136+50 137+00 137+50 138+00 138+50 139+00 139+30
-3.3%
-3.0%
-2.1%
-1.7%
-2.4%
-3.1%STA = 135+31ELEV = 813.10STA = 135+48ELEV = 814.12STA = 135+79ELEV = 813.11STA = 135+79ELEV = 812.00 STA = 136+04ELEV = 812.00STA = 136+17ELEV = 812.51STA = 136+62ELEV = 811.16STA = 136+62ELEV = 809.80 STA = 136+82ELEV = 809.80STA = 136+92ELEV = 810.51STA = 137+30ELEV = 809.71STA = 137+31ELEV = 808.30 STA = 137+50ELEV = 808.30STA = 137+60ELEV = 809.11STA = 137+96ELEV = 808.52STA = 137+96ELEV = 806.10 STA = 138+32ELEV = 806.10STA = 138+50ELEV = 808.02STA = 138+67ELEV = 807.60STA = 138+67
ELEV = 806.30 STA = 138+93ELEV = 806.30STA = 139+05ELEV = 807.10STA = 139+18ELEV = 806.71
STA = 139+18ELEV = 805.00
EXISTINGGROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE135+00136+00
137+00 138+00139+00
815
820810
810815
820
815
820
825830
810
815
810
817CR-CHUT1
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CR-
C
R CR-RRCR-CR CR-JZC
R
-W
R
CR-CH810808808809810
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
3
5
+
0
0 MATCH LINE - STA 139+30
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.10December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
795
800
805
810
795
800
805
810
139+30 139+50 140+00 140+50 141+00 141+50 142+00 142+50 143+00 143+50 143+80
-2.5%
-2.6%
-3.1%
-3.0%
-3.5%
-3.1%
STA = 139+49ELEV = 805.00
STA = 139+65ELEV = 806.01 STA = 140+30ELEV = 804.37STA = 140+31ELEV = 802.70 STA = 140+58ELEV = 802.70STA = 140+72ELEV = 803.87STA = 141+12ELEV = 802.81STA = 141+12ELEV = 801.60 STA = 141+38ELEV = 801.60STA = 141+51ELEV = 802.61STA = 141+82ELEV = 801.64STA = 141+83ELEV = 800.10 STA = 142+07ELEV = 800.10STA = 142+20ELEV = 801.24STA = 142+65ELEV = 799.90STA = 142+74ELEV = 798.70
STA = 142+82ELEV = 798.70 STA = 142+91ELEV = 799.90STA = 143+18ELEV = 798.97STA = 143+18ELEV = 797.30 STA = 143+44ELEV = 797.30STA = 143+57ELEV = 798.47STA = 143+76ELEV = 797.87STA = 143+77ELEV = 796.30
-2.5%
-2.6%
-3.1%
-3.0%
-3.5%
-3.1%
EXISTINGGROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE139+00
140+00141+00
142+
0
0
14
3
+
0
0
144+00 145+00800805
805810800
805
810
815
820
800
800 800804CR-CH
UT1
FILL EXISTINGCHANNEL (TYP.)CR-RRCR-WR
CR-
JZ
CR-WR CR
-
W
R UT1FILL EXISTINGCHANNEL (TYP.)CR-RRCR-WR CR-JZCR-CR
STA: 142+19END UT1 REACH 2B - RESTORATIONBEGIN UT1 REACH 3 - RESTORATION
UT1BSTA: 141+82UT1 REACH 2BSTA: 191+24END UT1B - PRESERVATIONCONFLUENCE
190+00191+00
19
1
+
2
4
STA: 190+00BEGIN UT1B - PRESERVATION 8007
9
7
805807
800802808808MATCH LINE - STA 139+30M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
4
3
+
8
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.11December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
790
795
800
805
790
795
800
805
143+80 144+00 144+50 145+00 145+50 146+00 146+50 147+00 147+50 148+00 148+15
-1.6%
-2.1%
-2.1%
-2.2%
-2.4%
-2.0%STA = 143+96ELEV = 796.30STA = 144+06ELEV = 797.22STA = 144+19ELEV = 797.00STA = 144+20ELEV = 795.60 STA = 144+46ELEV = 795.60STA = 144+59ELEV = 796.80STA = 144+81ELEV = 796.35
STA = 144+81ELEV = 794.90 STA = 145+06ELEV = 794.90STA = 145+19ELEV = 796.10STA = 145+42ELEV = 795.62STA = 145+42ELEV = 794.30 STA = 145+66ELEV = 794.30STA = 145+78ELEV = 795.42STA = 145+97ELEV = 795.00STA = 145+98ELEV = 793.30 STA = 146+21ELEV = 793.30STA = 146+34ELEV = 794.60STA = 146+83ELEV = 793.41STA = 146+84
ELEV = 792.00 STA = 147+09ELEV = 792.00STA = 147+21ELEV = 793.21STA = 147+59ELEV = 792.45STA = 147+60ELEV = 790.40 STA = 147+88ELEV = 790.40STA = 148+02ELEV = 791.80-1.6%
-2.1%
-2.1%
-2.2%
-2.4%
-2.0%
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
14
4
+
0
0
145+00
146+00147+00
1
4
8
+
0
0
800
80
0
8
0
5
8
1
0
8
1
5
8
2
0
800
804
79
5
79
5
80
0
805
810
795796UT1
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CR-RR
C
R
-W
R CR-JZCR-
C
R
CR-WRC
R
-
C
H
CR-CRC
R
-W
R
EN
D

U
T
1

R
E
A
C
H

2
B

-

R
E
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
795800
79779
4
MATCH LINE - STA 143+80MATCH LINE - STA 148+15
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.12December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
780
785
790
795
780
785
790
795
148+15 148+50 149+00 149+50 150+00 150+50 151+00 151+50 152+00 152+50
-3.3%
-2.2%
-2.8%
-2.9%
-3.1%
-2.4%
-3.3%
-2.2%
-2.8%
-2.9%
-3.1%
-2.4%STA = 148+33ELEV = 790.75STA = 148+33ELEV = 789.10STA = 148+55ELEV = 789.10STA = 148+66ELEV = 790.40STA = 148+91ELEV = 789.84STA = 149+08ELEV = 788.40STA = 149+24ELEV = 788.40STA = 149+40ELEV = 789.84STA = 149+82ELEV = 788.69STA = 149+95ELEV = 787.60STA = 150+08ELEV = 787.60STA = 150+21ELEV = 788.69STA = 150+39ELEV = 788.15STA = 150+54ELEV = 787.00STA = 150+68ELEV = 787.00STA = 150+83ELEV = 788.15STA = 151+30ELEV = 786.68
STA = 151+52
ELEV = 785.60STA = 151+74ELEV = 785.60STA = 151+96ELEV = 786.68STA = 152+28ELEV = 785.90STA = 152+28ELEV = 784.00
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
148
+
0
0 149+00
150+00
1
5
1
+
0
0
152+001
5
3
+
0
0
788
790795
790
790 785790810 805
800
795
UT1FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)
CR-
W
R
CR-JZCR-
W
R CR-CRC
R
-
R
R
CR-WRC
R
-
J
Z
794 790789MATCH LINE - STA 148+15MATCH LINE - STA 152+50
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.13December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
775
780
785
790
775
780
785
790
152+50 153+00 153+50 154+00 154+50 155+00 155+50 156+00 156+50 157+00
-2.0%
-1.8%
-2.2%
-3.0%
-3.6%
-2.0%
-1.8%
-2.2%
-3.0%
-3.6%STA = 152+64ELEV = 784.00STA = 152+83ELEV = 785.60STA = 153+30ELEV = 784.66STA = 153+43ELEV = 783.50STA = 153+56ELEV = 783.50STA = 153+69ELEV = 784.66STA = 154+15ELEV = 783.82
STA = 154+15ELEV = 782.10 STA = 154+60ELEV = 782.10STA = 154+82ELEV = 783.52STA = 155+20ELEV = 782.70STA = 155+21ELEV = 781.00 STA = 155+49ELEV = 781.00STA = 155+63ELEV = 782.20STA = 156+03ELEV = 781.00STA = 156+03ELEV = 779.00 STA = 156+23ELEV = 779.00STA = 156+34ELEV = 780.57STA = 156+77ELEV = 779.03STA = 156+77ELEV = 777.50
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
152+001
5
3
+
0
0
154+001
5
5
+
0
0 156+00157+00785790
780
785
7
8
5
7
8
2
785
785UT1
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL (TYP.)CR-WRC
R
-
J
Z
CR-CRCR-WRCR-CHCR
-
R
R CR-CROVERFLOW CHANNEL
FOR BMP 3
7
8
5 783781786MATCH LINE - STA 152+50MATCH LINE - STA 157+00
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles-East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.14December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
770
775
780
785
770
775
780
785
157+00 157+50 158+00 158+50 159+00 159+50 160+00 160+50 161+00 161+50 162+00
-2.1%
-2.5%
-3.0%
-2.3%
-2.1%
-2.5%
-3.0%
-2.3%STA = 157+02ELEV = 777.50STA = 157+15ELEV = 778.63STA = 157+48ELEV = 777.92STA = 157+49
ELEV = 776.61
STA = 157+60ELEV = 776.61STA = 157+65ELEV = 777.52STA = 158+18ELEV = 776.20STA = 158+18ELEV = 775.30 STA = 158+46ELEV = 775.30STA = 158+60ELEV = 775.70STA = 159+14ELEV = 774.10STA = 159+15ELEV = 773.48 STA = 159+65ELEV = 773.48STA = 159+91ELEV = 773.60STA = 159+97ELEV = 773.46
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSEDBANKFULL
STA = 160+44ELEV = 772.93STA = 160+67ELEV = 772.57STA = 160+81ELEV = 771.49 STA =160+94ELEV = 772.15STA = 161+04ELEV = 771.99STA = 161+18
ELEV = 771.16 STA =161+32ELEV = 771.57STA = 161+55ELEV = 771.20SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASF
H
A SFHA SFHA SFHASFHASFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHA SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASF
H
A
SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHACE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
SAFSAFSAF
SAFSAF
SAFSAFSAFSAFSAFSAF
157+00
158+00 159+0016
0
+
0
0
161+00162+00163+00164+00 165+00165+54
775
780
7
7
1 770775780785790
795
800
785
780805
800795785790785780UT1
FILL EXISTINGCHANNEL (TYP.)CR-CRCR-RR
STA: 158+60END UT1 REACH 3 - RESTORATIONBEGIN UT1 REACH 4 - PRESERVATION
STA: 165+19END UT1 REACH 4 - PRESERVATION
C
R
-
C
R
3:1 BANKGRADING
FILL BANKPROVIDE BRUSH TOE3:1 BANK GRADING CR-CR3:1 BANKGRADING
3:1 BANKGRADINGCR-CRFILL EXISTINGCHANNEL (TYP.)MATCH LINE - STA 157+00
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.15December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2UT2AUT2
B
UT3765
770
775
780
785
765
770
775
780
785
200+00 200+50 201+00 201+50 202+00 202+50 203+00 203+50 204+00 204+20
-1.8%
-1.5%-0.8%-2.1%
-2.0%
-2.3%
-2.0%
-2.0%
-2.0%
-1.7%
-2.0%STA = 200+00ELEV = 776.25STA = 200+25ELEV = 775.82STA = 200+31ELEV = 775.00
STA = 200+33ELEV = 775.00STA = 200+37ELEV = 775.82STA = 200+67ELEV = 775.37STA = 200+97ELEV = 775.23STA = 200+73
ELEV = 774.67
STA = 200+75ELEV = 774.67 STA = 200+78ELEV = 775.37STA = 200+78ELEV = 775.37STA = 201+01ELEV = 774.35STA = 201+02
ELEV = 774.35 STA = 201+05ELEV = 775.07STA = 201+21ELEV = 774.75STA = 201+33ELEV = 773.59
STA = 201+37ELEV = 773.59 STA = 201+45ELEV = 774.35STA = 201+63ELEV = 773.99STA = 201+75ELEV = 772.83
STA = 201+80ELEV = 772.83 STA = 201+87ELEV = 773.49STA = 202+04ELEV = 773.11STA = 202+14ELEV = 772.05
STA = 202+18ELEV = 772.05 STA = 202+24ELEV = 772.71STA = 202+45ELEV = 772.27STA = 202+56ELEV = 771.21
STA = 202+60ELEV = 771.21 STA = 202+67ELEV = 771.87STA = 202+84ELEV = 771.52STA = 202+97ELEV = 770.33
STA = 203+02ELEV = 770.33 STA = 203+10ELEV = 771.02STA = 203+34ELEV = 770.54STA = 203+55
ELEV = 770.17
STA = 203+48ELEV = 770.29STA = 203+48ELEV = 770.29STA = 203+62ELEV = 769.26
STA = 203+39ELEV = 769.78
STA = 203+41ELEV = 769.78STA = 203+41ELEV = 769.78
STA = 203+66
ELEV = 769.26 STA = 203+69ELEV = 769.86STA = 203+87ELEV = 769.53STA = 203+97ELEV = 768.36
STA = 204+01ELEV = 768.36STA = 204+08ELEV = 769.03EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECR
-
C
H
CR-CH
CR
-
C
R
CR-CR
CR-CR
CR-R
R
CR-JZCR-CR
CR-C
R
CR-JZCR-C
H
CR-RR775780
770775
780
785
790
795
800
775780785790
795
800
200+00
201+
0
0
202
+
0
0 203+00204+00 770STA: 200+00
BEGIN UT2 REACH 1 - RESTORATION
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
REMOVE EXISTINGCMP CULVERT
UT2
REMOVE EXISTING ROAD
WITHIN EASEMENT
MA
T
CH

L
IN
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
4
+
2
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.16December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2UT2AUT2
B
UT3755
760
765
770
775
755
760
765
770
775
204+20 204+50 205+00 205+50 206+00 206+50 207+00 207+50 208+00 208+50 208+65
-1.3%
-1.6%
-1.5%
-2.4%
-1.4%
-1.7%
-1.7%
-1.2%
-1.8%STA = 204+34ELEV = 768.70STA = 204+45ELEV = 767.59
STA = 204+49
ELEV = 767.59 STA = 204+56ELEV = 768.20STA = 204+83ELEV = 767.76STA = 204+90
ELEV = 766.64
STA = 204+93ELEV = 766.64 STA = 204+98ELEV = 767.36STA = 205+22ELEV = 766.99STA = 205+30ELEV = 766.00
STA = 205+33
ELEV = 766.00 STA = 205+38ELEV = 766.64STA = 205+63ELEV = 766.03STA = 205+74
ELEV = 764.87
STA = 205+78ELEV = 764.87 STA = 205+86ELEV = 765.63STA = 205+99ELEV = 765.45STA = 206+23ELEV = 764.98STA = 206+04ELEV = 764.47
STA = 206+06ELEV = 764.47 STA = 206+10ELEV = 765.20STA = 206+10ELEV = 765.20STA = 206+48ELEV = 763.38
STA = 206+57ELEV = 763.38 STA = 206+74ELEV = 764.36STA = 207+04ELEV = 763.83STA = 207+26ELEV = 762.32
STA = 207+33ELEV = 762.32 STA = 207+48ELEV = 763.64STA = 207+75ELEV = 763.31STA = 207+92
ELEV = 762.06
STA = 207+99ELEV = 762.06 STA = 208+10ELEV = 762.88STA = 208+32ELEV = 762.48STA = 208+59ELEV = 760.76EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
CR-C
R
CR-CR
CR-CH
CR-RRCR-CR
CR
-
J
Z
CR-CRCR
-
C
H
CR-RR770204+00
205+00 206+0020
7
+
0
0
208+0
0
209+0076
5
7707
6
5770775780785790795
76
5
770CR-CRCR-CR76
3
763STA: 206+23END UT2 REACH 1 - RESTORATIONBEGIN UT2 REACH 2 - RESTORATION
REMOVE EXISTING
CMP CULVERT
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
UT2
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

2
0
4
+
2
0 MATCH LINE - STA 208+65
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.17December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2
UT2AUT2
B
UT3755
760
765
770
755
760
765
770
208+65 209+00 209+50 210+00 210+50 211+00 211+50 212+00 212+50 213+00
-2.5%
-2.3%
-1.7%
-1.0%-1.1%STA = 208+69ELEV = 760.76STA = 208+87ELEV = 761.99STA = 209+17ELEV = 761.25STA = 209+41ELEV = 760.12STA = 209+49ELEV = 760.12STA = 209+66ELEV = 761.15STA = 209+90ELEV = 760.58STA = 210+24ELEV = 758.98STA = 210+35ELEV = 758.98STA = 210+58ELEV = 760.03STA = 210+84ELEV = 759.59STA = 211+15ELEV = 758.06STA = 211+25ELEV = 758.06STA = 211+46ELEV = 759.29STA = 211+78ELEV = 758.99STA = 212+07ELEV = 757.66STA = 212+36ELEV = 758.99STA = 212+17ELEV = 757.66STA = 212+17ELEV = 757.66STA = 212+60ELEV = 758.73STA = 212+84
ELEV = 757.67 STA = 212+92ELEV = 757.67EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
CR
-CHCR-CRC
R
-
C
H
CR-RRCR-CRCR-
JZ
CR-CHCR-CR208
+
0
0
209+0021
0
+
0
0 211+00212+0
0
2
1
3
+
0
0
214+00
760
7617
6
2
76
3
760761762763761
761
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
UT2
WETLAND I
MATCH LINE - STA 208+65MATCH LINE - STA 213+00
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.18December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2
UT2AUT2
B
UT3750
755
760
765
750
755
760
765
213+00 213+50 214+00 214+50 215+00 215+50 216+00 216+50 217+00 217+15STA = 213+08ELEV = 758.73STA = 213+22ELEV = 758.60STA = 213+43ELEV = 757.67
STA = 213+50ELEV = 757.67 STA = 213+64ELEV = 758.60STA = 213+84ELEV = 758.46STA = 214+10ELEV = 757.03STA = 214+19ELEV = 757.03STA = 214+36ELEV = 758.46STA = 214+70ELEV = 758.12STA = 214+94ELEV = 756.87STA = 215+03ELEV = 756.87STA = 215+19ELEV = 758.12STA = 215+48ELEV = 757.85STA = 215+69
ELEV = 756.60
STA = 215+76ELEV = 756.60 STA = 215+90ELEV = 757.85STA = 216+14ELEV = 757.59STA = 217+02ELEV = 756.85STA = 216+29ELEV = 756.31
STA = 216+34ELEV = 756.31STA = 216+44ELEV = 757.39STA = 216+44ELEV = 757.39-0.9%-0.7%-1.0%-0.9%-1.1%
-0.9%
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CR-C
H
CR-WRCR-CRCR-CHCR-CRCR-CRCR-CH
CR-CR
C
R
-
C
R
21
3
+
0
0
214+00
215+00
2
1
6
+
0
0
217+00
5
0
7
+
0
0 317+00318
+
0
0
3
1
9
+
0
0760760
759
761
761
7
5
9
STA: 217+03END UT2 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONSTA:319+32UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATION
CONFLUENCE
STA: 507+84
END UT2B - RESTORATIONSTA: 215+19UT2 REACH 2CONFLUENCE 760759GWG #5
W UT3UT2BMATCH LINE - STA 213+00
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2AStream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.19December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2UT2AUT2
B
UT3758
760
765
770
775
758
760
765
770
775
400+00 400+50 401+00 401+50 402+00 402+50 403+00 403+50 404+00 404+50 404+65
-2.1%
-2.0%
-1.6%
-1.4%
-1.2%-1.6%
-1.5%-2.0%-1.4%-0.9%-0.8%
-4.5%
STA = 400+00ELEV = 772.89
STA = 400+54ELEV = 767.51
STA = 400+57ELEV = 768.30
STA = 400+60ELEV = 767.07
STA = 400+63ELEV = 767.70
STA = 400+66ELEV = 766.64 STA = 400+69ELEV = 767.10STA = 400+93ELEV = 765.09
STA = 400+95ELEV = 765.74
STA = 401+08ELEV = 765.11
STA = 401+01ELEV = 765.24STA = 401+01ELEV = 765.24
STA = 400+99ELEV = 764.74STA = 400+99ELEV = 764.74
STA = 401+11ELEV = 764.08
STA = 401+14ELEV = 764.72
STA = 401+18ELEV = 763.67
STA = 401+20ELEV = 763.67
STA = 401+22ELEV = 764.34
STA = 401+38ELEV = 764.03
STA = 401+46ELEV = 763.05
STA = 401+49
ELEV = 763.05 STA = 401+55ELEV = 763.64STA = 401+67ELEV = 763.43STA = 401+74ELEV = 762.53
STA = 401+76ELEV = 762.53 STA = 401+80ELEV = 763.13STA = 401+94ELEV = 762.94STA = 402+00ELEV = 762.13
STA = 402+02ELEV = 762.13 STA = 402+07ELEV = 762.76STA = 402+26ELEV = 762.52STA = 402+32
ELEV = 761.82STA = 402+34ELEV = 761.82 STA = 402+38ELEV = 762.53STA = 402+55ELEV = 762.25STA = 403+00ELEV = 761.51STA = 402+67ELEV = 761.26
STA = 402+71
ELEV = 761.26 STA = 402+79ELEV = 761.82STA = 402+79ELEV = 761.82STA = 403+14ELEV = 760.60
STA = 403+19ELEV = 760.60 STA = 403+29ELEV = 761.51STA = 403+45ELEV = 761.18STA = 403+85ELEV = 760.96STA = 404+15ELEV = 760.82STA = 403+57ELEV = 760.37
STA = 403+61ELEV = 760.37 STA = 403+69ELEV = 761.18STA = 403+69ELEV = 761.18STA = 403+92ELEV = 760.47
STA = 403+95ELEV = 760.47 STA = 404+00ELEV = 760.96STA = 404+00ELEV = 760.96STA = 404+21
ELEV = 760.18
STA = 404+23ELEV = 760.18 STA = 404+27ELEV = 760.82STA = 404+51ELEV = 760.64STA = 404+57ELEV = 759.89
STA = 404+59ELEV = 759.89 STA = 404+63ELEV = 760.64STA = 400+51ELEV = 768.95STA = 400+51ELEV = 768.95 STA = 400+90ELEV = 766.14STA = 400+90ELEV = 766.14EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CECECECECECECECECECR-CH CR-CH
CR-CR
CR
-
C
R
CR-WR CR-CR
C
R
-
C
R
CR-CHCR-CR
CR-WR CR-WR
C
R
-
C
R
400+
0
0
401+00
402+00
4
0
3
+
0
0
404+004
0
5
+
0
0
CR-L
R
CR-LRCR-CR 765770775780785
765770762
761763
STA: 400+00BEGIN WORK UT2A GWG #1
GW
G

#
2
W
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
UT2A
REMOVE EXISTING CULVERT
STA: 400+34UT2A JD STREAMBEGIN RESTORATION
REMOVE EXISTING FARM
ROAD IN EASEMENT
GWG #2
MATCH LINE - STA 404+65
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2AStream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.20December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2
UT2AUT2
B
UT3755
760
765
770
755
760
765
770
404+65 405+00 405+50 406+00 406+50 407+00
-0.6%-1.2%-0.9%-1.2%-1.3%
-1.2%STA = 404+81ELEV = 760.53STA = 404+90ELEV = 759.83
STA = 404+92ELEV = 759.83 STA = 404+98ELEV = 760.53STA = 405+14ELEV = 760.34STA = 405+23ELEV = 759.78
STA = 405+26ELEV = 759.78 STA = 405+32ELEV = 760.34STA = 405+52ELEV = 760.15STA = 405+65
ELEV = 759.52
STA = 405+69ELEV = 759.52 STA = 405+77ELEV = 760.15STA = 405+95ELEV = 759.94STA = 406+04
ELEV = 759.24
STA = 406+07ELEV = 759.24 STA = 406+13ELEV = 759.94STA = 406+32ELEV = 759.70STA = 406+89ELEV = 758.97
STA = 406+39ELEV = 759.00
STA = 406+42ELEV = 759.00 STA = 406+47ELEV = 759.48STA = 406+47ELEV = 759.48EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CR-C
R CR-CRCR-WR CR-WRCR-
C
R
CR-
C
R
CR-CRCR-CRCR-CR
404+0040
5
+
0
0
406+00308+00309+00310+00
311+00312+
0
076176276076176
1762763 761W
STA: 406+89END UT2A - RESTORATION
STA: 309+82UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONCONFLUENCE
UT2A
GWG #2
UT3
MATCH LINE - STA 404+65
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2BStream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.21December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2
UT2AUT2
B
UT3760
765
770
760
765
770
500+00 500+50 501+00 501+50 502+00 502+50
-0.8%-0.8%
-4.1%
-3.3%
-3.1%
-1.3%
-1.9%STA = 500+00ELEV = 768.59STA = 500+15ELEV = 768.48STA = 500+44ELEV = 768.36STA = 500+22ELEV = 767.74
STA = 500+24ELEV = 767.74 STA = 500+29ELEV = 768.48STA = 500+29ELEV = 768.48STA = 500+51
ELEV = 767.51STA = 500+54
ELEV = 767.51
STA = 500+58
ELEV = 767.98
STA = 500+60ELEV = 767.98
STA = 500+65ELEV = 767.00
STA = 500+66ELEV = 767.00 STA = 500+69ELEV = 767.58STA = 500+92ELEV = 766.63STA = 501+05ELEV = 766.19
STA = 500+97ELEV = 765.64
STA = 500+99ELEV = 765.64
STA = 501+02
ELEV = 766.19
STA = 501+02
ELEV = 766.19
STA = 501+10
ELEV = 765.04
STA = 501+12ELEV = 765.04 STA = 501+15ELEV = 765.69STA = 501+44ELEV = 764.74STA = 501+56ELEV = 763.42
STA = 501+60ELEV = 763.42 STA = 501+68ELEV = 764.14STA = 501+86ELEV = 763.58STA = 502+08ELEV = 763.11STA = 501+95ELEV = 762.58
STA = 501+98
ELEV = 762.58
STA = 502+03ELEV = 763.18STA = 502+03ELEV = 763.18
STA = 502+17ELEV = 762.12
STA = 502+20ELEV = 762.12STA = 502+26ELEV = 762.81STA = 502+44ELEV = 762.48EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECR-
R
R
CR-CH
CR-
C
H
CR-CH
CR-RR CR-CR500+00 501+00
502+00770775780785790795770
764763764STA: 500+00UT2B JD STREAMBEGIN RESTORATION
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
BMP #4
OVERFLOW CHANNEL
FOR BMP #4
BMP #4 INLET
BMP #4 INLET
UT2B
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
7
8
0
785
7
8
5
790
770
7757807
8
5 MATCH LINE - STA 502+50
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2BStream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.22December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2UT2AUT2
B
UT3755
760
765
770
755
760
765
770
502+50 503+00 503+50 504+00 504+50 505+00 505+50 506+00 506+50 507+00 507+50 508+00
-2.4%
-2.1%-0.4%-1.4%-1.1%-1.0%-0.9%-1.1%
-1.3%-1.6%
-1.5%STA = 502+84ELEV = 761.69STA = 502+56ELEV = 761.25STA = 502+60ELEV = 761.25STA = 502+68ELEV = 762.08STA = 502+68ELEV = 762.08STA = 502+93ELEV = 760.81
STA = 502+96
ELEV = 760.81 STA = 503+01ELEV = 761.44STA = 503+24ELEV = 760.96STA = 503+63ELEV = 760.89STA = 503+34ELEV = 760.13
STA = 503+38ELEV = 760.13 STA = 503+45ELEV = 760.96STA = 503+45ELEV = 760.96STA = 503+77ELEV = 760.12
STA = 503+82
ELEV = 760.12 STA = 503+91ELEV = 760.89STA = 504+05ELEV = 760.69STA = 504+17ELEV = 759.72STA = 504+22ELEV = 759.72 STA = 504+30ELEV = 760.69STA = 504+55ELEV = 760.42STA = 504+67ELEV = 759.55
STA = 504+71ELEV = 759.55 STA = 504+78ELEV = 760.42STA = 504+90ELEV = 760.31STA = 505+04ELEV = 759.60
STA = 505+08ELEV = 759.60 STA = 505+18ELEV = 760.31STA = 505+37ELEV = 760.15STA = 505+77ELEV = 759.89STA = 506+42ELEV = 759.17STA = 506+97ELEV = 758.86STA = 507+84ELEV = 758.12STA = 505+49
ELEV = 759.30
STA = 505+54ELEV = 759.30 STA = 505+62ELEV = 760.05STA = 505+62ELEV = 760.05STA = 505+93ELEV = 758.87
STA = 505+99ELEV = 758.87 STA = 506+10ELEV = 759.59STA = 506+10ELEV = 759.59STA = 506+60ELEV = 758.12
STA = 506+66ELEV = 758.12 STA = 506+78ELEV = 759.17STA = 506+78ELEV = 759.17STA = 507+17ELEV = 757.99 STA = 507+23ELEV = 757.99STA = 507+36ELEV = 758.84STA = 507+36ELEV = 758.84EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CR-CRCR-JZ
C
R
-W
R
CR-C
H
CR-
C
R
CR-
W
R
CR-CRCR-
C
R
CR-CRCR-CRCR-CRCR-C
R 215+00216+00502+00
503+00
504+00505+00506+00 507+007607617627637647
6
0
7
6
0
7
5
8
7
5
8
7
5
9759761762763764
STA: 217+03
END UT2 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONSTA:319+32UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONCONFLUENCE
STA: 507+84END UT2B - RESTORATIONSTA: 215+19UT2 REACH 2
CONFLUENCEW
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
UT2B
GWG #5
UT2BMATCH LINE - STA 502+50
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.23December 8, 2017Sheet Index
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2
UT2AUT2
B
UT3760
765
770
775
760
765
770
775
300+00 300+50 301+00 301+50 302+00 302+50 303+00 303+50 304+00 304+20
-0.4%-0.4%-0.4%-0.3%
-1.1%
STA = 300+00ELEV = 765.56 STA = 300+48ELEV = 765.34STA = 300+64
ELEV = 764.00
STA = 300+69ELEV = 764.00 STA = 300+79ELEV = 765.34STA = 301+16ELEV = 765.18STA = 301+33ELEV = 763.71 STA = 301+38ELEV = 763.71STA = 301+49ELEV = 765.18STA = 301+92ELEV = 764.99STA = 302+17ELEV = 763.38STA = 302+25ELEV = 763.38STA = 302+42ELEV = 764.99STA = 302+87ELEV = 764.87STA = 303+03
ELEV = 763.32
STA = 303+08ELEV = 763.32 STA = 303+19ELEV = 764.57STA = 303+70ELEV = 764.01STA = 303+91ELEV = 762.35
STA = 303+98ELEV = 762.35 STA = 304+12ELEV = 763.55EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
TCETCETCETCETCETCE
TCE
TCE TCETCECECECECECE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE
CECECECECECR-CR
CR-
W
R
CR-CH
CR-RR
CR-CR CR
-
C
H
300+00
301+00
302+00
303+00
304+
0
0 7657
6
6
7
6
7
7
6
8
770
775780785790795 765766767
768
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
UT3
STA: 300+00BEGIN WORK UT3 REACH 1
TIE EXISTING SWALE TO
PROPOSED CHANNEL
STA: 300+13
BEGIN UT3 REACH 1 - RESTORATION
MATCH LINE - STA 304+20
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.24December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2
UT2AUT2
B
UT3755
760
765
770
755
760
765
770
304+20 304+50 305+00 305+50 306+00 306+50 307+00 307+50 308+00 308+50 309+00 309+50 309+80STA = 304+52ELEV = 762.80STA = 305+00ELEV = 760.93STA = 305+16ELEV = 760.93STA = 305+48ELEV = 762.10STA = 305+94ELEV = 761.40STA = 306+33ELEV = 759.94STA = 306+46ELEV = 759.94STA = 306+72ELEV = 761.00STA = 307+12ELEV = 760.27STA = 307+52ELEV = 758.81STA = 307+65ELEV = 758.81STA = 307+92ELEV = 759.87STA = 308+28ELEV = 759.49STA = 308+62ELEV = 757.71STA = 308+74ELEV = 757.71STA = 308+97ELEV = 759.27STA = 309+30ELEV = 758.97STA = 309+58ELEV = 757.21STA = 309+68ELEV = 757.21-1.9%
-1.5%
-1.9%
-1.0%
-0.9%
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CR-CRCR-CHCR-CRCR-CR
CR
-
W
R CR-JZ405+00 406+003
0
4
+
0
0
305+00 306+003
0
7
+00308+0030
9
+
0
0
310+00761762761
76
2
763765766765761
GWG #2
W
STA: 406+89END UT2A - RESTORATIONSTA: 309+82UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONCONFLUENCE
UT3 STA: 307+92END UT3 REACH 1 - RESTORATIONBEGIN UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONMATCH LI
N
E -
S
T
A
3
0
4
+
2
0
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
9
+
8
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.25December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2
UT2AUT2
B
UT3750
755
760
765
750
755
760
765
309+80 310+00 310+50 311+00 311+50 312+00 312+50 313+00 313+50 314+00 314+50 315+00
-0.6%-0.7%-0.5%-0.5%-0.3%STA = 309+86ELEV = 758.87STA = 310+34ELEV = 758.56STA = 310+65ELEV = 756.76STA = 310+75ELEV = 756.76STA = 310+96ELEV = 758.49STA = 311+40ELEV = 758.17STA = 311+89ELEV = 756.35STA = 312+05ELEV = 756.35STA = 312+38ELEV = 758.17STA = 312+82ELEV = 757.93STA = 313+19ELEV = 756.13STA = 313+31ELEV = 756.13STA = 313+55ELEV = 757.93STA = 314+08ELEV = 757.65STA = 314+37ELEV = 756.12STA = 314+47ELEV = 756.12STA = 314+67ELEV = 757.65EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CR-JZCR-WRCR-WRCR-CRCR-CR
406+00 310+00311+00312+00 313+00
314+00315+00760761
7
6
0
7
5
9
76
1
7
6
0
END UT2A - RESTORATION
UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATION
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
UT3
MA
T
CH

L
IN
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
9
+
8
0 MATCH LINE - STA 315+00
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.26December 8, 2017Sheet Index
N
0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2
UT2AUT2
B
UT3750
755
760
765
750
755
760
765
315+00 315+50 316+00 316+50 317+00 317+50 318+00 318+50 319+00 319+50 320+00
-0.6%-0.3%-0.3%-0.8%STA = 315+29ELEV = 757.43STA = 315+87ELEV = 755.99STA = 316+06ELEV = 755.99STA = 316+44ELEV = 757.43STA = 317+03ELEV = 757.09STA = 317+41ELEV = 755.12STA = 317+54ELEV = 755.12STA = 317+79ELEV = 757.07STA = 318+07ELEV = 756.98STA = 318+23ELEV = 754.96 STA = 318+28ELEV = 754.96STA = 318+39ELEV = 756.98STA = 318+85ELEV = 756.85STA = 319+18ELEV = 754.74STA = 319+29ELEV = 754.74STA = 319+51ELEV = 756.85EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CR-CRC
R
-
C
R
CR-CHCR-WR CR-CRCR-CHCR-CR
216+00 217+00314
+
0
0 315+00316+00
317+00318+00319+00 320+00759
STA: 217+03END UT2 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONSTA:319+32
UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONCONFLUENCE
76
0
75
9
760
760
GWG #6
W
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
UT3
STA: 319+51END UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONBEGIN UT3 REACH 3 - RESTORATION
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
1
5
+
0
0
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
2
0
+
0
0
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.27December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2
UT2AUT2
B
UT3750
755
760
765
750
755
760
765
320+00 320+50 321+00 321+50 322+00 322+50 323+00 323+50 324+00 324+50
-0.4%-0.4%-0.2%STA = 320+05ELEV = 756.41STA = 320+44ELEV = 754.56STA = 320+57ELEV = 754.57STA = 320+82ELEV = 756.41STA = 321+42ELEV = 756.20STA = 321+82ELEV = 754.39STA = 321+95ELEV = 754.39STA = 322+21ELEV = 756.20STA = 322+94ELEV = 755.88STA = 323+32ELEV = 754.04STA = 323+45ELEV = 754.04STA = 323+71ELEV = 755.88EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CR-CRCR-
W
R
CR-
C
R
CR-JZ217+00319+00 320+00321
+
0
0
322+00 323+00324
+
0
0
STA: 217+03
END UT2 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONSTA:319+32UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONCONFLUENCE
758
758
759
760758
759
7
5
8
759
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
UT3
STA: 319+51END UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONBEGIN UT3 REACH 3 - RESTORATION
760
MA
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

3
2
0
+
0
0 MATCH LINE - STA 324+50
0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Profiles West.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3Stream Plan and Profile005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE2.28December 8, 2017Sheet Index N0'2'4'6'
(VERTICAL)2.152.162.172.182.192.20
2.21
2.22
2.232.242.252.262.272.28UT2
UT2AUT2
B
UT3750
755
760
765
750
755
760
765
324+50 325+00 325+50 326+00 326+50 327+00 327+15
-0.3%-0.5%STA = 324+69ELEV = 755.65STA = 325+07ELEV = 753.99STA = 325+20ELEV = 753.99STA = 325+45ELEV = 755.65STA = 325+90ELEV = 755.52STA = 326+10
ELEV = 753.66 STA = 326+17ELEV = 753.66STA = 326+30ELEV = 755.52STA = 326+88ELEV = 755.25EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED GRADE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CR-
C
R
CR-CH
CR-CH
327+37
324
+
0
0
325+00
326+00
327+00
756756757758
758
759
759
760
758
759
761
UT3
SOUT
H

D
E
E
P

C
R
E
E
K
STA: 327+15END UT3 REACH 3 - RESTORATION
755
755
MATCH LINE - STA 324+50
0'200' 400' 600'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Additional Grading.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaAdditional Grading Overview005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE3.0December 8, 2017NTCETCETCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECE
CE
CECE
CE
CECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CECE
CE CECE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECE CE
CECEC
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEUT1
UT1
UT
3
UT
3
UT2A
UT2UT2B BMP 1
BMP 2BMP 3BMP 4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
200+00
205+00210+00
215+00
400+00
405+00
406+89507+84500+00505+00300
+
0
0
305
+
0
0310+00315+00320+0032
5
+
0
0
165+54 100+01105+00
110+0
0
115+00
120+00
1
2
5
+
0
0
130
+
0
0135+00140+00145+00150+0015
5
+
0
0
16
0
+
0
0
165+00SOU
TH

D
E
E
P

C
R
E
E
K
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Additional Grading.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North Carolina005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE3.1December 8, 2017N BMP #1 & BMP #2BMPs0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)CECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECE UT
1
BMP 1ROCK CASCADE
BMP 2DRY DETENTIONSEDIMENT BASIN 105+0093
0
9
3
5 930935940945950955960940
945
950
955
960925
9
3
0
94
0
940
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Additional Grading.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North Carolina005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE3.2December 8, 2017N BMP #3BMPs0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECE8007998017
9
0
7907
8
9 78078579079580080581
0
8
1
5 820825BMP 3ROCK CASCADE
UT1FILL EXISTING DITCH
155+00
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Additional Grading.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North Carolina005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE3.3December 8, 2017N BMP #4BMPs0'20'40'60'
(HORIZONTAL)
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE765762763764766BMP 4DRY DETENTIONSEDIMENT BASIN
FILL EXISTING DITCH
500+00765
770775780785
790
795
UT2
B
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Additional Grading.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North Carolina005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE3.4December 8, 2017NWetland Grading0'100' 200' 300'
(HORIZONTAL)TCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE7607907
8
0
770
7
6
0
780
770
820 83084085086
0 870830810880780
800
810
820
830
830800790780
770
760
770
780
790791
780779781800810811
760
790
765761762763764760760765759
7617627637647667677687
6
0
7
5
9
76
1
760
761
7
6
2
7
6
3
760
765
759
76
1
762
763
764
766
SO
U
T
H

D
E
E
P

C
R
E
E
K UT2BUT2
UT2AUT3
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL.GRADE SWALE TO DRAIN TOSOUTH DEEP CREEK
PROPOSED WETLANDRESTORATION
FILL EXISTING DITCH
EXISTING FARM ROADTO BE REMOVED
EXISTING CULVERT PIPETO BE REMOVED
EXISTING CULVERT PIPETO BE REMOVED
EXISTING CULVERT PIPETO BE REMOVED
757
758
75
9
759
7
6
0
7
5
5
7
5
5
200+00
205+00210+00
215+00
400+00
405+00
406+89507+84500+00505+00300
+
0
0
305
+
0
0310+00315+00320+0032
5
+
0
0
FILL EXISTING DITCH
BMP#4
765
765
77
0
7
7
5
78
0785 79
0 795
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Planting East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaPlanting ListPlanting005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE4.0December 8, 2017Buffer Planting Zone
Open/Graded Bare Roots
Species CommonName MaxSpacing Indiv.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum # of Stems
Quercus
phellos Willow Oak 12 ft. 6-12 ft.
0.25”-1.0”Canopy 10%
Platanus
occidentalis
Sycamore 12 ft. 6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0”Canopy 20%
Betula nigra River Birch 12 ft. 6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0” Canopy 10%
Liriodendron
tulipifera
Tulip Poplar 12 ft. 6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0” Canopy 10%
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica Green Ash 12 ft. 6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0” Canopy 20%
70%
Alternatives
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 12 ft. 6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0” Canopy 10%
Quercus
pagoda Cherrybark Oak 12 ft. 6-12 ft.0.25”-1.0” Canopy 10%
Quercus
michauxii
Swamp
Chestnut Oak 12 ft. 6-12 ft.
0.25”-1.0” Canopy 10%
Permanent Riparian Seeding - Open Canopy
Pure Live Seed (20 lbs/ acre)
Approved Date Species Name Common Name Stratum Density
(lbs/acre)
All Year Panicum rigidulum Redtop Panicgrass Herb 1.5
All Year Agrostis hyemalis Winter Bentgrass Herb 4.0
All Year Chasmanthium latifolium River Oats Herb 2.0
All Year Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan Herb 1.0
All Year Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf Coreopsis Herb 1.0
All Year Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge Herb 3.0
All Year Panicum clandestinum Deertongue Herb 3.5
All Year Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye Herb 2.0
All Year Asclepias syrica Common Milkweed Herb 0.2
All Year Baptisia australis Blue False Indigo Herb 0.2
All Year Gaillardia pulchella Annual Gaillardia Herb 1.0
All Year Echinacea purpurea Pale Purple Coneflower Herb 0.6
Streambank Planting Zone
Live Stakes
Species Common Name Max Spacing Indiv.Spacing Min. Size Stratum % of Stems
Salix nigra Black Willow 8 ft. 2-8 ft. 0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub 10%
Cornus ammomum Silky Dogwood 8 ft. 2-8 ft.0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub 35%
Salix sericea Silky Willow 8 ft. 2-8 ft. 0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub 40%
Physocarpos
opulifolius
Ninebark 8 ft. 2-8 ft. 0.5”-1.5” cal. Shrub 15%
100%
Herbaceous Plugs
Juncus effusus Common Rush 5 ft. 3-5 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb 40%
Carex alata Broadwing Sedge 5 ft. 3-5 ft. 1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb 40%
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 5 ft. 3-5 ft.1.0”- 2.0” plug Herb 20%
100%
Wetland Bare Root Planting
Scientific Name Common Name %
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 15
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 15
Betula nigra River Birch 15
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 15
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 15
Acer rubrum Red Maple 5
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 10
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 10
Shaded Areas Bare Roots - Buffer Planting As Needed to Increase Density
Species Common name # of stems
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 15%
Fraxinus pennsylvanicum Green Ash 15%
Betula nigra River Birch 10%
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 10%
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 10%
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood 5%
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 5%
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak 5%
Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 5%
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum 5%
Callicarpa americana Beautyberry 5%
Cornus alternifolia Pagoda Dogwood 5%
Euonymus americanus American Strawberry Bush 1%
Calycanthus floridus Sweetshrub 1%
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia 1%
Hamamelis virginiana Witch-Hazel 1%
Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pepperbush 1%
100%
Note:
Permanent Riparian seeding in
all disturbed areas withinConservation Easement
Pasture Seeding
ApprovedDate Species Name Stratum Common Name Density
(lbs/acre)
All Year Festuca arundinacea Herb Tall Fescue
80
All Year Trifolium repens Herb White Clover 8
Pasture areas outside easement.
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Planting East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaOverall Planting PlanPlanting005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE4.1December 8, 2017N0'100' 200' 300'
(HORIZONTAL)
TCE TCE
TCE
CE CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEC
E
CECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEC
E
CECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE CE
CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
C
E
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
UT2A
UT2UT2BUT3
UT3
S
O
U
T
H

D
E
E
P

C
R
E
E
K
4.6
4.54.44.3
4.24.7
4.9
4.8
UT1
UT1
0'40'80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Planting East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Planting005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE4.2December 8, 2017NCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.3)UT1
BMP
100+01101+00102+00103+00 104+00 105+00
106+00 107+00 108+00
109+00
1
1
0
+
0
0
11
1
+
0
0
11
2
+
0
0
11
3
+
0
0
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Planting East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Planting005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE4.3December 8, 2017N0'40'80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE
CE CE CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE
CE CE CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
UT1 MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.4)MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.2)112+00
113+00 114+00 115+00
116
+
0
0
117+
0
0
118+00
11
9
+
0
0
120+00
121+0
0
1
2
2
+
0
0
12
3
+
0
0
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Planting East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Planting005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE4.4December 8, 2017N0'40'80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.5)MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.3)UT1
12
3
+
0
0
12
4
+
0
0
1
2
5
+
0
0
12
6
+
0
0
12
7
+
0
0
128+00
12
9
+
0
0
130
+
0
0
131+00
132+00
13
3
+
0
0
13
4
+
0
0 135+00136+00
137+0
0
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Planting East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Planting005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE4.5December 8, 2017N0'40'80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE
CE CE CE
UT1 MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.6)MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.4)137+0
0 138+00
139+00
140+00141+00
142+
0
0
14
3
+
0
0
144+00 145+00146+00147+00148+00 149+00150+00151+
0
0 152+0015
3
+
0
0
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Planting East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT1Planting005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE4.6December 8, 2017N0'40'80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE
CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE
CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.5)UT115
3
+
0
0 154+0015
5
+
0
0 156+00157+00158+00 159+0016
0
+
0
0
161+00162+00163+00164+00165+00165+54
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Planting East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3 and UT2APlanting005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE4.7December 8, 2017N0'40'80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
TCE TCE TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE TCETCETCETCETCETCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
CECECE CE CE CE CECE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CECECE CE CE CE CECE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.8)MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.7)M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

(
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T
UT2AUT3
211+00212+00
213+00 214+00215+00
400+00
405+00
507+
0
0
300+00
3
0
1
+
0
0
302+
0
0
3
0
3
+
0
0
304+00305+0
0 306+00307+00308+003
0
9
+
0
0
310+00311+00312+00
313+00
314+00315+003
1
6
+
0
0
317+00
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Planting East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT3 and UT2BPlanting005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE4.8December 8, 2017N0'40'80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
CE
CE
C
E
C
E CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
C
E
C
E CE CE CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEC
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

(
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

4.7
)
MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.9)
MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET 4.8)
UT2
UT2B
213+00214+00215+00216+00 217+005
0
6
+
0
0
507+00 327+373
1
7
+
0
0 318+00319+00 320+00321+00 322+00323+00324+00 325+00 326+00SOUTH DEEP CREEK
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONQ:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Planting East.dwgDecember 1, 2017Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaUT2 and UT2BPlanting005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASE4.9December 8, 2017N0'40'80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEM
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

(
S
E
E

S
H
E
E
T

4.8
)200+00201+00
202+00 203+00204+00205+00206+00207+00
208+00 209+00210+00211+00212+00
213+00
400+00
500+00501+00502+00503+00504
+
0
0
5
0
5
+
0
0506+00507+00
UT2UT2BBMP
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTION005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASEDecember 8, 2017Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Details.dwgMarch 7, 2012Chunky Riffle
Not to Scale
Woody Riffle
Not to Scale
1
6.1
Constructed Riffle
Not to Scale
Jazz Riffle Structure
Not to Scale
FLOW
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
RIFFLE BOTTOMWIDTH PERTYPICAL SECTIONS
Plan View
A A'
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
B
B'
HEAD OF RIFFLE
Profile A-A'Section B-B'
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
Section A-A'
Plan View
FLOW
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
RIFFLE BOTTOMWIDTH PERTYPICAL SECTIONS
A
SEE PROFILEFOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
B'
B
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
RIFFLE A'
TOE OF SLOPE
TOP OF BANK
LOG EXPOSED 1" TO 3" ABOVEFINISHED RIFFLE ELEVATION
Section B-B'
Plan View
Profile View
A-A'
TOE OF SLOPE
Log Section
B-B'
TOP OF BANK
F
LOWFLOWA'
B
FLOW
B'
NOTES:
·STRUCTURES SHOULD VARY IN
SIZE AND TYPE WITHIN EACH
RIFFLE.
·ROCK MAY BE SUBSTITUTED
FOR LOGS AT ENGINEER'S
DISCRETION.
·IF A RIFFLE ENDS WITH A SILL IT
WILL BE SHOWN IN THE PLANS.
REFER TO LOG/ROCK SILL
DETAIL FOR THIS FINAL
STRUCTURE.TOE OF SLOPETOP OF BANKATOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
LENGTH VARIES PER PLAN
Section A-A'
Plan View
Section B-B'
A A'
B
B'
3" MAX
3" MAX
2
6.1
4
6.13
6.1 Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaDetails6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATIONPOINT PER PROFILE
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATIONPOINT PER PROFILE
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
3" TO 6" BRUSHY MATERIAL
WORKED INTO ROCKY SUBSTRATE
MICRO POOL HABITATBEHIND LARGER
WOODY DEBRIS
MICRO POOL HABITATBEHIND LARGER WOODY DEBRIS
3" TO 6" DIAMETER WOODYDEBRIS WORKED INTO RIFFLESUBSTRATE
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
CLASS 1 STONEOR SALVAGEDONSITE BOULDERS
MIN 0.5'x1'x1.5'
TAIL OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINTPER PROFILE
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINTPER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
CLASS 1 STONEOR SALVAGEDONSITE BOULDERSMIN 0.5'x1'x1.5'
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGEDONSITE BOULDERSMIN 0.5'x1'x1.5'
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATIONPOINT PER PROFILE
ROCK VANES MAYBE USED IN PLACEOF LOGS ATENGINEER'S DISCRETION
BURY INTO BANK 3' MIN. (TYP)
BANKFULL
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATIONPOINT PER PROFILE
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
LOG STRUCTUREEXPOSED UNTILCENTER OF CHANNEL
CR-CR CR-WR
CR-JZ CR-CH
NOTES:
·IF ONSITE LARGE STONE IS NOT
AVAILABLE FOR BOULDERS
RIFFLE SHOULD BE CHANGED
TO JAZZ RIFFLE OR OTHER PER
ENGINEER'S DIRECTION.
·IF A RIFFLE ENDS WITH A SILL IT
WILL BE SHOWN IN THE PLANS.
REFER TO LOG/ROCK SILL
DETAIL FOR THIS FINAL
STRUCTURE.
FLOW
6.1NOTES:
·IF A RIFFLE ENDS WITH A SILL IT
WILL BE SHOWN IN THE PLANS.
REFER TO LOG/ROCK SILL
DETAIL FOR THIS FINAL
STRUCTURE.
NOTES:
·IF A RIFFLE ENDS WITH A SILL IT
WILL BE SHOWN IN THE PLANS.
REFER TO LOG/ROCK SILL
DETAIL FOR THIS FINAL
STRUCTURE.
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONLog J-Hook
Not to Scale
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Details.dwgMarch 7, 20121
6.2
4
6.2
Rock and Roll Riffle
Not to Scale
Plan View
Profile View
A-A'
2% - 4%
1/2 TO 2/3
BANKFULL
Log Section
B-B'
TOP OF BANK
BURY INTO BANK 3' MIN. (TYP)
POOLWIDTH PERTYPICAL SECTION
FLOW55° TO 65°
(TYP)
B'
B
0.5' MAX.
5' MIN.(TYP)
FLOW AFLOWY 20°-30°
SCOURPOOL
FLOW
Plan View TOE OF SLOPE
FILTER FABRICEXTENDS 5' MIN.
Section B-B'
Section A-A'
A'
A
B
B'
H
TOP OF BANK
OFFSET HEADER LOG
0.25' TO 0.5' UPSTREAMOF FOOTER LOG
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
FLOW
VANE ARM
LENGTH(X)
3%-5%Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaDetailsA'005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASEDecember 8, 2017THALWEG
TOP OF BANK
NORMAL WATERSURFACE
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
NONWOVENFILTER FABRIC
TOE OF
SLOPE
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
12" DIAMETER OR
GREATER (TYP)
BANKFULL
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOGNONWOVENFILTER FABRIC
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
PLACE HEADER BOULDERTO PREVENT LOG FROM SHIFTING.
INVERT ELEVATIONPER PROFILE
EXCAVATE POOLPER PROFILE
PLACE HEADER BOULDERSWITH 1' TO 2' CLEAR SPACEBETWEEN ROCKS
CR-RR
Lunker Log
Not to Scale
Section A-A'FLOWCOVER LOG
Plan ViewTOP OF BANK (TYP)TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)A
A'
2
:
1
1'
FOOTER LOG
5' MIN.
TRANSPLANT/
BRUSH TOE
COVER LOG
FOOTER LOGBURIED 6" BELOWMAX POOL DEPTH
2
6.2
Log-Rock Cascade Riffle
Not to Scale
Plan View
Profile View
A-A'
NOTES:1. CONSTRUCT GRADE DROPS IN CASCADE BASED ON ROCK AND LOG STEP DETAIL.
2. VARY THE SEQUENCE, TYPE AND ORIENTATION OF STEPS (DROPS). USE ROCK
STEP DETAIL AS A GUIDE FOR VARIATIONS IN ORIENTATION/CONFIGURATION.
3. KEY PIECES ARE LOWER MOBILITY STONE THAT PROVIDE GRADE CONTROL ANDTOE PROTECTION. USE CLASS 1 STONE OR SALVAGED ONSITE BOULDERS MIN0.5'x1'x1.5'. JAZZ LOGS SHOULD BE WORKED IN AS EQUIVALENT OF KEY PIECES.4. ROCK STEP OR LOG STEP AT END OF CASCADE RIFFLE PAID SEPARATE.
5. NUMBER OF INTERNAL STEPS (INCLUDING STEPS AT THE BEGINNING OF A
CASCADE SEQUENCE) VARIES BASED ON LENGTH AND SLOPE. RIFFLES SHALL BE
1.2 - 1.8 TIMES THE AVERAGE CHANNEL SLOPE. STEP DROPS SHALL BE BETWEEN0.2-0.5' MEASURED AT THE WATER SURFACE.6. FOOTER ROCK OR LOG SHOWN. FOOTER ONLY REQUIRED WHEN MINIMUMUNFOOTERED DIMENSION OF ROCK OR LOG IS NOT MET. A MINIMUM OF 16"OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED OVER FILTER FABRIC TO PROTECT.
7. IF A RIFFLE ENDS WITH A SILL IT WILL BE SHOWN IN THE PLANS. REFER TO
LOG/ROCK SILL DETAIL FOR THIS FINAL STRUCTURE.
BOULDER OR LOG STEP - LOGS 12" DIA OR GREATER,
BURY INTO BANK 2' MIN. (TYP)BANKFULL
FLOW70° TO 90°
(TYP)
VARIES
NORMAL WATERSURFACE
TOP OF BANK
THALWEGFLOW AGLIDE ARMORINGWITH RIFFLEMATERIAL TO 16"OR DEPTH OF POOL,WHICHEVER ISDEEPER FLOWA'
POOLWIDTH PERTYPICAL SECTION
HABITAT LOGS/BRUSH
ROCK STEP
(OR LOG STEP PER
PLANS)
KEY PIECES
(TYP)
LOG STEP (VARY)
KEY PIECES (TYP)
ROCK STEP
(VARY)
ROCK STEP (VARIES PER PLAN)
BOULDER OR LOG STEP
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATIONPOINT PER PROFILE
(INVERT OF ROCK OR LOG STEP -
ROCK STEP SHOWN)
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
16" (MIN)
RIFFLE MATERIALSEE SHEET 5.2 DETAIL 2
FILTER FABRIC (TYP)
CR-LR
3
6.2
NOTES:
·LOGS WITHOUT ROOT MASS MAY BE USEDONLY IF APPROVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER.
·BOULDER MATERIAL CAN BE SUBSTITUTED IN
PLACE OF ANGLED LOGS WITH APPROVAL OFENGINEER.
·IF A RIFFLE ENDS WITH A SILL IT WILL BE
SHOWN IN THE PLANS. REFER TO LOG/ROCK
SILL DETAIL FOR THIS FINAL STRUCTURE.
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATIONPOINT PER PROFILE
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
6.2
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONSection B-B'
Section C-C'005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASEDecember 8, 2017Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Details.dwgMarch 7, 2012Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaDetailsLog Vane
Not to Scale
1
6.3
3% - 5%H TOE OFSLOPE
FOOTER LOG
TOP OF BANK
Profile B - B'
INVERT ELEVATIONPER PROFILE
HEADER LOG
Y
SCOURPOOLFLOW
EXCAVATE POOLPER PROFILE
Plan View
A'
ATOP OF BANK (TYP)TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)20°-30°
STREAMBED
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
NONWOVENFILTER FABRIC
HEADER LOG
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC5' MIN. UPSTREAM
Section A-A'
FOOTER LOG
STABILIZE VANEWITH ONE BOULDERON EACH SIDE
X
5'
B
B'
FLOW
NOTE:ON SMALLER STREAMS THE STABILIZATIONBOULDER MAY BE REMOVED PER ENGINEER'S
DISCRETION.FLOWTOE OF SLOPE (TYP)Plan View
A
A'B B'
Profile A-A'
EMBED 5'INTO
BANK (TYP)Section B-B'
Rock Sill
Not to Scale
SILL ELEVATIONPER PROFILETOP OF BANK (TYP)SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILETOP OF BANK
5'
FILTER FABRIC
12" NOMINAL THICKNESSOF EQUAL PARTS
CLASS A, B, AND 1 STONE
EXTEND FILTERFABRIC 5' MIN.UPSTREAM
θ FLOWLEAVE 1'-2' GAPBETWEEN BOULDERS
SCOUR POOL TO BEEXCAVATED PER DIRECTIONOF THE ENGINEER.
A'
ATOE OF SLOPETOP OF BANK2'
CLASS A/B
STONE
TOE OF SLOPE
TYPE 2FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN.
CHANNEL BED
SLOPE (S)
1/2 to 3/4
BANKFULLSTAGE
(X)
TOP OF BANK
ELEVATION POINT PER PROFILE.
STRUCTURE ELEVATION POINTLOCATED ON FOOTER ROCK.
VAN ARM
LENGTH (Y)
1/3
Bottom
Width of
Channel
(Z)
Section A-A'
Profile B-B'
B'
B
Boulder J-Hook
Not to Scale
4
6.3
3
6.3
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
A'
Profile View
Plan View
STREAMBED
BACKFILL
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
FLOW
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
FLOW
Log Sill
Not to Scale
POOL LENGTH PER PROFILE
SILL ELEVATION PERPROFILE
POOL DEPTH PER PROFILE
12" - 15" DIAMETERHEADER LOG
Section A -
A'
EMBED LOG
4' (MIN.)SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
12" - 15" DIAMETER LOG
CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH
0° - 15° ANGLEPER PLANS ORFIELD DIRECTION
BACKFILL
0'-0.2'PER PLANS ORFIELD DIRECTION
A
NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC OR C125BN
MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER
POOL
ADD ROOT WAD, BRUSH TOE,OR TRANSPLANTS TO LARGER
STREAMS AS DIRECTED BYENGINEER
NOTE:FOOTER LOG TO BE ADDED IF DROP IS
MORE THAN HEADER LOG DIAMETER.
2
6.3
Plan View
CLASS 2 HEADER STONE
6.3FOOTER STONE
12" - 15" DIAMETERFOOTER LOG
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTION005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASEDecember 8, 2017Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Details.dwgMarch 7, 2012Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaDetailsθ
SCOUR
POOL
FLOW
PLACE HEADER BOULDERSWITH 1' TO 2' CLEAR SPACEBETWEEN ROCKS
EXCAVATE POOLPER PROFILE
Plan View
A'
A
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
Section A-A'
Profile View B-B'
SLOPE (S)H TOE OF SLOPE
TOP OF BANK
STRUCTURE INVERTELEVATION PER PROFILE.
INVERT ELEVATIONPER PROFILE
VANE ARMLENGTH
(Y)
FOOTER ROCK
HEADER ROCK
Z
2'
CLASS A/B
STONE
TOE OF SLOPENONWOVENFILTER FABRIC
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC5' MIN. UPSTREAM
HEADER ROCK
FOOTER ROCK
CHANNEL BED
OFFSET HEADER0.25' TO 0.5'UPSTREAM OF FOOTER
Rock Vane
Not to Scale
B'
B
1
6.4
θ FLOWLEAVE 1'-2' GAPBETWEEN BOULDERS
SCOUR POOL TO BEEXCAVATED PER DIRECTIONOF THE ENGINEER.
A'
A TOE OF SLOPETOP OF BANK2'
CLASS A/B
STONE
TOE OF SLOPE
TYPE 2FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN.
CHANNEL BED
SLOPE (S)
1/2 to 3/4
BANKFULLSTAGE
(X)
TOP OF BANK
ELEVATION POINT PER PROFILE.
STRUCTURE ELEVATION POINTLOCATED ON FOOTER ROCK.
VAN ARM
LENGTH (Y)
1/3
BOTTOMWIDTH OF
CHANNEL (Z)
Section A-A'
Profile B-B'
B'
B
Boulder J-Hook with Sill
Not to Scale
2
6.4
TOP OF BANK
EROSION CONTROLMATTING (TYP.)
TRANSPLANTED SOD AND ROOTMASS
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
NOTES:
1. PREPARE THE BANK WHERE THE SOD MAT WILL BE TRANSPLANTED BY RAKING & FERTILIZING.2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT SOD MATS WITH A WIDE BUCKET AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL SOILMATERIAL AS POSSIBLE.
3. PLACE TRANSPLANT ON THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED.4. SECURE WITH SOD STAPLES.5. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.6. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.7. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEY TOUCH.
8. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ABOVE TRANSPLANTED SOD MATS.
Section View
Riffle Installation Plan View
Riffle Installation CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
Transplanted Sod Mats
Not to Scale
FLOW
TRANSPLANTED SOD AND ROOTMASS
4
6.4
Plan View
Brush Toe
Not to Scale
3
6.4
FLOW
A
A'
Plan View
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
TOP
O
F
B
A
N
K (
T
Y
P
)
TOE
O
F
S
L
O
P
E (
T
Y
P)
TOE
O
F
S
L
O
P
E
(
T
Y
P
)
TOP
O
F
B
A
N
K (
T
Y
P
)
DENSELY PACKED
WOODY DEBRIS
BRUSH MATERIAL
TO BE INSTALLED
FLUSH WITH BANK
TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL)
Section A-A'
DENSELY PACKED BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
BACKFILL
TOE OF SLOPE
3'
NATIVE SOILELEV. 6" BELOW
POOL DEPTH
ELEV. 6" ABOVE
DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE INVERT
NOTES:
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).
2. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL
CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED ON-SITE AND
SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE. LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY
DEBRIS LAYER.
3. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY PARALLEL AND
IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
4. INSTALL MATTING OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.
5. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER BRUSH/WOODY LAYER ACCORDING
TO TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
6. SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND BANK
STABILIZATION PER PLANS.
WIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS
6"6.4
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONProfile View B-B'005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASEDecember 8, 2017Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Details.dwgMarch 7, 2012Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaDetailsNOTE:
1. ROOTED/LEAFED CONDITION OF THE LIVING PLANTMATERIAL IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TIMEOF INSTALLATION.2. BOTTOM OF FIRST COMPACTED EARTH LIFT TO BE
PLACED 6" ABOVE NORMAL BASEFLOW.3. NUMBER OF COMPACTED EARTH LIFTS TO VARYDEPENDING ON DESIGN TOP OF BANK HEIGHT.
HEIGHT VARIES
18" TO 36"
2"
UPHILL
Section View
Inset "A"
Matting and Blanket
Typical Stakes
2"
15°
Vegetated Soil Lift
Not to Scale
3
6.5
BASEFLOWSTREAMBED
COMPACTED SOIL 12" TO 18" THICK
LIVE CUTTINGS
BIODEGRADABLE EROSIONCONTROL FABRIC (SEE INSET "A")
OPTIONAL LIVE FASCINEBUNDLE OR 2' COIR LOG
SECURED WITH 36" STAKES.
INSTALL ADDITIONAL VEGETATION SUCH ASLIVE STAKES, ROOTED SEEDLINGS, AND ETC.OUTER LAYER 26 OZ / YD²
COIR MATTING INNER LAYER 11.2 OZ. / YD²
COCONUT FIBER BLANKET
ROCK TOE PROTECTION
(CLASS B - VARIES PER
STREAM SIZE)
Live Staking & Juncus Plugs
Not to Scale
Plan View 2' TO 3' LIVE STAKETAPERED AT BOTTOM1/2" TO 2"
DIAMETER
Live Stake Detail
NOTE:1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS ASSHOWN ON PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THEENGINEER.
6' - 8' SPACING FOR
LIVE STAKES
3' - 5' SPACING FOR
JUNCUS PLUGS
3' OUTSIDE TOP OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
EROSION CONTROLMATTING
(SEE DETAIL)
TOE OF SLOPE
JUNCUS PLUG (TYP)
Section View
LIVE STAKE (TYP)
SEE PLAN VIEWFOR SPACING3'
TOE OF SLOPE
Bare Root Planting
Not to Scale
1 2 3 4 5 6
INSERT THE DIBBLE, ORSHOVEL, STRAIGHT
DOWN INTO THE SOILTO THE FULL DEPTH OFTHE BLADE AND PULLBACK ON THE HANDLETO OPEN THE PLANTING
HOLE. (DO NOT ROCKTHE SHOVEL BACK ANDFORTH AS THIS CAUSESSOIL IN THE PLANTING
HOLE TO BECOMPACTED,INHIBITING ROOTGROWTH.
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, ORSHOVEL, AND PUSH THE
SEEDLING ROOTS DEEPINTO THE PLANTING HOLE.PULL THE SEEDLING BACKUP TO THE CORRECT
PLANTING DEPTH (THEROOT COLLAR SHOULD BE1 TO 3 INCHES BELOW THE
SOIL SURFACE). GENTLYSHAKE THE SEEDLING TOALLOW THE ROOTS TOSTRAIGHTEN OUT. DO
NOT TWIST OR SPIN THESEEDLING OR LEAVE THEROOTS J-ROOTED.
INSERT THE DIBBLE, ORSHOVEL, SEVERAL
INCHES IN FRONT OFTHE SEEDLING ANDPUSH THE BLADEHALFWAY INTO THESOIL. TWIST AND PUSH
THE HANDLE FORWARDTO CLOSE THE TOP OFTHE SLIT TO HOLD THESEEDLING IN PLACE.
PUSH THE DIBBLE, ORSHOVEL, DOWN TO
THE FULL DEPTH OFTHE BLADE.
PULL BACK ON THEHANDLE TO CLOSE THE
BOTTOM OF THEPLANTING HOLD. THENPUSH FORWARD TO CLOSETHE TOP, ELIMINATING AIRPOCKETS AROUND THE
ROOT.
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, ORSHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND
FIRM UP THE OPENINGWITH YOUR HEEL. BECAREFUL TO AVOIDDAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
NOTES:
1. ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFERPLANTING AREA SHALL BEDISKED, AS REQUIRED, PRIORTO PLANTING.2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE
PROPERLY HANDLED PRIOR TOINSTALLATION TO INSURESURVIVAL.
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE ABLADE WITH A TRIANGULARCROSS-SECTION, AND SHALLBE 12 INCHES LONG, 4
INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCHTHICK AT CENTER.
ROOTING PRUNING
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNEDTO AN APPORIATE LENGTHTO PREVENT J-ROOTING.
RESTOREDCHANNEL
BANKFULL
BUFFER WIDTHVARIES
SPACING PERPLANTING PLAN Section View
1
6.5
Containerized Planting
Not to Scale
2x CONTAINER WIDTH
1.5x CONTAINERDEPTH
2' TYPICAL
2
6.5
3
6.5 6.5
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONErosion Control Matting
Not to Scale
Section View
ECO-STAKE (TYP)
EROSION CONTROLMATTING (TYP)
Plan View
ECO-STAKE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
TOE OF SLOPE
TOP OF BANK
SECURE MATTING IN6" DEEP TRENCH
3' MAX.SPACING
6" MIN. OVERLAP INDOWNSTREAM DIRECTIONAT MAT ENDS
005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASEDecember 8, 2017Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Details.dwgMarch 7, 20121
6.6
Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaDetails8"
4"
Temporary Silt Fence
Not to ScaleNOTES:1. USE WIRE A MINIUM OF 32" IN WIDTH AND WITH AMINIMUM OF 6 LINES OF WIRES WITH 12" STAY SPACING.
2. USE FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 36" IN WIDTH ANDFASTEN ADEQUATELY TO THE WIRES AS DIRECTED BY THEENGINEER.3. PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE SELF-FASTENER ANGLESTEEL TYPE. ANGLE STEEL TYPE.
WIRE
TOP AND BOTTOM STRANDSHALL BE 10 GAUGE MIN.
MIDDLE AND VERTICAL WIRES
SHALL BE 12 12 GAGE MIN.
8' MAX. WITH WIRE
(6' MAX. WITHOUT WIRE)
FILTER FABRIC
EXISTING GROUND
FILTER FABRIC
COMPACTED FILL
STEEL POST2'-0" DEPTH
EXTEND FABRIC
INTO TRENCH
2
6.6
6" MIN
1.25".4"
Eco-Stake
STAKE (TYP)
STAKE (TYP)
ECO-STAKE (TYP)
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE INSET "B")
INTAKE HOSE
PUMP
DISCHARGE HOSE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE INSET "B")
10' X 5' STABILIZED OUTLETUSING CLASS B RIPRAP ANDNCDOT TYPE 2 FILTER FABRIC.
(SEE INSET "C")
INTAKE HOSE
DEWATERINGPUMP
DISCHARGE HOSE
DEWATERING BAG
(SEE INSET "A")
SAND BAG
(24" X 12" X 6")
OR STONE.IMPERVIOUS SHEETING
FLOW
FLEXIBLE DISCHARGE HOSE FROM
PUMP AROUND PUMP HELD IN PLACEWITH SAND BAGS AS NEEDED.
10' MIN.
STABILIZED OUTLET USING CLASS BRIPRAP TRENCHED INTO EXISTINGGROUND A MINIMUM OF 6". SIZE ANDLOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THEFIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
FILTER FABRIC
Inset "C"
Stabilized OutletPlan View
Inset "B"
Impervious Dike
EXISTING TERRAIN DEWATERING BAG
STREAM BED
FILTER FABRIC
8" of CLASS B RIPRAP
15' to 20'
NOTE:
1. PROVIDE STABILIZED OUTLETTO STREAMBED.
10'
15'
BAG PLACED ON
AGGREGATED OR STRAW.
HIGH STRENGTH
DOUBLE STITCHED"J" TYPE SEAMS.
SEWN IN SPOUT
HIGH STRENGTH STRAPPINGFOR HOLDING HOSEIN PLACE.
FLEXIBLEDISCHARGE HOSE
WATER FLOWFROM PUMP
Inset "A"
Dewatering
Bag
ACTIVE WORK AREA
DEWATERING
BAG
Pump Around System
Not to Scale
3
6.6 6.6
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTIONWATER DIVERSION CHANNEL
MUD MATS
SUPPORT LOG
12" Ø MIN.FILTER FABRIC
CLASS BSTONE
NOTE:1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS AT NORMAL BASEFLOW.2. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE
CHANNEL BOTTOM.3. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW.4. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOESNOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.5. STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE MUD MAT.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDINGTO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
Y
X' DIM
Temporary Stream Crossing - Mud Mat
Not to Scale
005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASEDecember 8, 2017Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Details.dwgMarch 7, 20122
6.7
Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaDetails12"
WATER DIVERSIONCHANNELWATER DIVERSIONCHANNEL
CLASS A/B STONE
NOTES:1. FORD CROSSING SHALL BE
INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TOCHANNEL BANKS.2. MAINTAIN DIVERSION CHANNEL TOINSURE RUNOFF DOES NOT ENTERCHANNEL.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE
APPROPRIATE FORD DIMENSIONS.
Temporary Ford Crossing
Not to Scale
1
6.7
Plan View TOP OF BANK16' MIN
MAINTAIN LOW FLOW THALWEGTHROUGH CROSSING
Section View
12"-18"
SEED AND PLAN AS PERBUFFER RESTORATION SHEET
COMPACTED FILL TO
BE COMPOSED OF SOILAND FREE OF DEBRIS AND BRUSH.OLD CHANNEL TOBE ABANDONED.
6' MAX. WITH WIRE
ORANGE SAFTYFENCE
"T" OR "U" POST DRIVENMINIMUM OF 18" INTO GROUND
ATTACH SAFETY FENCE
TO METAL POSTS USINGMETAL WIRE TIES
4' MIN.
MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
PHYSICAL PROPERTY TESTS REQUIREMENTS
MATERIAL N/A POLYETHYLENE
RECOMENDED COLOR N/A "INTERNATIONAL ORANGE"
TENSILE YIELD ASTM D638 AVE. 2000 LBS. PER 4' WIDE
ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH ASTM D638 AVE. 2900 LBS. PER 4' WIDE
ELONGATION AT BREAK (%)ASTM D638 GREATER THAN 1000%
CHEMICAL RESISTANCE N/A INERT TO MOST CHEMICALS AND ACIDS
18" MIN.
Ephemeral Pool
Not to Scale
Safety Fence
Not to Scale
3
6.7
4
6.7 6.7
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:1430 S. Mint Street, Ste 104Charlotte, NC 28203Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]Firm License No. F-0831Date:Revisions:PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCONSTRUCTION70'
12'PUBLIC ROADCLASS A STONE8" MIN. DEPTH
NOTES:1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATELARGE TRUCKS.5. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL POINTS OF INGRESSAND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED. PROVIDE FREQUENTCHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE.
6. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENTTRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODICTOP DRESSING WITH STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.7. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BECLEANED IMMEDIATELY.8. USE CLASS A STONE OR OTHER COARSE AGGREGATE
APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.9. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.
Construction Entrance
Not to Scale
005-02163SJD, JCKEGREPN, ASEDecember 8, 2017Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Cadd\Plans\02163-Details.dwgMarch 7, 20121
6.8
Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteYadkin County, North CarolinaDetailsTOE OF SLOPE (TYP)TOP OF BANK (TYP)FLOWWORK AREA
20'
20'
INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THREECHECK DAMS LOCATED ATDOWNSTREAM LIMITS OF PROJECT.FLOWTOE OF SLOPE (TYP)NO. 57 STONE
CLASS BRIPRAP
2' MIN.
3'
NO. 57 STONE 4 INCHES
WIDE ON UPSTREAM FACE
SPILLWAY CREST
CLASS B RIPRAP
Plan View
Plan View
Section A-A'
20'20'
CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVESEDIMENT WHEN DEPTHREACHES 12".
FLOW
Temporary Rock Sediment Dam
Not to Scale
WORKAREA
Profile View
2 3 STREAMWIDTH
3'
TOE OF SLOPE
CLASS B RIPRAP
TOP OF BANK
6"
Section B-B'
5' MIN.
FLOW
3
6.8
REMOVE ALL BRUSH AND
DEBRIS FROM INSIDE DRIPLINE.
6' WOODEN OR METAL "T" POSTSSHALL BE USED AS STANDARDS.SAFETY FENCE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO
STANDARDS TO FORM BARRIER.
Section View
RADIUS OF TREE PROTECTIONBARRIER PER PLANS.
NOTES:1. ALL TREE PROTECTION BARRIERS SHALL BEREMOVED PRIOR TO CONTRACTORDEMOBILIZATION.2. SEE PLANS FOR LOCATION OF ALL TREE
PROTECTION BARRIERS.
Plan View 3' MIN.
3'
3'
Tree Protection
Not to Scale
2
6.8
6.8A
A'
B B'
APPENDIX 7
INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 1 December 2017
Appendix 7 Invasive Species Plan
Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project. These site inspections may identify the presence of invasive vegetation. If, during the
monitoring period, invasive species threaten the survivability of planted woody vegetation in an area
that exceeds 1% of the planted easement acreage, the invasive species shall be treated. Smaller areas
may be treated at the discretion of the project engineer and biologist, if deemed in the best interest of
the Site. Generally, the treatment plan shall follow the below guidelines in Table 1 for common invasive
species found in riparian areas; however, the treatment may be changed based on the professional
judgement of the project engineer and biologist. For invasive species not listed in the below table that
threaten the survivability of the planted woody vegetation, Wildlands shall notify DMS of the invasive
species observed and the plan for treatment prior to treating the species. All invasive species treatment
will be reported in the following year’s monitoring plan.
Table 1. Invasive Species Treatment – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Invasive Species Recommended Removal Technique
Honeysuckle
(Lonicera
japonica)
Small infestations of L. japonica can be pulled by hand. Monitor to remove any re-sprouts.
Care should be taken to bag and remove the plants, including mature fruits to prevent re-
establishment. Large infestations of L. japonica will usually require a combination of cut
stump and foliar herbicide treatments. Where vines have grown into the tree canopy, cut
each stem as close to the ground as possible. Treat the freshly cut surface of the rooted
stem with a 25 percent solution of glyphosate or triclopyr. Remove the twining vines to
prevent them from girdling and killing desirable vegetation. Groundcovers of L. japonica
can be treated with a foliar solution of 2 percent glyphosate or triclopyr plus a 0.5 percent
non-ionic surfactant to thoroughly wet all the leaves.
Chinese Privet
(Ligustrum
sinense)
Thoroughly wet all leaves with one of the following herbicides in water with a surfactant: a
glyphosate herbicide as a 3-percent solution (12 ounces per 3-gallon mix) in the late fall or
early winter when safety to surrounding vegetation is desired, or elsewhere, Arsenal AC*
as a 1-percent solution (4 ounces per 3-gallon mix). Backpack mist blowers can broadcast
glyphosate as a 3-percent solution (12 ounces per 3-gallon mix) or Escort XP* at 1 ounce
per acre (0.2 dry ounces per 3-gallon mix and 10 gallons per acre) during winter for safety
to dormant hardwoods. Summer applications of glyphosate may not be as effective as
other times and require a higher percent solution. The best time for Arsenal AC* and Escort
XP* is summer to fall. For stems too tall for foliar sprays and when safety to surrounding
vegetation is desired, apply a basal spray of Garlon 4 as a 20-percent solution (5 pints per
3-gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil product, vegetable oil or mineral oil with a penetrant, or
fuel oil or diesel fuel (where permitted); or undiluted Pathfinder II. Elsewhere, apply
Stalker* as a 6- to 9-percent solution (1.5 to 2 pints per 3-gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil
product, vegetable oil or mineral oil with a penetrant, or fuel oil or diesel fuel (where
permitted) to young bark as a basal spray making certain to treat all stems in a clump; or
cut and immediately treat the stump tops with Arsenal AC* as a 5-percent solution (20
ounces per 3-gallon mix) or Velpar L* as a 10-percent solution in water (1 quart per 3-
gallon mix) with a surfactant. When safety to surrounding vegetation is desired,
immediately treat stump tops and sides with Garlon 3A or with a glyphosate herbicide as a
20-percent solution (5 pints per 3-gallon mix) in water with a surfactant. ORTHO Brush-B-
Gon and Enforcer Brush Killer are effective undiluted for treating cut-stumps and available
in retail garden stores (safe to surrounding plants). For large stems, make stem injections
using Arsenal AC* or when safety to surrounding vegetation is desired, Garlon 3A or a
glyphosate herbicide using dilutions and cut-spacings specified on the herbicide label
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 2 December 2017
Invasive Species Recommended Removal Technique
(anytime except March and April). An EZ-Ject tree injector can help to reach the lower part
of the main stem; otherwise, every branching trunk must be hack-and-squirt injected.
Kudzu
(Pueraria
montana)
Small patches of P. montana that are not well-established can usually be eliminated by
persistent weeding, mowing, or grazing during the growing season. The spread of a well-
established infestation of P. montana can be controlled the same way, but cutting will
typically not kill the roots of larger plants. For vines in tree canopies, cut the vines near the
ground and apply a 50 percent solution of triclopyr to the stumps. This procedure remains
effective at lower temperatures as long as the ground is not frozen. Large infestations can
be effectively controlled with a foliar solution of 2 to 3 percent glyphosate or triclopyr plus
a 0.5 percent non-ionic surfactant to thoroughly wet all leaves. The ambient air
temperature should be above 65 degrees Fahrenheit. After the above ground vegetation is
controlled and it is possible to dig and cut into the central root crown, apply a 50 percent
solution of glyphosate or triclopyr to the wound. The most successful chemical control of P.
montana can be achieved with a foliar solution of 0.75 percent clopyralid plus a 0.5 percent
non-ionic surfactant. Monitor all treatments in subsequent years for re-sprouting.
Porcelain berry
(Ampelopsis
glandulosa var.
brevipedunculata)
The most effective chemical control of A. brevipedunculata has been achieved using
triclopyr formulations toward the end of the growing season when plants are transporting
nutrients to their roots. Apply a 2 percent solution of triclopyr plus a 0.5 percent non-ionic
surfactant to the foliage. Or cut the plants first, allow time for re-growth, and then apply
the herbicide mixture. A. brevipedunculata can also be killed with a mixture of 25 percent
triclopyr and 75 percent mineral oil applied to the basal parts of the stem to a height of 2
to 3 feet from the ground. This method should be used judiciously since it takes a lot of
chemical and can result in overspray. It has been used successfully in situations where no
other technique is feasible, such as cliff faces or other exposed sites.
Japanese Hops
(Humulus
japonicus)
Pre-emergent herbicide containing sulfometuron methyl (Oust XP) applied in early spring
causes minimal damage to established perennial vegetation. Mechanical control by cutting
or mowing as close to the ground as possible beginning in late spring and recurring
frequently until fall dieback is recommended. Post emergent herbicide treatment two
times a year (mid and late summer) to prevent the fall seed set is recommended.
Glyphosate provides good post-emergent chemical control. Hop seeds in the soil last up to
three years. Repeat treatments for two to three years should be expected, or longer in
areas subject to flooding that may receive influx of seeds from upstream infestations.
Cultural control methods which favor fast-growing tall tree species to create dense shade
in spring and summer and canopy closure will discourage infestations, as Japanese hop
prefers direct sunlight and does not tolerate heavy shade. Establishing an early thick
groundcover of hairy vetch, wheat, barley or rye can reduce hop germination and seedling
survival. (National Park Service, Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plants Working Group,
2009)
Johnson Grass
(Sorghum
halepense)
Recommended control procedures:
Thoroughly wet all leaves with one of the following herbicides in water with a surfactant
(June to October with multiple applications applied to regrowth).
• Recommendation for mature grass control: apply Outrider* as a broadcast spray at 0.75
to 2 ounces per acre (0.2 to 0.6 dry ounce per 3-gallon mix) plus a nonionic surfactant to
actively growing Johnsongrass. For handheld and high-volume sprayers, apply 1 ounce of
Outrider per 100 gallons of water plus a nonionic surfactant at 0.25 percent. Outrider is a
selective herbicide that can be applied over the top of certain other grasses to kill
Johnsongrass, or apply Plateau as a 0.25-percent solution (1 ounce per 3-gallon mix) when
plants are 18 to 24 inches (45 to 60 cm) tall or larger.
• Recommendation for seedling control: apply Journey as a 0.3-percent solution (1.2
ounces per 3-gallon mix) before Johnsongrass sprouts and when desirable species are
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 3 December 2017
Invasive Species Recommended Removal Technique
dormant or apply a glyphosate herbicide as a 2-percent solution (8 ounces per 3-gallon
mix) directed at the infestation.
Mimosa
(Albizia julibrissin)
Trees: Make stem injections using Arsenal AC* or when safety to surrounding vegetation is
desired, Garlon 3A or Milestone in dilutions as specified on the herbicide label (anytime
except March and April). For felled trees, apply the herbicides to stump tops immediately
after cutting. ORTHO Brush-B-Gon and Enforcer Brush Killer are effective undiluted for
treating cut-stumps and available in retail garden stores (safe to surrounding plants).
Saplings: Apply a basal spray to young bark using Garlon 4 as a 20-percent solution (5 pints
per 3-gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil product, vegetable oil or mineral oil with a
penetrant, or fuel oil or diesel fuel (where permitted); or undiluted
Pathfinder II. Elsewhere, apply Stalker* as a 6- to 9-percent solution (1.5 to 2 pints per 3-
gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil product, vegetable oil, kerosene, or diesel fuel (where
permitted).
Resprouts and seedlings: Thoroughly wet all leaves with one of the following herbicides in
water with a surfactant:
From June to August, either Escort XP at 1 ounce per acre (0.2 ounces per 3-gallon mix)
plus a glyphosate herbicide as a 2-percent solution addition (8 ounces per 3-gallon mix) or
Milestone VM Plus at 6 to 9 pints per acre (1.5 to 3 pints per 3-gallon mix and 10 gallons
per acre).
From July to September, Transline* † or Milestone as a 0.25-percent solution plus Garlon
3A as a 4-percent solution (1 ounce plus 5 ounces per 3-gallon mix).
Princess Tree
(Paulownia
tomentosa)
Foliar Spray Method: This method should be considered for large thickets of paulownia
seedlings where risk to non-target species is minimal. Air temperature should be above
65°F to ensure absorption of herbicides.
Glyphosate: Apply a 2% solution of glyphosate and water plus a 0.5% non-ionic surfactant
to thoroughly wet all leaves. Use a low pressure and coarse spray pattern to reduce spray
drift damage to non-target species. Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide that
may kill non-target partially-sprayed plants.
Triclopyr: Apply a 2% solution of triclopyr and water plus a 0.5% non-ionic sur-factant to
thoroughly wet all leaves. Use a low pressure and coarse spray pattern to reduce spray
drift damage to non-target species. Triclopyr is a selective herbicide for broadleaf species.
In areas where desirable grasses are growing under or around paulownia, triclopyr can be
used without non-target damage.
Cut Stump Method: This control method should be considered when treating individual
trees or where the presence of desirable species precludes foliar application. Stump
treatments can be used if the ground is not frozen.
Glyphosate: Horizontally cut stems at or near ground level. Immediately apply a 25%
solution of glyphosate and water to the cut stump making sure to cover the outer 50% of
the stump.
Triclopyr: Horizontally cut stems at or near ground level. Immediately apply a 50% solution
of triclopyr and water to the cut stump making sure to cover the outer 20% of the stump.
https://www.se-eppc.org/manual/princess.html
APPENDIX 8
MAINTENANCE PLAN
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Appendix 8
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 1 December 2017
Appendix 8 Maintenance Plan
The site shall be visited semi-annually and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following:
Table 1. Maintenance Plan – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Component/
Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental installations
of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel – these shall be conducted
where success criteria are threatened or at the discretion of the Designer. Areas where
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank failures and head-cutting. Beaver activity will be monitored and beaver dams
on project streams will typically be removed, at the discretion of the Designer, during the
monitoring period to allow for bank stabilization and stream development outside of this
type of influence.
Wetlands
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental installations of
target vegetation within the wetland. Areas where storm water and floodplain flows
intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent scour that adversely and
persistently threatens wetland habitat or function.
Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species requiring treatment per the
Invasive Species Treatment Plan (Appendix 9) shall be treated in accordance with that plan
and with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundary
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, tree-blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation
easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as-needed basis.
APPENDIX 9
CREDITING INFORMATION
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 1
Appendix 9
December 2017
Appendix 9 - Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as-built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District
Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA
authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the
Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently
to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards
have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may
be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the
specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as
follows:
Table A: Credit Release Schedule – Stream Credits – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring
Year Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
0 Initial Allocation – see requirements below 30% 30%
1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 40%
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met
(additional 10% released at second bankfull event in a separate year)
10% 50%
(60%)
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 60%
(70%)
4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 65%
(75%)
5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 75%
(85%)
6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 80%
(90%)
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met and project has received closeout approval 10% 90%
(100%)
Table B: Credit Release Schedule – Wetland Credits – Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring
Year Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
0 Initial Allocation – see requirements below 30% 30%
1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 40%
2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 50%
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 60%
4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 70%
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 2
Appendix 9
December 2017
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met; Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT may
allow the DMS to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after the fifth year, but
vegetation monitoring must continue for an additional two years after the
fifth year for a total of seven years.
10% 80%
6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met 10% 90%
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are
being met, and project has received close-out approval 10% 100%
1.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by DMS
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a.Approval of the final Mitigation Plan.
b.Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
c.Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the DMS Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as-built
report has been produced. As-built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d.Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
1.2 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 two bankfull events have occurred, in
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event
that less than two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the
DMS will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating
achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the
annual monitoring report.
MEETING NOTES
MEETING: Post‐Contract IRT Site Walk 
LONE HICKORY Mitigation Site 
Yadkin 03040101; Yadkin County, NC 
DEQ Contract No. 6897 
DMS Project No. 97135 
Wildlands Project No. 005‐02163 
DATE: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 @ 2:00 PM – 5:00 PM 
LOCATION: Lone Hickory Road  
Yadkinville, NC 
Attendees 
Todd Tugwell, USACE 
Paul Wiesner, DMS Project Manager 
Matthew Reid, DMS 
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering 
John Hutton, Wildlands Engineering 
Emily Reinicker, Wildlands Engineering Project Manager 
Materials 
Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal dated 1/21/2016 in response to DMS RFP 16‐006706
Meeting Notes 
1.Overview of project from entrance at Reavico Farms Road off Lone Hickory Road.
2.Discussed proposed BMPs in west floodplain of UT1 Reach 1.  For overall site, discussed consideration of
sediment load and BMP selection.  Several locations likely need detention pond BMP with more
sediment storage capacity than step pool stormwater conveyance (SPSC).  Wildlands will select BMP
types per specific location based on sediment or water quality treatment concerns.  No direct credit has
been requested for BMPs.
3.East Side of site includes UT1 and series of 3 dams/ former dairy ponds in headwaters.
4.Looked at upstream extent of UT1 at jurisdictional stream call.  Todd will need JD evaluation submitted
through Asheville office for verification of all stream and wetland calls on site.
5.Discussion around intermittent channels, IRT prefers that these do not comprise a significant portion of
mitigation site credits.  Wildlands will include flow gages in monitoring plan to document intermittent
stream channel status.
6.Viewed series of 3 dairy ponds that have filled with unconsolidated sediments and formed wetland
habitat over the past several decades.  Viewed dam breach and 8’‐10’ vertical headcut.  The breaching
dams and active headcuts will eventually lead to loss of these wetland areas. Wildlands proposes to re‐
LONE HICKORY Mitigation Site – Meeting Notes 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  page 2 
LONE HICKORY Mitigation Site 
Post‐Contract IRT Site Walk
grade valley and re‐establish stream and floodplain on the valley floor.  Todd requested delineation of 
these current wetland areas.  Discussion around making up for loss of wetland habitat elsewhere on site. 
Wildlands will need to address this concern in the Mitigation Plan. 
7.Discussed potentially using excavated pond soils to re‐create valley hillside adjacent to UT1 Reach 3.
Allowance for vernal pools or oxbows may be a good way to remediate excess nutrients in former dairy
pond sediments.
8.Three site reaches for preservation include UT1A, UT1B, and UT1 Reach 4.  UT1A and UT1B will need to
be extended to tie into UT1 Reach 2 which will be restored in the lower west floodplain that is currently
planted in corn.  Todd noted that UT1A and UT1B will need to be raised for a short distance at the
downstream extent to tie into the Priority 1 restoration reach.
9.Walked down UT1 Reach 3 to Reach 4.  Transition from restoration on Reach 3 to preservation on Reach
4 was difficult to locate.  Wildlands will need to document need for restoration versus preservation in
the Mitigation Plan.  Transition zone with enhancement/ spot stabilization may be appropriate.
10.Overall on UT1 Reaches 2 and 3, Todd noted that stability issues are consistently on the left (west) bank
and floodplain side adjacent to corn field.  Hillslope toe erosion observed at intermittent locations
throughout reaches on right side.  Todd agreed that stream needs to be pulled offline and restored in
the left floodplain.
11.Group hiked over hill and ridge line separating East Side of site from West Side.  Viewed UT2 and UT3
channels on West Side.
12.Discussion around importance of analysis of sediment supply and slope transition as channels flow from
steeper hill slopes into flat floodplain of South Deep Creek.  Todd asked whether streams should splay
out into a wetland complex in the flat floodplain area.  Wildlands to look at BMP potential at top end of
channels.  Todd expressed concern regarding whether the streams with small drainage areas will
maintain as a flowing channel or fill in with sediment.  IRT will need to see functioning channels at the
end of the monitoring period to award stream credits.  Wildlands to address this discussion in Mitigation
Plan in existing conditions assessment, design discussion, and monitoring plan.
13.Todd expressed concern over proposed stream restoration alignments, where and how these come
together. During the design phase of the project, Wildlands needs to investigate the potential to bring
the project streams on the West Side of the site together sooner rather than running parallel for a
considerable distance.   The mitigation plan will need to discuss and justify the project stream
alignments, orientation and trajectory.  Wildlands to address this discussion in Mitigation Plan in existing
conditions assessment and design discussion.
14.Discussion on potential wetland restoration area in vicinity of UT2/ UT3/ UT3A.  DMS asked for optional
WMU submittal but has not contracted at this time.  Todd advised that if WMUs will be developed, then
install wetland wells as soon as possible to document pre‐project conditions.  No soils were examined
during this site walk and no further discussion of WMU potential.
kj
kj
kj
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
XY!P
!P
!P
!P
Lone Hickory Rd.FishBrandonRd.Harr
y

D
r
.
Ditch 1
Ditch 2Ditch 3
Ditc
h

4XS 4Reavico Farms Rd.West Side
East Side
South Deep
Creek
UT
1
R
e
a
c
h

1UT2UT3UT2AUT2C
UT1
A
U
T
1
B
UT1 Reach 2UT
1
R
e
a
c
h

3
U
T
1

R
e
a
c
h

4
Pond 1
Pond 3
Pond 4
Pond 2
XS 6
X
S

2XS 5XS 8
XS 3
XS 7
XS 1
0 500 1,000 1,500 Feet
Figure 2 Site Map and Channel Stability Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Site
Proposed Conservation Easement
Former Impoundment
Row Crops
Site of Former Dairy Farm
Offsite Streams
Topography 4' Contour Interval
Project Streams
Intermittent
Perennial
Ditch
Cross Section
Reach Breaks
Mass Wasting
Bank Scour
Incision
Bedrock
!P Pipe or Culvert
XY Active Headcut
kj Sediment Sample
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
Reach Bank Scour Incision Mass Wasting Row Crops
Former Inline
Impoundments
Ditching/
Straightening
Total
Length
UT1 62%50% 12% 78% 21%0% 5,952
UT2 27%96% 0% 79%0%79% 2,401
UT2A 0%100% 0% 97%0%100% 1,142
UT2C 51%51% 0% 100% 0%100% 510
UT3 24%94% 0% 100% 0%100% 1,842
Total 42%71% 6% 84% 10%46% 11,847
Streams Proposed for Modification
Lone Hickory Rd.FishBrandonRd.Harry Dr.
West Side
East Side
Temporary Construction Easement
Dry Detention BasinBMP SPSC BMP
SPSC BMP
SPSC BMPReavico Farms Rd.South Deep CreekUT2UT3
UT1Reach2UT2AUT1R
e
a
c
h
3
UT2C
U
T
1Reac
h
1
UT1
A
UT1Reach
4
U
T
1
B
0 500 1,000 1,500 Feet
Figure 6 Concept Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
Project Site
Proposed Conservation Easement
Temporary Construction Easement
Easement Access Road
Offsite Streams
Topography 4' Contour Interval
Wetland Restoration
Ditch to be Filled
Reach Breaks
Proposed BMP
Estimated Proposed Alignments
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation

MEETING NOTES

MEETING: Post-Contract IRT Site Walk for Wetland Soils Evaluation
LONE HICKORY Mitigation Site
Yadkin 03040101; Yadkin County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 6897
DMS Project No. 97135
Wildlands Project No. 005-02163

Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering
Paul Wiesner, DMS Project Manager John Hutton, Wildlands Engineering
Mac Haupt, NC Department of Environmental Quality Eric Neuhaus, Wildlands Engineering
Kevin Martin, Soil & Environmental Consultants

Materials
 Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal dated 1/21/2016 in response to DMS RFP 16-006706
 Detailed Hydric Soil Investigation dated 1/17/2017 prepared by Soil & Environmental Consultants

Meeting Summary
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017, the attendees listed above walked the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site to
evaluate the site’s potential for wetland restoration based on the presence on hydric soil indicators. Prior to the
meeting, licensed soil scientist Kevin Martin prepared a detailed hydric soils investigation of the site. Based on
the meeting, it was determined that the information within the report including depth to hydric indicators F19
(Piedmont Flood Plain Soils) and F3 (Depleted Matrix), potential for wetland restoration, and overall presence of
hydric soils was confirmed. For further clarification, three zones of potential wetland areas were created and
added to Figure 1. The zones included Potential Wetland Restoration Zone R, Potential Wetland Restoration
Zone R2, and Potential Wetland Creation. These zones were based on depth to hydric soil indicators, evaluations
of previous topographic manipulations, and the estimated amount of required overburden removal. Generally,
in Zones R and R2, overburden removal for Potential Wetland Restoration will be limited to 12 inches. In isolated
areas, the removal of spoil piles or high berms may require additional overburden removal within these zones.
Wetland mitigation crediting for Wetland Restoration Zones R and R2 is expected to be approved at a ratio of
1:1 for areas of re-establishment and 1.5:1 for areas of rehabilitation based on the jurisdictional delineation.
Crediting for Wetland Creation is anticipated to be approved at 3:1. It is not anticipated that the Wetland
Creation zone will be needed to provide the 8 wetland mitigation units within Wildlands’ contract with the NC
Division of Mitigation Services. Wildlands will design stream morphology to produce a frequent flooding regime
to provide a wetland saturation period between 8 to 12% which will be determined based on further evaluation
of hydrologic data and outlined within the mitigation plan. If there are questions or comments related to the
meeting or this memorandum, please advise.

Sincerely,
Eric Neuhaus, PE Emily G. Reinicker, PE, CFM
Water Resources Engineer Project Manager

Enclosure: Updated Detailed Hydric Soil Investigation provided by Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
!(!!!!!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
West Side
UT2UT3 UT2AUT2CSouth Dee
p
Cr
eek
BA-12"BB-12"
BC-17"BD-14"
B47-6"
B54-4"
B69-4"
B87-2"
B88-6"
B99-2"
B89-4"
B86-2"
B75-4"
B90-6"
B98-2"
B84-6"B83-2"
B93-8"
B79-8"B76-6"
B67-2"B66-2"
B38-8"
B68-4"
B55-2"
B27-2"B23-2"
B17-2"B14-6"
B9-30"B4-36"B3-12"
B71-17"B72-17"
B52-17"B51-16"
B50-33"B49-17"B48-16"
B70-14"
B73-24"B74-16"
B85-14"
B97-14"
B91-14"B92-14"
B96-12"B95-24"
B94-18"
B82-13"
B80-16"B78-10"B77-16"
B57-22"
B65-14"B64-24"
B59-25"B60-24"
B63-16"B62-24"
B61-24"
B40-18"B41-24"B42-22"B43-16"B44-15"
B34-10"B36-20"B37-19"
B56-14"
B30-18"B29-26"
B28-15"B26-14"B25-21"B24-14"B22-16"B21-12"
B19-36"B18-12"B16-12"B15-18"B13-18"B12-18"
B10-34"B8->42"B6->48"
B100-22"
B101-24"B102-12"B103-12"
B108-30"
B104-14"B105-12"B106-22"
0 200 400 Feet
Figure 1 - Surveyed Soil Boring Grid Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
Project Site
Proposed Conservation Easement
Potential Wetland Restoration Zone R (6.9 acres)
Potential Wetland Restoration Zone R2 (9.6 acres)
Potential Wetland Creation (2.2 acres)
Offsite Streams
Estimated Proposed Alignments
!(Buried Hydric
!(Hydric F19
!(Hydric F3 & F19
!Non Hydric
Lone Hickory Mitigation SiteMaster Credit TableStream Name Reach Management ActivityCredit RatioColumn2Start Sta End Sta Design Length (LF)1 Start Sta 1 End Sta 2 Start Sta 2 End Sta 3 Start Sta 3 End Sta Length impacted by crossings (LF) Net Length (LF) SMUsNegative Buffer Width AdjustmentsPositive Buffer Width AdjustmentsTotal Buffer Width AdjustmentsAdjusted SMUsUT1 Reach 1R1 101+39 111+05 9660966966 01371371,103UT1 Reach 2A R1 111+05 128+51 1,74601,7461,746 03393392,085UT1 Reach 2B R1 128+51 142+19 1,36801,3681,368 01881881,556UT1 Reach 3R1 142+19 158+60 1,64101,6411,641 03133131,954UT1 Reach 4P10 158+60 165+19 659065966 00066UT1AP10 180+00 182+82 282028228 00028UT1BP10 190+00 191+24 124012412 00012UT2 Reach 1R1 200+00 206+23 6230623623 0108108731UT2 Reach 2R1 206+23 217+03 1,08001,0801,080 01221221,202UT2AR1 400+34 406+89 6550655655 04444699UT2B R1 500+00 507+84 7840784784 0109109893UT3 Reach 1R1 300+13 307+92 7790779779 -7271-1778UT3 Reach 2R1 307+92 319+51 1,15901,1591,159 010101,169UT3 Reach 3R1 319+51 327+15 7640764764 012412488812,63012,630 11,671 -72 1,5651,49313,164Eph. length 0P/I Length 12,63013,164Potential Total CreditsPage 1 of 8
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
East Side - UT1
Detailed Credit Calculation
Reach Treatment
Total
Length Ratio Total Credits
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Net Credits
Reach 1 R 966 1.0 966 0.0 136.9 136.9 136.9
Reach 2A R 1,746 1.0 1746 0.0 339.1 339.1 339.1
Reach 2B R 1,368 1.0 1368 0.0 188.5 188.5 188.5
Reach 3 R 1,641 1.0 1641 0.0 312.9 312.9 312.9
Reach 4 P 659 10.0 66 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Reach Total
Length Start Sta End Sta
Credit
Addition/Reduction Left Bank (ft) Right Bank (ft)
Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits
Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Notes
Reach 1 966 101+39 101+83 0.0%44 0.0 0.0 61.7 61.7
101+83 109+26 6.0%743 44.6
109+26 109+66 8.0%+40 3.2
966 109+66 111+05 10.0%139 13.9
Reach 2A 1746 111+05 119+05 10.0%800 80.0 0.0 164.5 164.5
119+05 122+63 8.0%358 28.6
122+63 123+77 10.0%114 11.4
123+77 125+25 8.0%148 11.8
1746 125+25 128+51 10.0%326 32.6
Reach 2B 1368 128+51 130+31 10.0%180 18.0 0.0 51.7 51.7
130+31 130+85 8.0%54 4.3
130+85 132+02 6.0%117 7.0
132+02 133+32 3.5%130 4.6
133+32 137+79 0.0%447 0.0
137+79 138+52 3.5%73 2.6
138+52 138+69 6.0%17 1.0
138+69 139+93 8.0%124 9.9
139+93 140+33 6.0%40 2.4
140+33 140+87 3.5%54 1.9
1368 140+87 142+19 0.0%132 0.0
Reach 3 1641 142+19 143+14 0.0%95 0.0 0.0 148.8 148.8
143+14 143+55 3.5%41 1.4
143+55 144+21 6.0%66 4.0
144+21 144+44 8.0%23 1.8
1641 144+44 158+60 10.0%1416 141.6
Reach 4 659 158+60 165+19 0.0%659 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
659
Reach 1 966 101+39 101+83 0.0%44 0.0 0.0 75.2 75.2
101+83 102+39 3.5%56 2.0
102+39 102+62 0.0%23 0.0
102+62 103+50 3.5%88 3.1
103+50 103+94 6.0%44 2.6
103+94 105+63 8.0%169 13.5
105+63 106+42 10.0%79 7.9
106+42 106+50 8.0%8 0.6
966 106+50 111+05 10.0%455 45.5
Reach 2A 1746 111+05 128+51 10.0%1746 174.6 0.0 174.6 174.6
1746
Reach 2B 1368 128+51 142+19 10.0%1368 136.8 0.0 136.8 136.8
1368
Reach 3 1641 142+19 158+60 10.0%1641 164.1 0.0 164.1 164.1
1641
Reach 4 659 158+60 165+19 0.0%659 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
659
UT1
Page 2 of 8
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
East Side - UT1A
Detailed Credit Calculation
Reach Treatment
Total
Length Ratio Total Credits
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Net Credits
UT1A P 282 10.0 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Reach Total
Length Start Sta End Sta
Credit
Addition/Reduction Left Bank (ft) Right Bank (ft)
Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits
Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Notes
UT1A 282 180+00 182+82 0.0%282 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
282
UT1A 282 180+00 182+82 0.0%282 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
282
UT1A
Page 3 of 8
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
East Side - UT1B
Detailed Credit Calculation
Reach Treatment
Total
Length Ratio Total Credits
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Net Credits
UT1B P 124 10.0 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Reach Total
Length Start Sta End Sta
Credit
Addition/Reduction Left Bank (ft) Right Bank (ft)
Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits
Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Notes
UT1B 124 190+00 191+24 0.0% 124 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
124
UT1B 124 190+00 191+24 0.0% 124 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
124
UT1B
Page 4 of 8
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
West Side - UT2
Detailed Credit Calculation
Reach Treatment
Total
Length Ratio Total Credits
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Net Credits
Reach 1 R 623 1.0 623 0.0 108.0 108.0 108.0
Reach 2 R 1,080 1.0 1080 0.0 121.8 121.8 121.8
Reach Total
Length Start Sta End Sta
Credit
Addition/Reduction Left Bank (ft) Right Bank (ft)
Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits
Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Notes
Reach 1 623 200+00 200+83 0.0% 83 0.0 0.0 54.0 54.0
200+83 206+23 10.0% 540 54.0
623
Reach 2 1080 206+23 212+32 10.0% 609 60.9 0.0 60.9 60.9
212+32 217+03 0.0% 471 0.0
1080
Reach 1 623 200+00 200+83 0 83 0.0 0.0 54.0 54.0
200+83 206+23 10.0% 540 54.0
623
Reach 2 1080 206+23 212+32 10.0% 609 60.9 0.0 60.9 60.9
212+32 217+03 0.0% 471 0.0
1080 212+32
UT2
Page 5 of 8
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
West Side - UT2A
Detailed Credit Calculation
Reach Treatment
Total
Length Ratio Total Credits
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Net Credits
UT2A R 655 1.0 655 0.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
Reach Total
Length Start Sta End Sta
Credit
Addition/Reduction Left Bank (ft) Right Bank (ft)
Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits
Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Notes
UT2A 655 400+34 400+87 0.0%53 0.0 0.0 17.9 17.9
400+87 402+38 10.0%151 15.1
402+38 402+54 8.0%16 1.3
402+54 402+68 6.0%14 0.8
402+68 402+87 3.5%19 0.7
402+87 406+89 0.0%402 0.0
655
UT2A 655 400+34 400+87 0.0%53 0.0 0.0 26.1 26.1
400+87 403+48 10.0%261 26.1
403+48 406+89 0.0%341 0.0
655
UT2A
Page 6 of 8
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
West Side - UT2B
Detailed Credit Calculation
Reach Treatment
Total
Length Ratio Total Credits
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Net Credits
UT2B R 784 1.0 784 0.0 109.1 109.1 109.1
Reach Total
Length Start Sta End Sta
Credit
Addition/Reduction Left Bank (ft) Right Bank (ft)
Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits
Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Notes
UT2B 784 500+00 500+14 0.0% 14 0.0 0.0 45.3 45.3
500+14 500+43 3.5% 29 1.0
500+43 500+67 6.0% 24 1.4
500+67 500+92 8.0% 25 2.0
500+92 504+65 10.0% 373 37.3
504+65 504+89 8.0% 24 1.9
504+89 505+06 6.0% 17 1.0
505+06 505+24 3.5% 18 0.6
784 505+24 507+84 0.0% 260 0.0
UT2B 784 500+00 500+14 0.0% 14 0.0 0.0 63.8 63.8
500+14 506+22 10.0% 608 60.8
506+22 507+08 3.5% 86 3.0
784 507+08 507+84 0.0% 76 0.0
UT2B
Page 7 of 8
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
West Side - UT3
Detailed Credit Calculation
Reach Treatment
Total
Length Ratio Total Credits
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Net Credits
Reach 1 R 779 1.0 779 -72.0 70.6 -1.4 -1.4
Reach 2 R 1,159 1.0 1159 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Reach 3 R 764 1.0 764 0.0 123.6 123.6 123.6
Reach Total
Length Start Sta End Sta
Credit
Addition/Reduction Left Bank (ft) Right Bank (ft)
Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits Lost
(at 1:1)
Credits
Gained (at
1:1)
Total Credits
Gained/Lost
(at 1:1)
Notes
Reach 1 779 300+13 300+85 -50.0% 72 -36.0 -36.0 33.9 -2.1
300+85 301+74 0.0% 89 0.0
301+74 302+43 3.5% 69 2.4
302+43 302+75 6.0% 32 1.9
302+75 303+92 8.0% 117 9.4
303+92 305+94 10.0% 202 20.2
779 305+94 307+92 0.0% 198 0.0
Reach 2 1159 307+92 319+01 0.0% 1109 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0
319+01 319+51 10.0% 50 5.0
1159
Reach 3 764 319+51 324+99 10.0% 548 54.8 0.0 61.2 61.2
324+99 325+43 8.0% 44 3.5
325+43 325+71 6.0% 28 1.7
325+71 326+05 3.5% 34 1.2
764 326+05 327+15 0.0% 110 0.0
Reach 1 779 300+13 300+85 -50.0% 72 -36.0 -36.0 36.7 0.7
300+85 301+74 0.0% 89 0.0
301+74 302+13 3.5% 39 1.4
302+13 302+65 6.0% 52 3.1
302+65 302+99 8.0% 34 2.7
302+99 305+94 10.0% 295 29.5
779 305+94 307+92 0.0% 198 0.0
Reach 2 1159 307+92 319+01 0.0% 1109 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0
1159 319+01 319+51 10.0% 50 5.0
Reach 3 764 319+51 325+26 10.0% 575 57.5 0.0 62.4 62.4
325+26 325+55 8.0% 29 2.3
325+55 325+88 6.0% 33 2.0
325+88 326+05 3.5% 17 0.6
764 326+05 327+15 0.0% 110 0.0
UT3
Page 8 of 8
!
!
!
!
!
#
#
#
#
#
Open Water C
Wetland I UT
1
R
e
a
c
h

4
UT
1
R
e
a
c
h

3
UT1 Reach 2BUT
1
R
e
a
c
h

1
UT
1
B
UT
1
A
UT1 Reach 2AX
S

5
XS 3XS 14XS 1XS 2XS 13XS

6
BMP 3
BMP 2
BMP 1
BMP 4
Potential
BMP 5
Wetland G
0 250 500 Feet
Additional Credits from Stream Buffer Widths - East Side
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetland
Proposed Stream Restoration
Proposed Stream Preservation
Non Project Stream
!Reach Break
#Proposed BMP Location
Credited Easementn Buffer Width
75' to 100' Buffer
100' to 125' Buffer
125' to 150' Buffer
Greater than 150' Buffer
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
!
!
!
!
!
#
#South D
e
e
p
Cr
e
e
k
UT3 Reach 1UT3 Reach 2UT3 Reach 3UT
2A
UT
2

R
e
a
c
h

1
UT2B
UT2 Reach
2
BMP 4
Potential
BMP 5
0 250 500 Feet
Additional Credits from Stream Buffer Widths - West Side
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin (03040101)
Yadkin County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Wetland Rehabiliation
Stream Restoration
Non Project Stream
!Reach Break
#Proposed BMP Location
Credited Easement Buffer Width
Buffer Break
75' to 100' Buffer
100' to 125' Buffer
125' to 150' Buffer
Greater than 150' Buffer
¹
2014 Aerial Imagery
APPENDIX 10
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 97135 Page 1
Appendix 10
December 2017
Appendix 10 Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service’s In-Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided
the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to
satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.