20171039 Ver 1_Final Draft MP_20181010

ID#* 20171039 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Mitigation Project Submittal -10/10/2018
Type of Mitigation Project:*
W Stream r Wetlands I— Buffer I— Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * f Yes r No
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Cara Conder
Project Information
Existing 20171039
(DWR) (nunbers only no dash)
I D#: *
Project Name:* Catbird Site
County:* Davie
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing 1
Version:* (nunbersonly)
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plan
File Upload: Catbird Final Draft Mitigation Plan.pdf 38.01 MB
Rease upload only one FDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Cara Conder
Signature: *

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

FINAL DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN

Catbird Site
Davie County, North Carolina

Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101

DMS Project #: 100022
Contract #: 7186
USACE Action ID: SAW-2017-01506
DWR Project #20171039
RFP: 16-006993

Prepared for:

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

Prepared by:

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1052
October 2018

1

MEMORANDUM

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel.
919.829.9913 fax
TO: North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
FROM: Cara Conder - RES
DATE: October 9, 2018
RE: Response to Catbird Site Draft Mitigation Plan Comments DMS Project ID No.
100022, Contract #7186

BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
a) Page 4, last paragraph. Please clarify the sentence beginning “The channel has a moderate bedload
and a moderate sediment supply.” What is moderate bedload? Is this reference to substrate size,
bedload transport, or coarse sediment? The term “sediment supply” covers all the bases in this
sentence. And the substrate is defined in the next sentence.
This section has been revised to incorporate the comment and has been replaced with:

“The project reaches convey an increased sediment load relative to reference conditions. This
increased loading is a result of heavy agricultural and livestock practices and has produced a
substrate dominated by coarse sand and fine gravel.”

b) Page 5, paragraph 1. While Catbird lies in the Milton and Charlotte Belts, the specific unit
underlying the project is gabbro, an intrusive rock likely part of the mafic-volcanic complexes, or
the metagabbros. To find this, I used ARCGIS to overlay the site on the geology.
Geology paragraph has been re-written to more accurately portray USGS 1985 data.

c) Page 5, land use, paragraph 2 and 3. These 2 paragraphs would be better placed in a section more
relevant to the overall treatment of the site.
We kept paragraph 2 in Section 3.3 to address the future land use per the DMS Mitigation Plan
Template and Guidance. Paragraph 3 was moved to section 6.4 Mitigation Summary.

d) Page 9 (reach summaries). Discuss bedrock influence in the channel descriptions. Is future incision
possible or does bedrock occur frequently enough to prevent ongoing incision?
This section has been revised to incorporate the comment.

FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
a) Page 13, last paragraph. The reference to determination of credits in the first sentence need to be
removed. The discussion of credits and function is not relevant to this mitigation plan. Sentence 2
and 3 referring to applying an ecosystem approach (and sentence 2, a functional based approach (at

2

the reach scale) are a bit overstated. Additionally, the functions RES is able to address directly from
restoration are hydraulic and geomorphology, rather than, as stated, “have the greatest effect on.”
The first sentence of the paragraph was removed based on this comment. The rest of the paragraph
was modified to address the concern of overstatements about the beneficial impacts of this
restoration project.

Pages 14-16:
b) Hydraulic. “Healthy” floodplain connectivity? Is the intent to improve/increase the frequency of
floodplain access? And, please clarify the reference to stable base flow and instream structures in
last sentence.
The intent is to improve/increase frequency of floodplain access. This paragraph was revised to
respond to these comments.

c) Geomorphology. What is not functioning in terms of wood and sediment? Input, output, storage?
How will LWD transport and storage be “improved” by installation of instream structures? Is the
gradient and bed material in these streams suitable for riffle-pool sequences, or step-pools? DMS
does not agree that RES will achieve “dynamic equilibrium” and maximum geomorphic uplift.
Please provide clarification.
The paragraph was revised per the comment.

d) Physicochemical (not physiochemical) - global edit needed.
This edit was made.

e) Biology. Macroinvertebrates are not difficult to measure, so please remove that statement.
Revisions were made to this sentence in response to the comment.

“As mentioned for the physicochemical stream function, it will be difficult to see measurable results
of the functional uplift of the biological functions at a project scale during the monitoring phase of
the project.”

f) Page 16. Livestock removal statement does not belong in this section.
This sentence was removed in response to this comment.

MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pages 17-18:
a) Second bullet. Overbanks should be overbank and the word active before floodplain is redundant.
Revisions were made to this sentence in response to the comment.

b) First bullet under objectives. The last part of the objective “based on… “ is unnecessary.
The statement starting with “based on…” was removed.

c) Will work on enhancement reaches (EII) include bank stabilization, constructed riffles, or woody
materials? If not, please remove enhancement from those statements where full restoration is
proposed.
Enhancement II reaches will not include these treatments and ‘enhancement’ has been removed
from any applicable sentences where it should just be ‘restoration’.

d) Objective for reducing BHR and increasing ER is implied and understood in objective 1.
Recommend modifying or removing.
This objective was removed.

3

e) Paragraph beginning ‘Limitations to achieving’ is unnecessary. Recommend removing.
This paragraph was removed.

f) Please add ‘agricultural’ to the heading to emphasize that treatments will not require long-term
maintenance.
‘Agricultural’ was added to the Best Management Practices heading.

g) The BMP section includes information previously stated and explained in the document.
Recommend that removal of cattle and the addition of fencing should be included in the
goals/objective table rather than extensive explanation in this section.
The description on livestock removal and fencing installation was removed from the BMP section
and included in the goals and objectives.

h) Table 10 is good for relating goals, objectives and measurement. Why did RES choose to exclude
performance standards measurements, e.g., BF events? See suggestions below and please comment.
The crest gauges are used to measure bankfull events. Flow gauges were added to the measurement
methods. It was not the intention to exclude any measurements. We go into further detail about
these and the connection to the performance standard measurements in Table 16.

a. The functional parameter column includes variables meant to be measured that will not be
applied to this project. Please remove this column. And, please remain realistic in stating
the benefits of this restoration, that is, RES is only able to directly affect hydro, geomorph
and hydraulics.
This column was removed and table revised.

b. Hydrology objective refers to the ag BMP has attenuating runoff. Is this BMP truly
designed to achieve this attenuation? And how does RES intend to measure/monitor the
integrity of runoff attenuation structure?
The ag BMP is designed to attenuate sediment loading, any flow attenuation is anticipated
to be minimal. This statement was therefore removed from Hydrology and incorporated in
the Geomorphology. RES will visually monitor the structure to ensure proper function.
Livestakes were added to the BMP detail to prolong the functionality of the structure.

c. Geomorphology objective to improve pool spacing, percent riffles, etc suggest RES intends
to explicitly measure these bedforms, so please remove if that is not the intent. And, stream
walk is basically the same as visually monitoring, so please remove.
The project objective to improve bedform is achieved through the design and construction
of the project. Improved pool spacing, and percent riffles will be confirmed with an as-
built survey and annual visual inspection will ensure that the designed pool and riffle
sequence remains intact. Stream walks was removed.

d. Biology and Physicochemical also include unmeasurable goals that need to be removed.
If RES would like to leave these functions in the table, do not include a goal, objective, of
measurement method. Instead, state that as expected benefits.
Language was added to the table for biology and physicochemical functions to make it
clear that these are unmeasurable and the expected benefits were clarified.

4

e. Vegetation plots and fencing cannot be used to address physicochemical and biology
within this framework. Rather, state the goal and objective, i.e., plant buffer, and conduct
veg plot surveys.
The physicochemical and biology sections of the table were revised.

f. The justification for the delta in the functional ratings is not well defined. DMS suggests
removal of this column. The intent is understood and appreciated although the execution
is not clear.
This column was removed.

MITIGATION WORK PLAN
a) Page 20. The reference discharge section refers to UT Hauser discharge. Is RES stating that the
UT Hauser discharge was used as reference for design? Hauser Creek DA is much larger than this
projects’ streams. How will the UT Hauser be ‘scaled’ for this project?
The UT Hauser discharge was included to provide additional information about the reference
reach but was not used to determine any design parameters. The reference riffle section was scaled
to provide appropriate bankfull conveyance for the design channels. The resulting bankfull width
was then used in correlation with the reference alignment and profile ratios to produce the
proposed designs.

b) Page 21. Design approach. This majority of this section is nonspecific and does not provide useful
information until the reach specific paragraphs.
Nonspecific information/paragraphs removed from the design approach.

c) Reach DS1. Is RES ‘widening’ the riparian area or simply planting wider buffers? And, what is
the primary function of the ag BMP?
RES is widening the riparian buffer, not the area. The primary function of the ag BMP is to
attenuate sediment loading. The reach description was revised to provide the requested
information.

d) Reach DS1, DS2-A, DS2-B. RES has listed, explained and emphasized the benefits of the project
to water quality and habitat throughout the document: DMS suggests further reference be removed.
The additional emphasis on the benefits to water quality within the design reach descriptions has
been removed to reduce redundancy.

e) Reach DS2-B. Will shifting the channel to a new alignment provide appropriate morphology and
floodplain connection? Please re-think this statement.
The statement was revised to respond to the comment.“Restoration activities will realign the
existing channel to improve stability and floodplain connection. Rock and log structures will be
used to provide vertical stability and improved bedform diversity. Log toe structures will be
installed on the outside of certain meander bends to provide bank stability. The restoration of the
riparian areas will include planting wider riparian buffers and excluding cattle.”

f) Page 23 Design Methods. Please remove this section.
The section was removed in response to the comment.

g) Page 25-26. Shear stress approach. The shear stress being calculated is the average boundary shear
stress. If RES needs to explain this concept, please include critical shear stress in the explanation
and report boundary shear accurately.
This section was revised in response to the comment.

5

h) The sediment size distribution reported in the morph table (fine gravel and sand) appear to be a
magnitude smaller than the sediment sizes referenced in this section. Does RES intend to replace
the bed material with larger gravel and cobble? Will the excavated material be large enough to use?
If so, will this material be sustained over time?
RES does intend to replace the existing bed material with larger gravel and cobble. RES anticipates
a significant portion of this material will come from offsite sources. RES does not anticipate
adequate bedload to sustain appropriate bed material and the has therefore sized the proposed bed
materials D50 to be immobile during bankfull flows.

i) Table 15 (Mitigation Components). Total existing stream lengths for DS1 and DS2 do not reflect
the preliminary JD lengths (see PJD, Appendix I). Please clarify.
The lengths in the preliminary JD were based on a GIS mapping analysis. The lengths in the
Mitigation Plan are based on detailed topographic survey information and are more accurate.

j) IRT meeting minutes (Appendix B) indicated a concern that P1 Restoration near the top of DS-1
may result in loss of seasonal stream flow. RES staff indicated they would base the design and
channel origin on the JD and provide post construction flow monitoring to document flow
conditions. Please include further discussion in the plan about how stream origin was determined
on DS-1, and provide justification for the P1 approach given the intermittent flow and the concern
about losing hydrology.
The stream origin is downstream of the confluence of two ephemeral channels and was confirmed
by the USACE in the PJD.

The design reach section has been revised to include that DS1 will begin with Priority II
restoration. RES has proposed a gradual transition from the existing channel bed profile and
multiple channel plugs along the upstream portion of the reach to address hydrology concerns. The
reach description was revised to address these concerns.

k) IRT members also suggested monitoring water quality and/or benthics to document aquatic uplift
in the upper end of DS1. Please comment on if/how the plan will address this suggestion.
While this was discussed by the IRT, RES did not think this was a directive that needed to be
adhered to. After the meeting, RES explored the possibility of conducting monitoring at this site but
determined it was too cost prohibitive due to the small size of the project.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
a) RES state that a flow monitoring device will be placed near the top of DS-1 to document post-
construction flow conditions. However, Plan Sheet M1 indicates the planned flow gauge located
towards the lower end of DS-1. Please clarify or correct this apparent discrepancy.
Sheet M1 shows a flow gauge at the top of DS1 and a crest gauge at the lower end of DS1.

MONITORING PLAN
a) Table 16. The functional category definition should not serve as a goal in this project and the
monitoring requirements. Please make sure Table 10 and Table 16 do not contradict each other.
And, the same comments for Table 10 apply to Table 16, e.g., outcomes (look like the goals from
table 19), physicochemical and biology.
The Table was updated to reflect these suggestions.

Plan Sheets
a) S1 - Culvert needs to be plotted accurately on profile.
Plan sheet has been corrected.

6

b) D3 Rock Sill (Section A-A’) - Recommend extending filter fabric above footer rock onto header
rock.
Detail has been updated.

c) D3 Brush Toe (Section A-A) - Consider adding an additional course of footer logs to be buried
beneath the channel bed to reduce the potential for toe scour.
Detail notes have been added. Channel size at Catbird does not warrant log toes in addition to
brush toe protection.

d) D4 Floodplain Sill – Thank you for including this structure and for providing the detail. Add
boulders as an alternate anchoring method if deemed appropriate.
Note added to detail.

e) D5 Culvert Crossing Plan View – Due to frequent observations of perched sills at these type of
culvert treatments please add a channel grade control feature downstream of the culvert outlet to
prevent a perched sill.
Typical grade control structure is already called out on plan sheet S1 just downstream of culvert.
No change made.

f) D6 Rock Cross Vane Section A-A’ - Extend filter fabric onto header.
Detail has been updated.

g) E1 (Legend) - Indicates ‘existing stream’ as blue shading; however, in many locations the apparent
stream widths shaded in blue are 50-60 feet wide. Please clarify what exactly does the blue
represent, and edit the plan sheets/legend as necessary.
Blue shading has been removed throughout project.

Figures
a) Figure 1, Vicinity Map: Add text boxes with leaders to call out the several sites shown on the figure.
This revision was made to the Figure 1.

Figure 10:
b) Mitigation work plan indicates that an agricultural BMP will be placed at the upper end of DS-1;
please show this on the conceptual map.
This revision was made to the Figure 10.

c) Please indicate planned culvert crossing on the map.
This revision was made to the Figure 10.

d) Please show reach breaks more clearly to match up with the asset table; for example it is not shown
where DS-2B starts, where DS-1 (above crossing?) and DS-1 (below crossing?) start and stop.
Typically, there is a unique Reach ID assigned for each unique reach / approach combination.
Suggest labelling reaches such as DS-1 (upper), DS-1 (lower), DS-2A, DS-2B (upper), DS-2B
(middle), DS-2B (lower), or similar. This will make for easier database and asset tracking, credit
release discussions, etc.
The labels in Figure 10 and the table in Figure 10 have been revised to more clearly designate
where the reaches start and stop. The Table 15 has also been revised to correlate with this revision.

7

Appendices
Appendix B
a) Please include the email thread with the IRT site visit meeting memo dated 9/29/2017. Specifically,
email dated 10/6/17 from Paul Wiesner copied to RES, dating back to initial memo submittal email
dated 10/2/2018, and including additional comments/concerns from IRT about the memo itself.
This has been added to Appendix B.

b) Morphological Table – The proposed width to depth ratios are low which is consistent with E
stream types as previously mentioned in the Mockingbird Project Comments. Please observe all
available stability indicators during monitoring to minimize potential adaptive management
requirements.
Riffle section W/D ratios were increased slightly. All proposed channel banks on riffle sections are
now 2:1 or flatter.

Appendix G, Stream ID Forms
c) Please provide sketches on the forms or a map showing locations where along each reach the forms
were filled out
A map was provided in Appendix G to show the locations along each reach where the forms were
filled out.
Catbird Mitigation Plan ii October 2018
Project #100021

Catbird Mitigation Plan iii October 2018
Project #100022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Catbird Site (the “Project”) is located in Davie County, North Carolina, approximately eight miles
west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run. Water quality stressors currently affecting
the Project include livestock production, agricultural production, and lack of riparian buffer. The Project
presents 2,224 linear feet of stream restoration and enhancement generating 2,082 Warm Stream
Mitigation Units (SMU). A contracting meeting was held on 9/29/17 among RES, DMS, and IRT, and the
meeting minutes can be found in Appendix B.

The Project is located in the Yadkin River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03040101, Target Local
Watershed (TLW) 03040101160010, and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) subbasin 03-07-02.
The Project area includes two unnamed tributaries that eventually drain to the Yadkin River. The portion
of the Yadkin River that includes the Project’s two tributaries has been assigned a Water Supply-IV
classification (WS-IV) (NCDWQ 2011). WS-IV waters are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary,
or food processing purposes where a WS-I, II or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also
protected for Class C uses (NCDWQ 2011).

Consisting of cattle pastures and wooded areas, the Project’s total easement area is 6.5 acres within the
overall drainage area of 53 acres. Grazing livestock have historically had access to all the stream reaches
within the Project. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel
characteristics have contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the Project area.

Goals for the Project include an increase to hydrological function and improving ecological function within
the existing stream and riparian corridor, and to protect these features in perpetuity. These will be
accomplished by returning the existing streams to stable conditions by constructing an E/C type stream
with appropriate dimensions and pattern, reconnecting the channel to the floodplain, and bank stabilization
throughout. In-stream structures such as log sills and brush toes will be installed for vertical stability and
to improve habitat, where necessary. Buffer improvements will filter runoff from the surrounding pasture
lands, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Livestock fence will be installed along
the easement boundary. The widening and restoration of the riparian buffers will also provide wildlife
corridors throughout the Project area. Benefits to be accrued from these activities include improved water
quality and terrestrial and aquatic habitat.

The stream design approach for the Project is to combine the analog method of natural channel design
with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
The analog method involves the use of a reference reach, or “template” stream, adjacent to, nearby, or
previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are
replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and
boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). Hydraulic
geometry was developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.

After completion of all construction and planting activities, the Project will be monitored on a regular basis
throughout the seven-year post-construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met.
The Project will be transferred to the 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. Funding will be supplied by the
responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established.

Catbird Mitigation Plan iv October 2018
Project #100022

Table of Contents
PROJECT INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Project Components ................................................................................................................ 1
Project Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 1
WATERSHED APPROACH ............................................................................................................... 2
Site Selection........................................................................................................................... 2
BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 4
Watershed Summary Information ........................................................................................... 4
Drainage Area and Land Cover ........................................................................................................... 4
Surface Water Classification ............................................................................................................... 4
Landscape Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 4
Physiography and Topography ............................................................................................................ 4
Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 5
Existing Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 5
Land Use – Historic, Current, and Future ............................................................................... 6
Regulatory Considerations ...................................................................................................... 6
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass ......................................... 6
Environmental Screening and Documentation .................................................................................... 6
Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................................... 7
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 7
Reach Summary Information .................................................................................................. 8
Channel Classification ......................................................................................................................... 8
Existing Channel Morphology ............................................................................................................. 9
Channel Stability Assessment.............................................................................................................. 9
Existing Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 10
Site Photographs ................................................................................................................... 11
FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ............................................................................................. 13
Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements ............................................................. 14
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Hydraulic ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Geomorphology ................................................................................................................................. 14
Physicochemical ................................................................................................................................ 14
Biology .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Potential Constraints ............................................................................................................. 15
MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................. 16
Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................................................. 16
MITIGATION WORK PLAN ........................................................................................................... 19
Reference Stream .................................................................................................................. 19
Reference Watershed Characterization .............................................................................................. 19
Reference Discharge .......................................................................................................................... 19
Reference Channel Morphology ........................................................................................................ 19
Reference Channel Stability Assessment .......................................................................................... 20
Reference Riparian Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 20
Design Parameters ................................................................................................................. 20
Stream Restoration Approach ............................................................................................................ 20
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Design Discharge ............................................................................................................................... 22
Vegetation and Planting Plan ................................................................................................ 24
Plant Community Restoration............................................................................................................ 24
On-Site Invasive Species Management ............................................................................................. 25
Catbird Mitigation Plan v October 2018
Project #100022

Soil Restoration ................................................................................................................................. 25
Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 25
Determination of Credits ....................................................................................................... 26
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 28
Stream Restoration Success Criteria ..................................................................................... 28
Bankfull Events ................................................................................................................................. 28
Cross Sections .................................................................................................................................... 28
Digital Image Stations ....................................................................................................................... 28
Surface Flow ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Vegetation Success Criteria .................................................................................................. 28
MONITORING PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 29
As-Built Survey ..................................................................................................................... 29
Visual Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 29
Hydrology Events ................................................................................................................. 29
Cross Sections ....................................................................................................................... 29
Vegetation Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 30
Scheduling/Reporting ............................................................................................................ 30
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................................................................. 32
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................................... 33
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 34

List of Tables
Table 1. Catbird Project Components Summary ........................................................................................ 1
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information .................................................................................. 3
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information..................................................................................... 4
Table 4. Mapped Soil Series ....................................................................................................................... 5
Table 5. Catbird Vegetation Plot Summary ................................................................................................ 6
Table 6. Regulatory Considerations ............................................................................................................ 8
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ............................................................................. 8
Table 8. Summary of Stream Parameters .................................................................................................... 8
Table 9. Channel Stability Assessment Results ........................................................................................ 10
Table 10. Functional Benefits and Improvements .................................................................................... 18
Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison ............................................................................................................. 22
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses .......................................................... 23
Table 13. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities ............................................................... 23
Table 14. Proposed Plant List ................................................................................................................... 25
Table 15. Catbird Site (ID-100022) - Mitigation Components ................................................................. 27
Table 16. Monitoring Requirements ......................................................................................................... 31

List of Charts

Chart 1. Stream Functions Framework ................................................................................................ 13

Catbird Mitigation Plan vi October 2018
Project #100022

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – USGS Map
Figure 3 – Landowner Map
Figure 4 – Land-use Map
Figure 5 – Soils Map
Figure 6 – Historical Aerials Map
Figure 7 – FEMA Map
Figure 8 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 9 – National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 10 – Conceptual Plan

Appendices

Appendix A – Plan Sheets
Appendix B – Data Analysis and Supplementary Information
Appendix C – Site Protection Instrument
Appendix D – Credit Release Schedule
Appendix E – Financial Assurance
Appendix F – Maintenance Plan
Appendix G – DWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix H – USACE District Assessment Forms
Appendix I – Wetland JD Forms and Maps
Appendix J – Invasive Species Plan
Appendix K – Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Appendix L – DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist

Catbird Mitigation Plan 1 October 2018
Project #100022

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Project Components
The Catbird Site (“Project”) is located within a rural watershed in Davie County, North Carolina
approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run. The Project lies
within the Yadkin River Basin, North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-07-
02 and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03040101160010
(Figure 1). The Project proposes to restore 1,987 linear feet (LF), enhance 237 LF, and provide water
quality benefit for 53 acres of drainage area. The Project is in the Southern Outer Piedmont Level IV
ecoregion.

The Project area is comprised of a 6.5-acre easement involving two unnamed tributaries, totaling 2,264
existing LF, which eventually drain into the Yadkin River. The stream mitigation components are
summarized in Table 1 and Figure 10. The Project is accessible from Spillman Road. Coordinates for the
Project areas are as follow: 36.030644, -80.500865.
Project Outcomes
The streams proposed for restoration have been significantly impacted by livestock production, agricultural
practices, and a lack of riparian buffer. Proposed improvements to the Project will help meet the river basin
needs expressed in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) as well as
ecological improvements to riparian corridor within the easement.

Through stream restoration and enhancement, the Project presents 2,224 LF of proposed stream, generating
2,082 Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) (Table 1). This mitigation plan is consistent with the
September 29, 2017 Post Contract IRT Meeting Minutes and IRT response emails (Appendix B).

Table 1. Catbird Project Components Summary
Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Warm SMU
Restoration 1,987 1 1,987
Enhancement II 237 2.5 94.8
Total 2,224 2,081.8
Catbird Mitigation Plan 2 October 2018
Project #100022

WATERSHED APPROACH
The Project was selected based on its potential to support the objectives and goals of the DMS 2009 Upper
Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP. The Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP identified several restoration needs for the
entire Yadkin River Basin, as well as for HUC 03040101. Thirteen counties are included in the Upper
Yadkin River Basin, including the towns of Wilkesboro, Elkin, Yadkinville, and Winston-Salem. As of the
2000 census, approximately 660,000 people live in this area. The Project watershed was identified as a
Target Local Watershed (TLW) (HUC 03040101160010, Turner and Hauser Creeks TLW), a watershed
that exhibits both the need and opportunity for stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration.
Approximately 39% of this TLW is agricultural lands and over 90% of the watershed is classified as water
supply watershed (WSW) designated waters. More specifically, goals outlined in the 2009 RBRP for the
watershed include:

1. Restoration of water quality and aquatic habitat in impaired stream segments;

2. Protection of high-resource value waters, including HQW, ORW, and WSW designated waters and
those containing large numbers of rare and endangered species (NHEOs);

3. Continuation of existing watershed restoration and protection initiatives and projects, including
efforts funded by Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), DWQ’s 319 Program, NC EEP,
Ag Cost Share Program (ACSP) and Community Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP);

4. Collaborative efforts with local resource agencies, land trusts and willing landowners to implement
new stream, riparian buffer and wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation projects
within TLWs;

5. Improved management of stormwater runoff (including the implementation of stormwater BMP
projects), especially in urban and suburban areas contributing to downstream degradation of
stream habitat and impairment of water quality; and

6. Implementation of agricultural BMPs in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal
coliform to streams from active farming operations.

Approximately 240 miles of streams in this HUC are affected by habitat degradation, with primary stressors
being erodible soils; sediment and erosion from road construction and agriculture; and stormwater flow off
impervious surfaces (NCEEP, 2009). Nonexistent or degraded riparian buffers are a significant contributing
factor to water quality impairment and habitat degradation in this watershed and the Project will help
address these identified stressors as described in Section 2.1.
Site Selection
Currently the Project area has an absence of riparian buffers, bank erosion, sediment deposition, channel
incision, cattle access the streams, and the historic land use has led to channelization. The Project will
directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the RBRP by stabilizing eroding stream banks,
reconnecting incised streams to their floodplains, reducing sediment and nutrient loads, and restoring
forested buffers on the stream channels. Project-specific goals and objectives will be addressed further in
Section 5. A project watershed map with the Project’s drainage areas is shown on Figure 2 and watershed
planning priority boundaries are shown on Figure 1.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 3 October 2018
Project #100022

The Project will address three of the six goals outlined in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP. By
establishing a conservation easement, WSW designated waters will be protected in perpetuity (RBRP Goal
2). Collaborative efforts have been made with local and willing landowners to implement new stream and
enhancement projects within the Turner and Hauser Creeks TLW (03040101160010) (RBRP Goal 4),
thereby addressing erosion, sedimentation, and habitat degradation issues due to current agricultural land-
use. The Project will include the use of agricultural BMPs to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal
coliform to streams from active farming operations (RBRP Goal 6). Establishing riparian buffers, instream
structures, and increasing bedform diversity will help address RBRP Goal 1, but achievement will not be
quantified.

The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes portions of
one parcel in Davie County with the following ownership in Table 2 & Figure 3. Once finalized, a copy
of the land protection instrument will be included in Appendix C. The Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) Conservation Easement model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instruments. The
landowner will be responsible for fence maintenance and repairs to exclude livestock from the conservation
easement, and the conservation easement document will include the applicable language.

Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record
PIN
Or
Tax Parcel ID#
Stream Reach
Dwight Sparks 5853633218
(Davie County)

All

Catbird Mitigation Plan 4 October 2018
Project #100022

BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Watershed Summary Information
Drainage Area and Land Cover
The Project area is comprised of two unnamed tributaries that flow west to east, and eventually drain into
the Yadkin River. The total drainage area for the Project is 53 acres (0.083 mi2); the drainage area of Reach
DS1 is 26 acres (0.041 mi2) and Reach DS2 is 27 acres (0.042mi2). Primary land use within the drainage
area consists of approximately 54% pasture, 16% forest, 14% residential, and 12% row crop. Impervious
surface covers four percent of the drainage area (Table 3 & Figure 4). Historic and current land-use within
the immediate Project area have allowed cattle direct access to the streams. These activities have negatively
impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the Project streams.

Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information

Surface Water Classification
The portion of the Yadkin River that includes the Project’s two tributaries has been assigned a Water
Supply-IV classification (WS-IV) (NCDWQ 2011). Waters classified as WS-IV are protected as water
supplies. They provide water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS-I, II,
or III classification is not feasible and are generally located in moderately to highly developed watersheds
or Protected Areas. They are also protected for Class C uses. Class C waters are protected for uses such as
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and
maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and
other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner (NCDWQ 2011).
Landscape Characteristics
Physiography and Topography
The Project is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont Level IV ecoregion, which is characterized by lower
elevations, less relief, and less precipitation than the Southern Inner Piedmont (Griffith et al. 2002).
Elevations within the Piedmont physiographic region range from 300 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level;
while elevations through the project watershed range from 729 to 836 feet. The valley along the project
reaches transitions from confined valleys with slopes ranging from 4% to 6% to a moderately confined
valley with a 2% slope.

The project reaches convey an increased sediment load relative to reference conditions. This increased
loading is a result of heavy agricultural and livestock practices and has produced a substrate dominated by
coarse sand and fine gravel.
Level IV Ecoregion 45b-Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101160010
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-02
Project Drainage Area (acres) 53
Percent Impervious Area 4%
Catbird Mitigation Plan 5 October 2018
Project #100022

Geology and Soils
According to geology data from the North Carolina Geologic Survey, published in 1985, the Project is
within geologic map unit DOgb, occurring in the Charlotte and Milton belts. This map unit is associated
with intrusive igneous type rocks of the Gabbro of Concord Plutonic Suite formation that formed between
the Devonian and Ordovician periods within the Paleozoic Era between 399 and 479 million years ago.
This formation is composed of Barber, Concord, Farmington, Mecklenburg, and Weddington intrusives.

Existing soil information from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) shows the property is
located within the Gaston-Mocksville-Mecklenburg soil association. This association is made of gently
sloping to steep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a clayey or loamy subsoil with a
low or moderate shrink-swell potential. They formed in material weathered from mafic and intermediate
crystalline rocks on uplands. They are found on broad to narrow ridges and side slopes in the northeastern,
central, and southwestern parts of the county.

The Davie County Soil Survey shows several mapping units across the Project. Map units include three soil
series. The soil series found on the Project are described below and summarized in Table 4.

Project soils are mapped by the NRCS within the easement as Mocksville sandy loam, Oak level clay loam,
and Tomlin clay loam (Figure 5). Mocksville sandy loam makes up approximately 62 percent of the
easement and is well drained and found on hillslopes on ridges at 15 to 45 percent slopes. Tomlin clay loam
(34 percent of the Project), and Oak Level clay loam (four percent of the Project), make up the rest of the
easement and both are well drained, moderately eroded, and found on hillslopes on ridges at eight to 15
percent slopes. The surrounding upland soils are mapped as Tomlin clay loam and Oak Level clay loam.
These soil types are typically moderately well to well drained soils. Both are found on slopes ranging
between two to 15 percent.

Table 4. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Percent
Hydric
Drainage
Class
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Landscape
Setting
MsC Mocksville sandy
loam, 8-15% slopes 0% Well B Hillslopes on
ridges
OkB2 Oak level clay loam,
2-8% slopes 0% Well C Hillslopes on
ridges
ToC2 Tomlin clay loam, 8-
15% slopes 0% Well B Hillslopes on
ridges
Existing Vegetation
Vegetation around the unbuffered reaches of the unnamed tributaries are primarily composed of herbaceous
vegetation and scattered trees. In general, these riparian zones are disturbed due to regular land management
activities. On June 14, 2018 two 100m2 plots were surveyed along the floodplain of the Project to categorize
the existing vegetation communities. Both reaches have been grazed by livestock, including the forested
riparian areas, and thus lack a well-developed understory and shrub strata. Portions of DS2-B, while it lacks
a well-developed understory and shrub strata, represent more natural community assemblages. For this
reason, representative plots were surveyed along reach DS1 and DS2 (Appendix B). Within each vegetation
plot, all trees greater than or equal to five inches (12.7 centimeters) diameter at breast height (DBH) were
Catbird Mitigation Plan 6 October 2018
Project #100022

identified, measured, and used to calculate both basal area and stems per acre. Trees greater than or equal
to 54 inches (137 centimeters) in height were used to quantify tree species diversity. Canopy species data
was calculated to quantify the existing natural community (Schafale, 2012) (Table 5). Shrub species and
herbaceous species were also identified, and the percent cover was estimated.

Table 5. Catbird Vegetation Plot Summary
Plot Basal Area
(m2/ha) Avg. DBH (cm) Trees per Acre Total Tree Species Natural Community
1 67.4 21.46 161.8 2 Disturbed Piedmont Headwater
Stream Forest
2 0 0 0 0 Pasture
AVG 33.7 10.73 80.9 1

Dominant canopy species within the forested riparian areas across the site included honey locust (Gleditisia
triacanthos), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and winged elm (Ulmus alata). Sub-canopy species
included American holly (Ilex oxpaca) and sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus). Invasive species were
also found within the vegetation survey plots and in the vicinity of the site, including: multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Land Use – Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery indicates that the Project has been used extensively for agricultural purposes, and
that the location of the streams has not changed in over 50 years (Figure 6). The agricultural footprint
shows minimal change over this time. The area remains in an agricultural community with some
neighboring forested property. Several watershed characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation, surface
drainage, and potentially soil parameters have been modified. Livestock currently have access to all stream
reaches and are actively degrading the channels, while riparian buffers are either very sparse, narrow or
non-existent. Soil structure and surface texture have been altered from long-term active grazing.

The future land use for the Project area will include 6.5 acres of conservation easement that will be protected
in perpetuity. The Project easement will have 2,224 linear feet of high functioning streams, a minimum 50 -
foot riparian buffer, and will exclude livestock with fencing. Outside the Project, the area will likely remain
in agricultural use; however, proximity to the DMS Hauser Creek Site to the northwest of the Project and
two proposed easements (Mockingbird Mitigation Site and Scout Mitigation Site), to the southwest and
west across Spillman Road, will present compounded benefits to the local watershed.
Regulatory Considerations
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, streams on the Project do not
lie within a 100-year floodplain (1% annual chance of flooding); nor does it lie within a regulatory floodway
(FEMA 2017) (Figure 7). No hydrologic trespass will be permitted to adjacent properties upstream or
downstream of the project.
Environmental Screening and Documentation
To ensure that a project meets the “Categorical Exclusion” criteria, the Federal Highways Administration
(FHWA) and NCDMS have developed a categorical exclusion (CE) checklist that is included as part of
each mitigation project’s Environmental Resources Technical Report (ERTR). The CE Approval Form for
the Catbird Project is included in Appendix K and was approved by DMS and FHWA in December 2017.
Catbird Mitigation Plan 7 October 2018
Project #100022

Threatened and Endangered Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered or threatened are protected under provisions
of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS database (2017) lists
two endangered species that may occur in proximity to the Project: Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Species and species habitat listed in the USFWS database
were inspected during the field investigation to determine whether they occur at the Project. No individual
species or habitats were identified on site. Potential impacts to species and species habitat off site,
downstream, and within the vicinity of the project were also considered. A letter was sent to the USFWS
on October 20, 2017 requesting review and comment of possible issues with respect to threatened and
endangered species on the Project. USFWS responded on November 20, 2017 and stated that besides the
Northern long-eared bat (NLEB), there is no record of other federally protected species in the project
vicinity. Incidental take of the NLEB is exempt, but the USFWS encourages to avoid tree cutting from May
15 – August 15 if possible. Documentation of this correspondence is included in Appendix K.

To comply with the NLEB 4(d) streamlined rule for federal agencies, the required consultation form was
submitted by the FHWA to the USFWS as part of the CE process for NCDMS projects. Federally protected
species met the Categorical Exclusion Criteria for FHWA and DMS projects and documentation is included
in Appendix K.

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with state fish and wildlife agencies when
“waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be
impounded, diverted…or otherwise controlled or modified.” A letter was sent to the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on October 20, 2017 requesting review and comment of
possible issues with respect to fish and wildlife resources on the Project. A response was received on
December 01, 2017 and NCWRC indicated that there are no records for any listed aquatic species in the
vicinity of this Project. Documentation is included in Appendix K.
Cultural Resources
A review of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service database revealed that
there are no National Registered listings within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project area. No
architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys
of the site for restoration purposes. RES received a letter from the NC State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) on October 17, 2017 in response to the Project’s public notice that was posted on September 20,
2017. In the letter, SHPO stated that they had “conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project.” Cultural Resources met the Categorical Exclusion
Criteria for FHWA and DMS projects and documentation is included in Appendix K.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 8 October 2018
Project #100022

Table 6. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States -
Section 404 Yes No Appendix K
Waters of the United States -
Section 401 Yes No Appendix K
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix K
National Historic Preservation
Act Yes Yes Appendix K
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A Appendix L
Magnuson Stevens Act -
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
Reach Summary Information
The Project area is comprised of a single easement area along two unnamed tributaries that eventually drain
into the Yadkin River. The Project is split into three reaches (DS1, DS2-A, DS2-B) (Figure 10). Results of
the preliminary data collections are presented in Table 7. Morphological parameters are located in
Appendix B.

Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach Drainage
Area (ac)
ABKF 1
(ft2)
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth
(ft)
Width:Depth
Ratio
Bank
Height
Ratio
Entrenchment
Ratio Sinuosity Slope
(ft/ft)
DS1 26 2.3-3.7 3.0-7.4 0.7 3.9-16.1 1.0 – 2.5 1.3 – 1.8 1.04 0.0305
DS2-A 12 1.1-3.3 3.8-6.6 0.4 12.9 2.5 – 6.0 1.3 – 1.5 1.04 0.0639
DS2-B 27 2.1-3.1 4.3-13.1 0.4 7.3-68.0 0.8 – 8.4 1.3 – 1.6 1.06 0.0383
1ABKF= cross-sectional area (measured at approximate bankfull stage as estimated using existing conditions data and NC
Regional Curve equations where field indicators were not present)
Channel Classification
The streams have been classified as intermittent (DS1 and DS2-A) and perennial (DS2-B) streams using
the NCDWR Stream Identification Form version 4.11 and are G- and F-stream types as classified using the
Rosgen stream classification system (Rosgen, 1994). Table 8 summarizes these stream parameters and the
stream determination scores can be found in Appendix G. Stream determinations have been verified by the
USACE.

Table 8. Summary of Stream Parameters
Reach Hydrology Status Stream Determination Score Reach Length (LF) Rosgen
Stream
Classification
DS1 Intermittent 26.5 1,179 G4
DS2-A Intermittent 25 300 F5b
DS2-B Perennial 34 1,051 G5
Catbird Mitigation Plan 9 October 2018
Project #100022

Existing Channel Morphology

Reach DS1
Reach DS1 is a gravel channel that flows to the east and has moderate to high sediment load. This reach
begins just downstream of the confluence of two ephemeral channels. The reach is severely incised and/or
over widened, both laterally and vertically unstable and is impacted by cattle throughout. Bedrock does not
currently influence the channel profile and is therefore not expected to arrest its current degradation. The
riparian buffer is in poor condition and is a mix of young hardwoods, evergreens, scrubby vegetation, and
pasture grasses.
Reach DS2-A
Reach DS2-A, an intermittent channel, flows in an easterly direction through an active pasture and has a
moderate sediment load. Channel incision increases as the channel approaches the reach break with Reach
DS2-B. The channel exhibits localized areas of vertical and lateral instability and the streambed is
comprised of silt, sand, and gravel. Bedrock does not currently influence the channel profile and is therefore
not expected to arrest its current degradation. The riparian buffer is in poor condition and is a mix pasture
grasses and some woody vegetation that lines the channel banks.
Reach DS2-B
DS2-B is an incised and degraded, coarse sand bed stream with a moderate to high sediment load. Livestock
have direct access to the channel, and the resulting impacts have severely degraded the channel banks.
Bedrock was observed providing grade control in one location along this reach; however, the majority of
the reach does not contain bedrock and therefore continues to degrade. The riparian buffer is in poor
condition with few mature trees located along the top of banks.
Channel Stability Assessment
A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (CSA) provided in “Assessing Stream
Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions” by Johnson (2006) was used to assess channel
stability for the Project’s existing channels. This method may be rapidly applied on a variety of stream
types in different physiographic regions having a range of bed and bank materials.

The original channel assessment method was designed to evaluate 13 stability indicators in the field. These
parameters are: watershed characteristics (frequency of watershed disturbances such as agricultural
activities, urbanization, etc.), flow habit, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel confinement, bed material,
bar development, presence of obstructions/debris jams, bank soil texture and coherence, average bank
angle, bank vegetation/protection, bank cutting, mass wasting/bank failure, and upstream distance to bridge.
See Appendix B for a detailed description of the stability indicators. As this method was initially developed
to assess stability at bridges, a few minor adjustments were made to remove indicators that contradict
stability characteristics of natural channels in favor of providing hydraulic efficiency at bridges. First, the
“channel pattern” indicator was altered such that naturally meandering channels scored low as opposed to
straightened/engineered channels that are favorable for stability near bridges. Secondly, the last indicator,
“upstream distance to bridge”, was removed from the assessment as bridges are not a focus of channel
stability for this project. The 12 indicators were then scored in the field, and a rating of excellent, good,
fair, or poor was assigned to each project reach based on the total score.

The channel assessment results (scores and ratings) for the Project are provided in Table 9. All three Project
stream reaches received “Fair” ratings. Most Project streams were observed to have relatively high bank
angles and many were found to be actively eroding. All the channels have been impacted by farming
practices or livestock production, and most are slightly entrenched. These characteristics are reflected in
the higher channel assessment scores for average bank angle and bank vegetation/protection. Most reaches
Catbird Mitigation Plan 10 October 2018
Project #100022

also scored poorly for watershed characteristics since the surrounding land use is dominated by agriculture
activities.

Table 9. Channel Stability Assessment Results
DS1 DS2-B DS2-A
1 Watershed characteristics 11 11 11
2 Flow habit 8 6 8
3 Channel pattern 4 4 4
4 Entrenchment/channel confinement 10 7 11
5 Bed material 9 7 6
6 Bar development 5 3 3
7 Obstructions/debris jams 5 2 2
8 Bank soil texture and coherence 7 7 7
9 Average bank angle 8 10 10
10 Bank vegetation/protection 10 7 9
11 Bank cutting 8 8 10
12 Mass wasting/bank failure 8 6 10
13 Upstream distance to bridge NA NA NA
Score 93 78 91
Rating* Fair Fair Fair
* Excellent (0 < Score <= 36), Good (36 < Score <= 72), Fair (72 < Score <= 108), Poor (108 < Score <= 144)
Existing Wetlands
A survey of existing wetlands was performed on October 3, 2017 and updated on February 15, 2018.
Wetland boundaries were delineated using current methodology outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Soils were characterized and
classified using the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (USDA-NRCS 2010).
Within the boundaries of the Project, two small jurisdictional wetlands are present (Figure 8). Wetlands
WA and WB are approximately 0.01 and 0.03 acres, respectively, and occur in-line with stream reach DS2-
A (Figure 8). They represent disturbed palustrine forest type wetlands and consist of saplings such as black
willow (Salix nigra) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), shrubs of sawtooth blackberry, and herbs
such as common rush (Juncus effuses), broom sedge (Carex scoparia), and arrowleaf tearthumb (Persicaria
sagittata). A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE on October 27,
2017 and a final PJD was received on March 1, 2018 (Appendix I).

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not depict any
additional wetland areas within the Project (Figure 9).

Catbird Mitigation Plan 11 October 2018
Project #100022

Site Photographs

DS1 – Looking Downstream (2/1/2018)

DS1 – Looking Upstream (2/1/2018)

DS1 – Looking Upstream (2/1/2018)

DS1 – Looking Downstream (2/1/2018)

DS1 – Looking Downstream (2/1/2018)

DS1 – Looking Upstream (2/1/2018)

Catbird Mitigation Plan 12 October 2018
Project #100022

DS2-A – Looking Upstream (2/1/2018)

DS2-A – Looking Upstream (2/1/2018)

DS2-B – Looking Upstream (2/1/2018)

DS2-B – Looking Downstream (2/1/2018)

DS2-B – Looking Upstream (2/1/2018)

DS2-B – Looking Downstream (2/1/2018)

Catbird Mitigation Plan 13 October 2018
Project #100022

FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
The Stream Functions Pyramid Framework (Harman et. al. 2012) uses stream functions to describe project
objectives, existing condition assessments and monitoring, performance metrics, and design criteria. The
Framework separates stream functions into five categories, ordered into a hierarchy, which communicate
the interrelations among functions and illustrate the dependence of higher level functions (biology,
physicochemical and geomorphology) on lower level functions (hydrology and hydraulics). Functions that
affect the greatest number of other functions are illustrated at the base of the Pyramid, while functions that
have the least effect on other functions are illustrated at the top. The Pyramid is illustrated below (Chart
1).

Chart 1. Stream Functions Framework
Fischenich (2006) found that the most critical functions include those that address hydrodynamic processes,
sediment transport processes, stream stability and riparian buffer restoration. By addressing these
fundamental functions and processes, a restored stream and riparian system are capable of supporting more
dependent functions that typically require time to establish, such as diverse biological communities,
chemical and nutrient processes, diverse habitats and improved water and soil quality. The objectives of
this Project will address the most critical functional objectives that will allow for a more restored stream
and riparian area over time.

A functional based approach broadens the reach-scale goals of a restoration project by contextualizing the
functional uplift to the watershed scale. By applying an ecosystem restoration approach, the proposed
Catbird Mitigation Plan 14 October 2018
Project #100022

Project will provide localized ecological and water quality benefits that could in combination with other
restoration projects within the watershed have beneficial impacts on the Yadkin River Basin. The
restoration approach at the reach scale of this Project will benefit the hydraulic and geomorphology
functions of the system, but could also benefit the upper-level functions (physicochemical and biology)
over time and in combination with other restoration projects within the watershed. Anticipated functional
benefits and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function-Based Framework, are outlined
in Table 10.
Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements
Hydrology
According to the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework, hydrology is defined as the transport of water
from the watershed to the channel. The Project will locally address several historic hydrologic disturbances
including deforestation and channelization; however, it is not anticipated that the Project will have a
significant effect on hydrology at the watershed scale.
Hydraulic
The hydraulic function of the Pyramid is defined as transport of water in the channel, on the floodplain, and
through sediments. The greatest potential uplift at the Project will be achieved through increasing floodplain
connectivity throughout the Project. Reaches in the Project do not have functioning floodplain connectivity
or stable flow dynamics. Reaches where floodplain connectivity is not-functioning or functioning-at-risk
will be improved to functioning by reducing bank height ratios and increasing entrenchment ratios. Reaches
in which stable flow dynamics are not-functioning or functioning-at-risk will be improved to functioning
by constructing a new stable channel with adequate energy dissipation and grade control.
Geomorphology
Geomorphology, as defined within the Pyramid Framework, is the transport of wood and sediment to create
bed forms and dynamic equilibrium. Sediment transport will be improved in reaches that are currently
functioning-at-risk or not-functioning by reducing the excess sediment load entering the stream. This
reduction will be achieved by establishing a functional buffer, constructing a sediment load attenuation
structure upstream of Reach DS1, and constructing channels that maintain stable dimension, plan, and
profile. Channel stability and bedform diversity will be improved in restoration reaches by installing a mix
of rock and log structures to promote a natural combination of riffle-pool and step-pool sequences. Channel
substrate will be supplemented by off-site material to ensure bed stability and habitat creation. Transport
and storage of woody debris will be improved through increases in channel roughness from plantings and
structures installation. Existing riparian vegetation is either functioning-at-risk or not-functioning in Project
reaches. Therefore, riparian buffers will be planted out to a minimum of 50 feet to improve the riparian
vegetation to functioning levels, while also providing terrestrial habitat. All of these functional parameters
are interconnected and depend on each other, improving this wide range of parameters will result in long-
term functional geomorphic uplift.
Physicochemical
The Pyramid Framework defines the physicochemical category as temperature and oxygen regulation and
the processing of organic matter and nutrients. Although this Project would support the overarching goal in
the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Priorities to promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas,
it is difficult to measure nutrient and sediment reduction at this project level because they can be affected
by so many variables. However, several restoration actions are known to help reduce nutrients and sediment
even though they may not be measurable at the project level. These activities include filtering of runoff
through buffer areas, the conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers, and improved denitrification
and nutrient uptake through buffer zones. Additional benefits may also come from functional uplift of the
Catbird Mitigation Plan 15 October 2018
Project #100022

lower-level stream functions (hydraulics and geomorphology), which will reduce sediment and nutrients in
the system through bank stabilization and reforestation. Temperature regulation will also be improved
through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas. Oxygen regulation will occur
through two actions: first, the temperature of the water directly impacts the amount of gas held by the water.
Therefore, by planting the buffer to shade the channel, water temperature is decreased and dissolved oxygen
is increased. Second, the drop structures placed in the stream create mixing zones where oxygen dissolves
much faster than the standard exchange rate of oxygen to dissolved oxygen. The processing of organic
matter will be improved once healthy riffles are shallow enough to catch twigs and branches that then retain
leaves. Many of these physicochemical benefits occur slowly over time and are dependent on multiple
variables within the stream ecosystem. Therefore, it is not practical or feasible to directly measure these
parameters within the monitoring time frame of this project. With that said, it is logical to use existing
riparian buffer and visual performance standards to demonstrate the positive correlation between
geomorphic parameters and physicochemical parameters. For example, as riparian buffer trees grow, as
represented in annual monitoring reports, it is anticipated that canopy cover is actively shading the stream
channel and reducing water temperature. This is not a substitute for direct physicochemical monitoring, but
it is a useful tool to help project the long-term benefits of the Project in terms of its functional uplift.
Biology
The highest category of the Pyramid is biology and is defined as the biodiversity and life histories of aquatic
and terrestrial life, specifically referring to animals. As mentioned for the physicochemical stream function,
it will be difficult to see measurable results of the functional uplift of the biological functions at a project
scale during the monitoring time frame of the project. However, since the life histories of many species
likely to benefit from stream and wetland restoration are depending on all the lower-level functions, the
functional uplift from the hydraulic and geomorphic levels would likely have a positive effect on the biology
over time and in combination with other projects within the watershed is anticipated. Again, there is no
substitute for direct biological monitoring, but it is important to understand the hierarchy of the Stream
Functions Pyramid Framework in order to help project long-term benefits of the Project, though only
categories two and three (hydraulics and geomorphology) will be directly measured during the seven-year
monitoring period.
Potential Constraints
There are no significant hydrologic or infrastructure constraints to the Project. No overhead or underground
utility lines are present. One easement break for a culvert is proposed to facilitate landowner usage of the
property. Any culvert maintenance will be the responsibility of RES through completion of monitoring.
Once the Project has completed monitoring and the Project is closed out, the culvert will be the
responsibility of the landowner(s).

No General Aviation or Commercial airports are located within five miles of the proposed project. The
Project is located within five miles of two privately owned and operated airstrips. One privately owned
public-use air transport facility (Sugar Valley Airport) is located approximately four miles south of the
Project. While existing mature trees are generally not threatened, a tree survey has been conducted to design
the mitigation measures and access to minimize impacts to significant specimen trees.
Catbird Mitigation Plan 16 October 2018
Project #100022

MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Project. These goals
clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major
watershed stressors in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River RBRP. The Project will address outlined
RBRP Goals 2, 4, and 6 (listed in Section 2).

The Project goals are:
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non-erosive manner in a stable channel;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows and
connection to the floodplain;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Reduce sediment, nutrient and fecal coliform inputs into stream system;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation;
• Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP to improve water quality
and to reduce sediment and nutrient loads; and
• Protect Water Supply Watersheds (WSW).

The Project objectives to address the goals are:
• Design and reconstruct stream channels sized to convey bankfull flows that will maintain a stable
dimension, profile, and planform;
• Add in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored streams;
• Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of varying
depths to restored streams;
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel along the Project
reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community;
• Install approximately 4,200 linear feet of livestock exclusion fencing along the easement boundary
to ensure livestock will no longer have stream access;
• Implement one agricultural BMP structure in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal
coliform to streams from surrounding farming operations;
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project that will exclude future livestock from
stream channels and their associated buffers.

Anticipated functional uplift, benefits, and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function
Based Framework are outlined in Table 10.
Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs)
A suite of agricultural BMPs will be utilized for the Project to reduce direct effluent inputs, pollutant
contamination, and sediment loading. The combination of the following agricultural BMPs: riparian buffer
planting, bank stabilization, stream restoration, livestock exclusion, and livestock watering facilities, will
ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site, while still allowing livestock production to persist through
the installation of alternative water sources.

The riparian buffer will be restored along all project reaches. Restored riparian buffers are established
adjacent to and up-gradient from watercourses of water bodies to improve water quality. The main
advantages of the restored riparian buffer will be to provide water quality treatment, erosion control, and
Catbird Mitigation Plan 17 October 2018
Project #100022

water temperature benefits. Moreover, there will be significant reductions in sedimentation, nutrient input,
and fecal coliform input.

To account for eliminating livestock water access, landowners will be provided an alternate water source.
A total of three watering facilities will be installed to provide high quality drinking water to livestock.

One agricultural sediment load attenuation structure will be installed at the top of DS1 where concentrated
flow enters the conservation easement. The agricultural sediment load attenuation structure will be installed
within the conservation easement so that the structure is protected. Catastrophic failure or maintenance of
the structure is not anticipated as this structure will be installed in a low-gradient area, and the area proposed
to diffuse flow will be well vegetated and matted.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 18 October 2018
Project #100022

Table 10. Functional Benefits and Improvements
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured

Level Function Goal Objective Measurement
Method
1
Hydrology°
Transport of water from
the watershed to the
channel
to transport water from the
watershed to the channel in a non-
erosive manner and maintain a
stable water table in riparian
wetlands
Convert land-use of streams and
their headwaters from pasture to
riparian forest

Install one agricultural sediment
load attenuation structure to limit
inputs of sediment from
surrounding farming operations
coming into the reach (DS1)
Percent Project
drainage area
converted to riparian
forest (indirect
measurement)

Visually monitor
integrity of
agricultural
attenuation structure
2
Hydraulic
Transport of water in
the channel, on the
floodplain, and through
the sediments
to transport water in a stable non-
erosive manner
Improve flood bank connectivity
by reducing bank height ratios
and increase entrenchment ratios
Cross sections

Crest gauges

Flow gauges

Bank Height Ratio

Entrenchment Ratio
3
Geomorphology
Transport of wood and
sediment to create
diverse bedforms and
dynamic equilibrium
to create a diverse bedform and
stable channels that achieve
healthy dynamic equilibrium and
provide suitable habitat for life
Reduce erosion rates and channel
stability to reference reach
conditions

Improve bedform diversity (pool
spacing, percent riffles, etc.)

Increase buffer width to 50 feet
As-built stream
profile

Cross sections

Visual monitoring

Vegetation plots
4
Physicochemical °
Temperature and
oxygen regulation;
processing of organic
matter and nutrients
to achieve appropriate levels for
water temperature, dissolved
oxygen concentration, and other
important nutrients including but
not limited to Nitrogen and
Phosphoruse through buffer
planting and fencing
Unmeasurable
Objective/Expected Benefit
Establish native hardwood
riparian buffer and exclude
livestock.

Vegetation plots
(indirect
measurement)

Established fencing
and perpetual
conservation
easement (indirect
measurement)
5
Biology *
Biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic life
histories and riparian
life
to achieve functionality in levels
1-4 to support the life histories of
aquatic and riparian plants and
animals through instream
Unmeasurable
Objective/Expected Benefit

Improve aquatic habitat through
the installation of habitat
features, construction of pools at
varying depths, and planting the
riparian buffer
As-Built Survey (in-
direct measurement

Catbird Mitigation Plan 19 October 2018
Project #100022

MITIGATION WORK PLAN
Reference Stream
The restoration portions of the Project are currently characterized by agricultural and livestock practices.
Physical parameters of the Project were used, as well as other reference materials, to determine the target
stream type. The “Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina” was also used to narrow
the potential community types that would have existed at the Project (Schafale, 2012). An iterative process
was used to develop the final information for the Project design.

Targeted reference conditions included the following:
• Located within the physiographic region and ecoregion,
• Similar land use on site and in the watershed,
• Similar soil types on site and in the watershed,
• Ideal, undisturbed habitat – several types of woody debris present,
• Similar topography,
• Similar slope,
• Pattern common among Piedmont streams, and
• Minimal presence of invasive species.

Reference Watershed Characterization
The selected reference stream is an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Hauser Creek on a closed out DMS
mitigation site, located east of Farmington Road in Yadkin County, NC. It flows west to east (Appendix
B). The reach that was surveyed and analyzed is approximately 200 feet long. The drainage area for this
segment of UT to Hauser Creek is 0.05 square miles (29 acres). The land use in the watershed is
characterized as mostly forested (80 percent) and cultivated row crops (19 percent). Site photographs of the
reference stream are located in Appendix B.

The current State classification for this reference reach is WS-IV (NCDWQ 2012a). WS-IV waters are used
as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS-I, II or III
classification is not feasible.
Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge along with indicators of
bankfull stage for the reference site. Existing drainage area, land use, slope, roughness, and cross-sectional
area were all factors considered when performing the calculations. Using a combination of Piedmont
Regional Curves, in-house spreadsheet tools, and a project specific regional flood frequency analysis, the
existing discharge for UT to Hauser Creek was calculated to be approximately 7 to 8 cubic feet per second
(ft3/s). See Section 6.2 for a more detailed description of the hydrologic analyses performed for this project.
Reference Channel Morphology
In comparison to the restoration reaches, reference reach UT to Hauser Creek is larger than the designed
restoration reaches when comparing pattern, dimension and profile, which is the reason for using a scaling
factor for the design. The scaling factor is based on the difference in bankfull width of the reference channel.
The designed reach would then have the necessary dimensions of either a smaller or larger stream
corresponding to differences in drainage area. Reach UT to Hauser Creek, the reach was typically 5.2 feet
wide and 0.6 feet deep. The cross-sectional area was typically around 3.0 square feet with a width to depth
ratio around 8.9.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 20 October 2018
Project #100022

Reference Channel Stability Assessment
The UT to Hauser Creek reference reach is stable and shows no evidence of incision or erosion in the
portion that was surveyed and analyzed. The stream appears to maintain its slope and has sufficient amounts
of vegetation to secure its banks. Riparian buffer widths exceed fifty feet on each side. The reference reach
received a “Good” rating as the channel demonstrates a stable meandering pattern and a well-vegetated
riparian buffer.
Reference Riparian Vegetation
The UT to Hauser Creek reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a Piedmont Alluvial Forest.
Basal areas for the plots were 12.5 m2/hectare (ha) and 49.6m2/ha and stems per acre was 81 for both plots.
Dominant canopy species across the reference reach included sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip-
poplar (Liriodendron tulipefera), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), pignut hickory (Carya glabra),
eastern redcedar, green ash, red maple (Acer rubrum), and boxelder (Acer negundo). Sub-canopy species
included musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), and sawtooth
blackberry. Invasive species were also found within the vegetation survey plots and in the vicinity of the
reach, including: multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle.
Design Parameters
Stream Restoration Approach
The Project will include Priority I and II Restoration and Enhancement Level II. Stream restoration will
incorporate the design of a single-thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from
reference sites, published empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams,
and NC Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques will also be a crucial element of the project and will
be used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole. Conceptual plan views are
provided in Figure 10.

The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:

Reach DS1– Priority I and II Restoration is proposed for Reach DS1. The upstream portion of this
reach will require Priority II floodplain excavation as the profile transitions from the existing
entrenched channel to the proposed Priority I channel at the downstream end. To reduce the potential
of lost hydrology the transition from Priority II to Priority I will take place of several hundred feet and
will include multiple channel plugs. Both in-line and offline restoration is proposed, and locations will
be driven by valley constraints. In-stream structures such as rock sills, log sills and cross vanes will be
installed for vertical stability and to improve bedform diversity. The restoration of the riparian areas
will include planting wider riparian buffers and excluding cattle. An agricultural BMP will be installed
at the upper end of the reach to provide sediment load attenuation from the adjacent pasture.

Reach DS2-A – Enhancement Level II is proposed for Reach DS2-A. Enhancement activities will
include livestock exclusion and riparian buffer plantings. Livestock fencing will follow current NRCS
specifications.

Reach DS2-B – A combination of Priority I Restoration and Enhancement Level II is proposed for
Reach DS2-B. Restoration activities will realign the existing channel to improve stability and floodplain
connection. Rock and log structures will be used to provide vertical stability and improved bedform
diversity. Log toe structures will be installed on the outside of certain meander bends to provide bank
stability. The restoration of the riparian areas will include planting wider riparian buffers and excluding
cattle. The Enhancement Level II portion of the reach contains a diverse channel bed profile, and this

Catbird Mitigation Plan 21 October 2018
Project #100022

portion of the reach does contain localized areas of bank erosion caused by hoof shear. The
Enhancement of this reach will involve livestock exclusion and buffer planting.
Typical Design Sections
Typical cross sections for riffles and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix A. The cross-
section dimensions were developed for the two design reaches by using an in-house spreadsheet described
in Section 6.2 of this report. The cross sections were altered slightly to facilitate constructability; however,
the cross-sectional area, width to depth ratio, and side slopes were preserved. Typical pool sections include
pools located on straight reaches and pools on meander bends.
Meander Pattern
The design plans showing the proposed channel alignment are provided in Appendix A. The meander
pattern was derived directly from the analog reach and was altered in some locations to provide variability
in pattern, to avoid on site constraints, to follow the valley pattern, and to make the channel more
constructible. The morphologic parameters summarized in the Appendix B were applied wherever these
deviations occurred.
Longitudinal Profiles
The design profiles are presented in Appendix A. These profiles extend throughout the entire project for
the proposed channel alignment. The profiles were designed using the analog reach bed features that were
sized with the scaling factors. The bed slopes and bankfull energy gradients were determined for each
design reach based on the existing valley slope and the sinuosity of the design reach. Log and rock structures
will be utilized in the design to control grade, divert flows, and provide additional habitat diversity and
stability.
In-Stream Structures
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional stability and improve aquatic
habitat. Native materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures where
applicable. Additionally, rock structures will be utilized intermittently along Reaches DS1 and DS2-B to
provide increased stability and habitat. Typical structures that will protect the channel bed and/or banks
will include riffle grade controls and log vanes.

Woody debris will be placed throughout the channel at locations and at a frequency that is similar to those
observed in the analog reaches. Woody habitat features installed will include dead brush, root wads, brush
toes, and log vanes. To provide additional bank stability, sod mats harvested on site will be installed along
stream banks during construction if and when feasible. Sod mats will only be harvested and used if
comprised of appropriate vegetation. The use of sod mats that include aggressive turf grasses will be
avoided. Sod mats are natural sections of vegetation taken from the banks when they were cut during
construction and are about nine inches thick. Before installation, proposed banks are graded lower than
specified to accommodate the thickness of the mat. The mats are placed on top of the bank to act as a natural
stabilizer of native species, and they grow much faster than the combination of coir fiber matting and
seeding. Other bank stability measures include the installation of live stakes, log sills, brush toes, log vanes,
and log toes. Typical details for proposed in-stream structures and revetments are in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
Stream Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrologic evaluations were performed for the design reaches using multiple methods to determine and
validate the design bankfull discharge and channel geometry required to provide regular floodplain
inundation. The use of various methods allows for comparison of results and eliminates reliance on a single

Catbird Mitigation Plan 22 October 2018
Project #100022

model. Peak flows (Table 11) and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined for
comparison to design parameters using the following methods:

• Regional Flood Frequency Analysis,
• AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Hydrographs, and
• NC and VA Regional Curves for the Rural Piedmont.

Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
A flood frequency analysis was completed for the study region using historic gauge data on all nearby
USGS gauges with drainage areas less than 6,400 acres (10 mi2) which passed the Dalrymple homogeneity
test (Dalrymple, 1960). This is a subset of gauges used for USGS regression equations. Regional flood
frequency equations were developed for the 1.1-, 1.5-, and 2-year peak discharges based on the gauge data.
Discharges were then computed for the design reach. These discharges were compared to those predicted
by the discharge regional curve and USGS regional regression 2-year discharge equations.

AutoCAD’s Hydraflow Express
Hydraflow Express was used to simulate the rainfall-runoff process and establish peak flows for the
watersheds. This model was chosen over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers model HEC-HMS because it
allows the user to adjust the peak shape factor. Rainfall data reflecting both a 384 and 484 peak shape factor
were used along with a standard Type II distribution, and NRCS hydrology (time of concentrations and
runoff curve numbers), to simulate the rainfall-runoff process.

Regional Curve Regression Equations
The North Carolina Piedmont regional curves by Harman et al. (1999) and Doll et al. (2002) and the
Virginia Rural Piedmont regional curves by Lotspeich (2009) for discharge were used to predict the
bankfull discharge for the Project. The NC regional curves predicted flows that are similar to those predicted
by the 1.1-year flood frequency, while the VA curves are much lower, closer to the flows predicted by the
Hydraflow Hydrographs. The regional curve equations for NC discharges by Doll et al. (2002):

(1) Qbkf=89.04*(DA)0.73 (Harman et al., 1999)
(2) Qbkf=91.62*(DA)0.71 (Doll et al., 2002)
(3) Qbkf= 43.895*(DA)0.9472 (Lotspeich, 2009)

Where Qbkf=bankfull discharge (ft3/s) and DA=drainage area (mi2).

Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison
Reach Drainage
Area (Ac)
FFQ
Q1.1
FFQ
Q1.5
NC Regional
Curve Q (1)
NC Regional
Curve Q (2)
VA Regional
Curve Q (3)
Hydraflow
Q1
Hydraflow
Q2 Design Q
DS1 26 14 21 9 9 2 4 8 5-7
DS2-B 27 15 22 9 10 2 6 11 7
Design Discharge
Based upon the hydrologic analyses described above, design discharges were selected that fall between the
model results for the 1-year and 2-year Hydraflow Hydrographs analysis for each reach. The selected flows
for the restoration reaches are 5-7 ft3/s for DS1 and 7 ft3/s for DS2-B. These discharges will provide frequent
inundation of the adjacent floodplain.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 23 October 2018
Project #100022

Sediment Transport Analysis
An erosion and sedimentation analysis was performed to confirm that the restoration design creates a stable
gravel bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Typically, sediment transport is assessed
to determine a stream’s ability to move a specific grain size at specified flows. Various sediment transport
equations are applied when estimating entrainment for sand and gravel bed streams found in the Piedmont.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) report, Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials
(Fischenich, 2001), was used to obtain permissible shear stresses and velocities. Data found in this
document was obtained from multiple sources using different testing conditions. The following methods
and published documents were utilized during the sediment transport analysis:

• Permissible Shear Stress Approach, and
• Permissible Velocity Approach.

Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is a commonly used tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear stresses are
a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size, and gradation), cohesiveness of
bank materials, vegetative cover, and incoming sediment load. The shear stress approach compares
calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature.

Critical shear stress is the shear stress required to initiate motion of the channels median particle size (D50).

Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Reach
Proposed Bed Shear
Stress at Bankfull Stage
(lbs/ft2)
Existing Critical
Shear Stress
(lbs/ft2)
Allowable Shear Stress1
Coarse Gravel
(lbs/ft2)
Cobble
(lbs/ft2)
Vegetation
(lbs/ft2)
DS1 0.69 0.25 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 0.1.7
DS2-B 0.84 - 0.87 0.04 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 0.1.7
1(Fischenich, 2001)

Review of the above table shows that the proposed bed shear stresses for the Project design reaches are
above the critical shear stress of the existing channel material. Therefore, all proposed riffles will be
supplemented with a substrate mix that has a critical shear stress greater than the proposed bed shear stress
at bankfull.

Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank materials.
A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method to aid in the
verification of channel stability. Table 13 compares the proposed velocities calculated using Manning’s
equation with the permissible velocities.

Table 13. Comparison of Permissible and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning’s “n”
Value
Design Velocity
(ft/s)
Proposed Bed
Material
Permissible
Velocity1 (ft/sec)
DS1 0.05 2.3 Coarse gravel to cobble 2.5 - 6
DS2-B 0.05 2.5 - 2.6 Coarse gravel to cobble 2.5 - 6
1(Fischenich, 2001)

Catbird Mitigation Plan 24 October 2018
Project #100022

Sediment Supply
In addition to the stability assessment, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply was performed by
characterizing watershed conditions. A combination of field reconnaissance and windshield surveys,
existing land use data, and historical aerial photography were analyzed to assess existing and past watershed
conditions to determine if any changes occurred that would significantly impact sediment supply. As
discussed in Section 3.3, the land use throughout the site has changed little since 1960. Much of the project
area has been used primarily for agricultural purposes over the past 60 years. Most of the existing stream
channels are unforested. Land use has remained relatively constant within this rural watershed, and
significant land disturbing activities are not anticipated for the future.

There are several areas of instability and erosion along the channels, which appear to be a result of historic
cattle activity and agricultural activities occurring up to and along channel banks and not from watershed
activities. It is anticipated that sediment supply from agricultural land adjacent to the project will decrease
as buffers are enhanced and widened and flows from existing agricultural ditches are diffused before
entering the proposed channel.
Vegetation and Planting Plan
Plant Community Restoration
The restoration of the plant communities is an important aspect of the restoration Project. The selection of
plant species is based on what was observed at the reference reach, species present in the forest surrounding
the restoration Project, and what is typically native to the area. Several sources of information were used to
determine the most appropriate species for the restoration project. The reference stream is located within a
disturbed Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Dominant species included sweetgum, red maple, tulip poplar,
American beech, pignut hickory, eastern red cedar, green ash, and boxelder. The reference site was chosen
due to the stability of the channel, the physical structure of the forest community, and to evaluate stream
habitat.

A Piedmont Alluvial Forest will be the target community along the Project reaches. The target community
will be used for the planting areas within the Project, shown in Appendix A. The plant species list has been
developed and can be found in Table 14. Species with high dispersal rates are not included because of local
occurrence, adjacent seed sources, and the high potential for natural regeneration. The high dispersal species
include red maple and sweetgum.

The restoration of plant communities along the Project will provide stabilization and diversity. For rapid
stabilization of the stream banks (primarily outside meanders), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) and black
willow (Salix nigra) were chosen for live stakes along the restored channel because of their rapid growth
patterns and high success rates. Willows grow at a faster rate than the species planted around them, and
they stabilize the stream banks. Willows will also be quicker to contribute organic matter to the channel.
When the other species are bigger, the black willows will slowly stop growing or die out because the other
species would outgrow them and create shade that the willows do not tolerate. The live stake species will
be planted along the outside of the meander bends three feet from the top of bank, creating a three-foot
section along the top of bank. The live stakes will be spaced one per linear foot with alternate spacing
vertically.

It is anticipated that the vegetation planting/replanting will be conducted between November 15 and March
15, per the October 2016 USACE/NCIRT monitoring guidance. If the Project completes construction after
March 15, but before May 31, the site will be planted immediately following construction so that there is
180 days prior to the initiation of the first year of monitoring.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 25 October 2018
Project #100022

Table 14. Proposed Plant List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Species Common Name Spacing (ft) Unit Type
% of Total
Species
Composition
Quercus nigra Water Oak 9X6 Bare Root 15
Quercus phellos Willow Oak 9X6 Bare Root 15
Betula nigra River birch 9X6 Bare Root 15
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore 9X6 Bare Root 15
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 9X6 Bare Root 10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 9X6 Bare Root 10
Liriodendron tulipifera Yellow Poplar 9X6 Bare Root 10
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 9X6 Bare Root 5
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum 9X6 Bare Root 5

Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Species Common Name % of Total Species Composition
Salix nigra Black willow 60
Cornus ammomum Silky dogwood 40

On-Site Invasive Species Management
Treatment for invasive species will be required within all grading limits associated with stream restoration.
Invasive species will require different and multiple treatment methods, depending on plant phenology and
the location of the species being treated (Appendix J). All treatment will be conducted as to maximize its
effectiveness and reduce chances of detriment to surrounding native vegetation. Treatment methods will
include mechanical (cutting with loppers, clippers, or chain saw) and chemical (foliar spray, cut stump, and
hack and squirt techniques). Plants containing mature, viable seeds will be removed from the Project and
properly disposed. All herbicide applicators will be supervised by a certified ground pesticide applicator
with a North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) license and adhere
to all legal and safety requirements according to herbicide labels, and NC and Federal laws. Management
records will be kept on the plant species treated, type of treatment employed, type of herbicide used,
application technique, and herbicide concentration and quantities used. These records will be included in
all reporting documents.
Soil Restoration
After construction activities, the subsoil will be scarified and any compaction will be deep tilled before the
topsoil is placed back over the Project. Any topsoil that is removed during construction will be stockpiled
and placed over the Project during final soil preparation. This process should provide favorable soil
conditions for plant growth. Rapid establishment of vegetation will provide natural stabilization for the
Project.
Mitigation Summary
Natural channel design techniques have been used to develop the restoration designs described in this
document. The combination of the analog and analytical design methods was determined to be appropriate
for this Project because the watershed is rural, the causes of disturbance are known and have been abated,

Catbird Mitigation Plan 26 October 2018
Project #100022

and there are minimal infrastructure constraints. The original design parameters were developed from the
measured analog/reference reach data and applied to the subject stream. The parameters were then analyzed
and adjusted through an iterative process using analytical tools and numerical simulations of fluvial
processes. The designs presented in this report provide for the restoration of natural Piedmont gravel-bed
channel features and stream bed diversity to improve benthic habitat. The proposed design will allow flows
that exceed the design bankfull stage to spread out over the floodplain.

A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration channel.
However, multiple segments will be left partially filled to provide habitat diversity and flood storage. Native
woody material will be installed throughout the restored reach to reduce bank stress, provide grade control,
and increase habitat diversity.

Forested riparian buffers of at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the Project
reaches. An appropriate riparian plant community (Piedmont Alluvial Forest) will be established to include
a diverse mix of species. The plant species list has been developed and can be found in Table 14. Although
there is one planting zone, certain targeted species will be planted in the appropriate target community
location. Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted during construction.
Replanting of native species will occur where the existing buffer is impacted during construction.

A combination of agricultural BMPs will be used on site; riparian buffer planting, bank stabilization, stream
restoration, livestock exclusions, and livestock watering facilities. This combination of BMPs will
ultimately lead to the functional uplift of the site by minimizing sedimentation, nutrient input, and fecal
coliform input from ongoing livestock and agricultural production outside of the conservation easement.
Additionally, installation of one agricultural runoff attenuation structure will regulate upstream runoff
coming into DS1.

Due to the nature of the project, complete avoidance of stream and wetland impacts is not possible.
Proposed stream impacts, including stream relocation and culverts, will be replaced on site. Wetland
impacts associated with restoration and enhancement efforts will only temporarily impact wetlands and will
provide an overall increase in wetland function with the addition of native trees and shrubs along the stream
banks, and restored hydrology. All stream impacts will be accounted for in the Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) form.

Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 15 are projections based upon site design (Figure 10). Upon
completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will only be revised to be consistent
with the as-built condition if there is a large discrepancy Any deviation from the mitigation plan post
approval, including adjustments to credits, will require a request for modification. This will be approved
by the USACE.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 27 October 2018
Project #100022

Table 15. Catbird Site (ID-100022) - Mitigation Components
Project
Component
(reach ID)
Wetland
Position and
Hydro Type
Existing
Footage Stationing
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
As-Built
Footage
Restoration
Level
Approach
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio
(X:1)
Mitigation
Credits Notes/Comments

DS1 (Upper)

300 1+19 to 4+07 288 TBD R P2 1:1 288.0
Channel restoration, riparian
planting, livestock exclusion
(Stream crossing: STA 4+07 to
STA 4+37)
DS1 (Lower) 668 4+37 to 10+98 661 TBD R P1/P2 1:1 661.0 Channel restoration, riparian
planting, livestock exclusion
DS2-A 78 0+92 to 1+70 78 TBD EII - 2.5:1 31.2 Riparian planting, livestock
exclusion
DS2-B (Upper) 515 1+70 to 6+96 526 TBD R P1/P2 1:1 526.0 Channel restoration, riparian
planting, livestock exclusion
DS2-B (Middle) 181 6+96 to 8+55 159 TBD EII - 2.5:1 63.6 Riparian planting, livestock
exclusion
DS2-B (Lower) 522 8+55 to 13+67 512 TBD R P1 1:1 512.0 Channel restoration, riparian
planting, livestock exclusion

No Wetland Mitigation
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Restoration Level
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Overall
(linear feet) (acres) (acres) Asset Category Credits
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 1,987 Stream 2,081.8
Enhancement RP Wetland NA
Enhancement I NR Wetland NA
Enhancement II 237
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Pres

Catbird Mitigation Plan 28 October 2018
Project #100022

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update and subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria components
are presented below.
Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Bankfull Events
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years. Crest gauges will be installed on DS1 and DS2-B.
Cross Sections
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-cutting or
erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 1.4 within restored riffle cross sections. Channel
stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year
monitoring period.
Digital Image Stations
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should
not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth.
Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A
series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Surface Flow
Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will
be accomplished through direct observation and the use of hydraulic pressure transducers with data loggers.
Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow.

RES will provide post construction flow monitoring near the top of DS1 to document flow conditions.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project will
follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at
least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, five-year old trees at seven feet in height
at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average
height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and included
in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems.
Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number of stems within
any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in the monitoring table but will not
be used to demonstrate success.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 29 October 2018
Project #100022

MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the DMS Monitoring Report Template dated June 2017 and
NC IRT monitoring template. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will
facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, research purposes, and assist in decision making
regarding project close-out. Monitoring reports will be prepared annually and submitted to DMS.
Monitoring of the Project will adhere to metrics and performance standards established by the USACE’s
April 2003 Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the NC IRT’s October 2016 Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Table 16 outlines the links between project
objectives and treatments and their associated monitoring metrics and performance standards within the
context of functional uplift based on the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework.
As-Built Survey
An as-built survey will be conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank to
compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual monitoring
reports unless requested by USACE. Stream channel stationing will be marked with stakes placed near the
top of bank every 200 feet.
Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year by
qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species, and
easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete streamwalk and
structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record each monitoring
event, as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual monitoring will be presented
in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital images. Photographs will be
used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian
vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence
of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time
should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Hydrology Events
Crest gauges will be installed to document the occurrence of bankfull events. A minimum of one gauge will
be installed on each tributary that is greater than 1,000 feet in length, with one gauge required for every
5,000 feet of length on each tributary and a maximum of five gauges per tributary. Reaches with Priority 1
Restoration (designed to reconnect the stream to its floodplain), gauges will be capable of tracking the
frequency and duration of overbank events. Where restoration or enhancement activities are proposed for
intermittent streams, monitoring gauges should be installed to track the frequency and duration of stream
flow events.
Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at a minimum of one per 20 bankfull widths with half in pools
and half in riffle on all Restoration and Enhancement I reaches. Morphological data will be measured and
recorded for all cross-sections; however, only riffle cross sections will include bank height ratio and
entrenchment ratio measurements. Cross sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 30 October 2018
Project #100022

Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size and cover a minimum of two percent
of the planted area. There will be five plots within the planted area (5.40 acres). Plots will be a mixture of
fixed and random plots, with four fixed plots and one random plot. Planted area indicates all area in the
easement that will be planted with trees. Existing wooded areas are not included in the planted area. The
following data will be recorded for all trees in the fixed plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer),
and grid location. For random plots, species and height will be recorded for all woody stems. The location
(GPS coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will be identified in the annual monitoring reports.
Vegetation will be planted and plots established at least 180 days prior to the initiation of the first year of
monitoring. Monitoring will occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 between July 1st and leaf drop. Invasive and
noxious species will be monitored so that none become dominant or alter the desired community structure
of the Project. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific treatment plan.
Scheduling/Reporting
A baseline monitoring report and as-built drawings documenting stream restoration activities will be
developed within 60 days of the planting completion on the Project. The report will include all information
required by DMS mitigation plan guidelines, including elevations, photographs and sampling plot locations,
gauge locations, and a description of initial species composition by community type. The report will also
include a list of the species planted and the associated densities. Baseline vegetation monitoring will include
species, height, date of planting, and grid location of each stem. The baseline report will follow DMS As-
Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template June 2017, USACE guidelines, and the October 2017
Mitigation Credit Calculation Memo.

The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the success
of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final success
criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.

Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to DMS. The
monitoring reports will include all information and be in the format required by USACE.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 31 October 2018
Project #100022

Table 16. Monitoring Requirements
Level Treatment Objective Monitoring Metric Performance Standard
1 Hydrology Convert land-use of
Project reaches from
pasture to riparian
forest

Install one
agricultural sediment
load attenuation
structure to limit
inputs of sediment
from surrounding
farming operations
coming into the reach
(DS1)
Improve the
transport of water
from the watershed
to the Project
reaches in a non-
erosive way
NA NA
Visually monitor
integrity of runoff
attenuation structure:
Performed semiannually
(indirect measurement)
Identify and document instability
and/or flaws to the structure

2 Hydraulic Reduce bank height
ratios and increase
entrenchment ratios
by reconstructing
channels to mimic
reference reach
conditions
Improve flood
bank connectivity
by reducing bank
height ratios and
increase
entrenchment
ratios
Crest gauges and/or
pressure transducers:
Inspected semiannually
Four bankfull events occurring in
separate years
At least 30 days of continuous flow
each year
Cross sections: Surveyed
in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no less than
1.4 within restored reaches
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2
3 Geomorphology Establish a riparian
buffer to reduce
erosion and sediment
transport into project
streams. Establish
stable banks with
livestakes, erosion
control matting, and
other in stream
structures.
Reduce erosion
rates and channel
stability to
reference reach
conditions
Improve bedform
diversity (pool
spacing, percent
riffles, etc.

Increase buffer
width to 50 feet
As-built stream profile NA
Cross sections: Surveyed
in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
less than 1.4 within restored
reaches
Visual monitoring Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2
Visual monitoring:
Performed at least
semiannually
Identify and document significant
stream problem areas; i.e.
erosion, degradation,
aggradation, etc.
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
4 Physicochemical Exclude livestock
from riparian areas
with exclusion fence
or conservation
easement, and plant a
riparian buffer
Unmeasurable
Objective/Expected
Benefit
Establish native
hardwood riparian
buffer and exclude
livestock.
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
(indirect measurement)
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
Visual assessment of
established fencing and
conservation signage:
Performed at least
semiannually
(indirect measurement)
Inspect fencing and signage.
Identify and document any
damaged or missing fencing
and/or signs

Catbird Mitigation Plan 32 October 2018
Project #100022

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary
performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the members of the IRT
and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 33 October 2018
Project #100022

LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program (or 3rd party if approved). This party shall
serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding
will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established. The
NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the nonreverting, interest‐
bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account
will be governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A‐232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment
fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land
transaction costs, if applicable.

The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as
needed. Any livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility the owner of
the underlying fee to maintain.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 34 October 2018
Project #100022

REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood Frequency Analyses. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1543-A.

Doll, B.A., D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E. Smith and J.
Spooner. 2002. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout the Piedmont of
North Carolina. Journal of the American water Resource Association. 38(3):641-651.

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

Fischenich, C. 2001. ‘‘Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials.’’ ERDC Technical Note No.
EMRRP-SR-29, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss.

Fischenich, J.C., 2006. Functional Objectives for Stream Restoration, EMRRP Technical Notes
Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52), US Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. (available online at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf)

Griffith, G.E., J.M.Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H.McNab, D.R.Lenat, T.F.MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
Poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).

Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy.
AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.

Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, 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.

Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-HRT-
05-072.

LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Lotspeich, R.R., 2009, Regional curves of bankfull channel geometry for non-urban streams in the
Piedmont Physiographic Province, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2009–5206, 51 p.

Catbird Mitigation Plan 35 October 2018
Project #100022

NCDENR 2012a. “Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina.” Water Quality
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (February 2012).

NCDENR 2012b. “2012 North Carolina 303(d) Lists -Category 5.” Water Quality Section.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/home. (August 2012).
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2011. A Guide to Surface Freshwater
Classifications in North Carolina. Raleigh. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/
get_file?p_l_id=1169848&folderId=2209568&name=DLFE-35732.pdf; accessed October 2017.

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). “Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities 2009.”.

North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geologic map of North Carolina: North Carolina Geological
Survey, General Geologic Map , scale 1:500000.

Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter. RGL No. 02-2, December
24, 2002.

USACE. 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.

USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

USACE. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.

USACE. 2018. Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator.

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 1986.
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.

USDA NRCS.. 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH 654), USDA

USDA NRCS. 2007. Soil Survey of Surry County, North Carolina.

USDA NRCS. Web Soil Survey; http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov (October 2017).

Catbird Mitigation Plan 36 October 2018
Project #100022

USDA NRCS. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas,
G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. EPA Manual. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Wadeable Streams.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. “Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina.” North
Carolina Ecological Services. http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. (September 2014).

Figures List
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – USGS Map
Figure 3 – Landowner Map
Figure 4 – Land-use Map
Figure 5 – Soils Map
Figure 6 – Historical Conditions Map
Figure 7 – FEMA Map
Figure 8 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 9 – National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 10 – Conceptual Plan

Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easemen t
Scout Easement
Mockingbird Easement
Hauser Creek Easement
TLW - 0304 0101160010
Service Area - HUC 0304010 1
©Date: 10/2/2018
Drawn by: SCF
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 1_Vicinity Map_Catbird.mxdCatbird Mitiga tion Site
0 1,000500
Feet 1 inch = 1,000 feet
Checked by: MDE
Hauser Creek Mitiga tion SiteEasement
MockingbirdMitigation SiteEasement
ScoutMitigation SiteEasement
CatbirdMitigation SiteEasement
DS227 ac
DS126 ac
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Areas
©Date: 8/30/2018
Drawn by: SCF
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 2_USGS Map_Catbird.mxd1 inch = 2,000 feet
Checked by: MDE
DWIG HT SPARKS5853633218
0 300150
Feet
Figure 3 - Landowner Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcel
Parcels
©Date: 8/30/2018
Drawn by: SCF
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 3_Landowner Map_Catbird.mxd1 inch = 300 feet
Checked by: MDE
0 300150
Feet
Figure 4 - Land-use Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area - 52.5 ac.
Land-use
Pasture - 54%
Row Crop - 12%
Forest -16%
Residential - 14%
Roads - 4%
©Date: 8/22/2018
Drawn by: MDD
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 4_Landuse Map_Catbird.mxd1 inch = 300 feet
ToB2
MsD
OkB2
MsC
ToC2
OkC2 OkC2
OkC2
0 200100
Feet
Figure 5 - Soils Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
©Date: 8/30/2018
Drawn by: SCF
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 5_Soils Map_Catbird.mxd1 inch = 200 feet
Legend
Proposed Easement
Hydric (100%)
Predominantly Hydric (66-99%)
Partially Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
Map Unit Map Unit NameMsCMocksville s andy l oam , 8-15% s lopesOkB2Oak leve l clay l oam , 2-8% s lopesToC2Tomlin cla y loam , 8-15% s lopes
Checked by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 8 - Historical Imagery Map_Catbird.mxd1963
1993 2006
Legend
Proposed Easement
Figure 6 - Historical Imagery Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
©Date: 8/22/2018
Drawn by: SCF
0 300150
Feet 1 inch = 300 feet
1982
Source: USGS Earth Explorer
Source: NCOneMap
Source: USGS Earth Explorer
Source: NCOneMap
Checked by: MDE
0 200100
Feet
Figure 7 - FEMA Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
FEMA Zone AE (None)
©Date: 8/16/2018
Drawn by: SCF
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 9_FEMA Map_Catbird.mxd1 inch = 200 feet
Checked by: MDE
DS1
DS2-A
DS2-B
WB
WA
0 200100
Feet
Figure 8 - Existing Conditions Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Existing Wetlands
Parcels
Existing Streams
©Date: 8/30/2018
Drawn by: SCF
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 8_Existing Conditions Map_Catbird.mxd1 inch = 200 feet
Checked by: MDE
0 200100
Feet
Figure 9 - NWI Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
NWI Wetlands (None)
©Date: 8/16/2018
Drawn by: SCF
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 6_NWI Map_Catbird.mxd1 inch = 200 feet
Checked by: MDE
!CDS2-B (Middle)D
S2-A
D S 1 (u p p e r)DS2-B (lower)DS2-B (upper)D
S
1 (lo
w
er)
0 15075
Feet
Figure 10 - Conceptual Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
Project Parcel
!CAgricultural BMP
Mitigation Approach
Restoration
Enhancement II
©Date: 10/4/2018
Drawn by: SCF
Checked by: CSC
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Figure 10_Conceptual Map_Catbird.mxd1 inch = 150 feet
Remove existing c ulv ert and replace with new culvert
Re a ch Mitigation Type Propose d Le ngth (LF)Mitia tion Ra tio SMUs
DS1 (Uppe r)Res toration 288 1 : 1.0 288
DS1 (Low e r)Res toration 661 1 : 1.0 661
DS2-A Enhanc ement II 78 1 : 2.5 31DS2-B (Uppe r)Res toration 526 1 : 1.0 526DS2-B (Middle )Enhanc ement II 159 1 : 2.5 64DS2-B (Low er)Res toration 512 1 : 1.0 512Total2,224 2,082
Ca tbird Mitiga tion Site Cre dits

Appendix A - Plan Sheets

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 HERE XX
X
X XXX LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LC
E
LCELCELCE LCEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_COVER.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usRESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC302 JEFFERSON ST, SUITE 110RALEIGH, NC 27605VICINITY MAPNTSOCTOBER 2018YADKIN 01 RIVER BASIN: HUC 03040101DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINACATBIRD SITEAFMBRCAFMBPB0386-PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/9/2018 PROJECT LOCATIONDMS PROJECT #:CONTRACT #:USACE ACTION ID #:RFP #:1000227186SAW-2017-0150616-006993SITE MAPNTSREACH DS2REACH DS1Sheet List TableSheet NumberSheet Title-COVERA1OVERALL PROJECTE1NOTESE2EXISTING CONDITIONSS1REACH DS1S2REACH DS1S3REACH DS2S4REACH DS2S5REACH DS2P1PLANTING PLANM1MONITORING PLAND1DETAILSD2DETAILSD3DETAILSD4DETAILSD5DETAILSD6DETAILSD7DETAILSS5S4S3 S1S2
© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS TBTBTBTB TB
TBTBTBTB TB
TB TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB TBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
T
B
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
TBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCELCELCELC
E
1002001000FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usDAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
OVERALL PROJECT
CATBIRD SITE
AFMBRCAFMBPB0386A1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/09/2018REACH DS2RESTORATIONREACH DS1RESTORATIONS5S4S3 S1S2REACH DS2ENHANCEMENT IIREACH DS2RESTORATIONREACH DS2ENHANCEMENT II
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/9/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONE10386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
NOTES
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA LEGENDTBBBXEXISTING TREELINELCELIMITS OF PROPOSEDCONSERVATION EASEMENT50465042EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY LINEPROPOSED TOP OF BANKEXISTING FENCELINEEXISTING BOTTOM OF BANKEXISTING TOP OF BANKPROPOSED CONTOUR MINORPROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOREXISTING CONTOUR MINOREXISTING CONTOUR MAJOREXISTING WETLANDPROPOSED CHANNEL PLUG(SEE DETAIL DWG D2)LOG TOE(SEE DETAIL D2)LOG SILL(PROFILE)PROPOSED FILL AREADOUBLE LOG DROP(SEE DETAIL D4)PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNELEXISTING TREEEXISTING STREAMTBTBBBBBCONSTRUCTION NOTES:1.INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS DESCRIBED IN THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN ANDNOTES. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE PHASED-IN TO THOSE AREAS OF THE PROJECTCURRENTLY BEING WORKED ON. THE CONTRACTOR MAY MODIFY OR RELOCATE EROSIONCONTROL MEASURES TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR UNFORESEEN FIELD CONDITIONS SO LONGAS PROPER CONSTRUCTION IS MAINTAINED TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY AND USEFULNESS OF THEPROPOSED MEASURES. ALL DISTURBED AREAS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS SHALL BE STABILIZEDWITH TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH AT THE END OF EACH DAY.2.IN GENERAL, STREAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL PROCEED FROM AN UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAMDIRECTION.3.EXISTING WETLANDS CANNOT BE ENCROACHED UPON UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IF NOTAPPROVED AS DESIGNATED IMPACT AREAS. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING MUST BE PLACED AROUNDALL EXISTING WETLANDS THAT ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND/ORARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT.4.DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE ENDOF EACH WORKING DAY.5.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, FILL MATERIAL GENERATED FROM CHANNEL EXCAVATION ANDSTABILIZATION SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE THE EXISTING CHANNEL TO BE ABANDONED AT ANELEVATION THAT PROVIDES POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THE PROPOSED CHANNEL.6.STOCKPILE AREAS MAY BE RELOCATED UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. SILT FENCINGMUST BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL STOCKPILE AREAS.7.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS OR TREES TO REMAIN, AND SHALLNOT DAMAGE SUCH TREES IN ANY WAY. EXCAVATED OR OTHER MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED,PILED OR STORED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AREA OF THE TREES TO BE SAVED. ANYCOMPROMISED TREES NOT USED IN CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OFOFF SITE.8.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT PROPOSED RIFFLES PER SHEET D7.9.IN-STREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS (BRUSH TOES,LOG VANES, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PERAPPROVAL FROM DESIGNER.10.THE WORK TO RESHAPE THE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE PERFORMED USING EQUIPMENT WORKINGFROM THE TOP OF THE EXISTING STREAM BANK, WHERE POSSIBLE.11.CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN THE ACTIVE CHANNEL TO PERFORMWORK IF POSSIBLE. PLATFORMS SHOULD BE USED TO CROSS CHANNEL WHERE ACCESS IS NOTPOSSIBLE.12.NO MORE CHANNEL SHALL BE DISTURBED THAN CAN BE STABILIZED BY THE END OF THE WORKDAY OR PRIOR TO RESTORING FLOW TO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL SEGMENTS.13.CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL DEVICES ONCE CONSTRUCTION ISCOMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED. A MAXIMUM OF 200 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM MAY BEDISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME.14.ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE PLACED WITHIN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS.15.AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE EXISTING CHANNEL IS BEING MAINTAINED, TEMPORARY PUMPAROUND DAMS AND BYPASS PUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE-WATER THE WORK AREA ASDESCRIBED IN THE DETAILS.16.WHEN THE PROPOSED CHANNEL HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION, ALLTEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL ANDNORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATEDSPOILS AREAS PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY PUMP AROUND DAM.17.AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH ROCK STRUCTURES, BOULDER TOE STABILIZATION, AND LOG TOESTABILIZATION ARE CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS, TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS AND BYPASSPUMPING WILL BE USED TO DE-WATER THE WORK AREA, EXCEPT AT LOCATIONS IN WHICH THENORMAL FLOW CAN BE DIVERTED AROUND THE WORK AREA WITH THE USE OF AN EXISTINGCHANNEL. WHEN THE TOE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED TO RESTRAIN EROSION ALLTEMPORARY COFFER DAMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE STREAM CHANNEL ANDNORMAL FLOW RESTORED. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN DESIGNATEDSPOILS AREA PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY COFFER DAM.18.MATERIAL THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE STREAM WILL BE RE-DEPOSITED OUTSIDE OF THE ACTIVECHANNEL AND ITS FLOODPLAIN.19.TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF ALL DISTURBED GRASSED AREAS AT THE TOP OFTHE CHANNEL BANKS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEEDING AND MULCHING SPECIFICATIONAS SHOWN ON PLANS.20.RE-FERTILIZE AND RE-SEED DISTURBED AREAS IF NECESSARY.21.TEMPORARY AND/OR PERMANENT IMPACTS TO EXISTING WETLANDS SHALL BE AVOIDED TO THEEXTENT POSSIBLE. HIGH VISIBILITY FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL EXISTINGWETLANDS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND/OR ADJACENT TO ANY CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES.STREAM CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:1.CONDUCT PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING INCLUDING OWNER, ENGINEER, ASSOCIATEDCONTRACTORS, NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL, AND OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES.CONTACT NCDEQ EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL AT 919-791-4200.2.OBTAIN EROSION CONTROL PERMIT FROM NCDENR - LAND QUALITY SECTION AND ALL OTHERAPPROVALS NECESSARY TO BEGIN AND COMPLETE THE PROJECT.3.CONTRACTOR IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL APPROPRIATE PARTIES ANDASSURING THAT UTILITIES ARE LOCATED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION.CALL NC ONE-CALL (PREVIOUSLY ULOCO) AT 1-800-632-4949 FOR UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONAND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.4.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, STABILIZED GRAVEL ENTRANCE/EXIT AND ROUTES OF INGRESS ANDEGRESS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND DETAILS. MAINTAIN EXISTINGDRIVEWAY OVERTOPPING ELEVATION / PROFILE.5.PREPARE STAGING AND STOCKPILING AREAS IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTIONPLANS OR AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ANY EXCESS SPOIL FROM STREAM CONSTRUCTIONSHALL BE USED TO CONSTRUCT CHANNEL PLUGS AS SHOWN ON PLANS.6.INSTALL PUMP AROUND APPARATUS AND IMPERVIOUS DIKES AT UPSTREAM END OF PROJECT.AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES, MOVE PUMP AROUND OPERATION DOWNSTREAM. (SEEDETAILS ON SHEET D1)7.INSTALL SILT FENCE, TEMPORARY CROSSINGS AND ALL OTHER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ASSHOWN ON PLANS.8.CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TODOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.9.ROUGH GRADING OF CHANNEL SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.10.INSTALL STRUCTURES AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DETAILS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING, OBTAINAPPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.11.UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATSALONG CHANNEL BANKS.12.FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF THEENGINEER.13.ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM ATTHE END OF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL.14.DURING STREAM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE WORK AREA SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE ENDOF EACH WORKING DAY.15.INSTALL LIVE STAKE, BARE ROOT, AND CONTAINERIZED PLANTINGS AS SPECIFIED ON PLANTINGPLANS.DOUBLE LOG DROP(PROFILE)ROCK SILL(SEE DETAIL D3)ROCK STEP POOL(SEE DETAIL D6)ROCK SILL/ CROSS-VANE /STEP POOL(PROFILE)BRUSH TOE PROTECTION(SEE DETAIL D2)SEDIMENT TRAP(SEE DETAIL D3)LOG VANE(SEE DETAIL D3)CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE(SEE DETAIL D6)ROCK CROSS VANE(SEE DETAIL D6)
XXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X XXXXX
XBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BB BB
BB
BBBB BB BB BBBB
B
B
BB
BB
B
B
BB
BB
BBB
B
BBBB
BB
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
B
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBB BBBBBB
BB BB
BB BBBB BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTB TB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB TB TB
TB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBT
B
TB TB
TB TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
T
B
TB TBTB
TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
B
TB
TB
TBTB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
T
BTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE
LC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCELCELCELCELC
E
LCE80160800FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usDAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CATBIRD SITE
AFMBRCAFMBPB0386E2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/09/2018REACH DS2REACH DS1
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBB
B
BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCE0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+
0
0
5+506+006+507+00M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

6
+
0
0
S
2 S1S2S3S5S6S7S8S9S38S40S41S4420' of 36" RCP @ 1.00%SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7457507557607657457507557607650+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00-1.88%-1.70%-1.70%-1.70%-1.70%-1.70%-1.70%S1S2S7S6S5S3S44(STA 00+56)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
(STA 04+07)
(STA 04+37)
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
BREAK
3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DS1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/09/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS10386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
REACH DS1
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.3'0.95'4.5'0.7'2.9'1.3'4.9'1.0'1.0'1.3'2.9'4.9'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH DS1 STA 01+04 TO STA 07+00EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKEXISTING TOPOF BANKREACH DS1RESTORATIONSTA. 01+19 TO 04+07REACH DS1RESTORATIONSTA. 04+37 TO 10+98REMOVE EXISTING24" MP & DISPOSE OFFSITE
X X X
XXXXXBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBB BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTB TBTB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
T
B
TBTBTBT
BTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE4+505+00 5+506+006+507+00 7+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0012
+
0
0
12
+
5
0
13+0013+50
14+00S1MATCH LINE 6+00S6S7S8S9S12S13S14S15S26S27S36S37S39S41S42S43S44SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'7357407457507557357407457507556+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+50-1.70%-1.70%-1.70%-1.70%-1.70%-1.70%-1.70%S13S14S12S15S9S83060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DS1.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/09/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS20386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
REACH DS1
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.3'0.95'4.5'0.7'2.9'1.3'4.9'1.0'1.0'1.3'2.9'4.9'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH DS1 STA 01+04 TO STA 07+00EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTIE REACH DS1 INTO PROPOSEDBED OF REACH DS2EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLEDSEE DETAIL SHEET D3REACH DS1RESTORATIONSTA. 04+37 TO 10+98EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLEDSEE DETAIL SHEET D3REACH DS2RESTORATIONSTA. 08+77 TO 13+66TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.5'1.1'5.2'0.8'3.4'1.5'5.7'1.2'1.2'1.5'3.4'5.7'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH DS1 STA 07+90 TO STA 10+98
0+00 0+50 1+001+502+002+503+003+
5
0
4+004+505+005+506+006+50
7+007+50M
A
T
C
H

L
I
N
E

6
+
0
0
S
4 S16S17S18S19S20S21S22S28S31S32S46S47XXXX XXXXXBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'7607707807908007607707807908000+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00-2.01%-2.00%-2.00%-2.00%-2.00%-2.00%-2.00%-2.01%-2.01%-0.85%S16S17S18S19S20S21S22(STA 00+09)LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT S47S463060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DS2.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/09/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS30386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
REACH DS2
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.4'0.85'4.5'0.7'2.9'1.3'4.9'1.0'1.0'1.3'2.9'4.9'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH DS2 STA 02+91 TO STA 06+90EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKEXISTING TOPOF BANKREACH DS2RESTORATIONSTA. 01+58 TO 06+96REACH DS2ENHANCEMENT IISTA. 00+92 TO 01+58
10+505+005+506+00 6+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+00S3MATCH LINE 6+00MATCH LINE 11+01
S5
S14S20S21S22S24S25S26S27S28S29S32S33S34S35S36S37S48X X X X
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBB
B
BBBBBBBB
BB
BB
BBBBBBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'7407507607707807407507607707806+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+00-2.00%-1.75%-1.80%S24S28S29S483060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DS2.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/09/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS40386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
REACH DS2
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.4'0.85'4.5'0.7'2.9'1.3'4.9'1.0'1.0'1.3'2.9'4.9'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH DS2 STA 02+91 TO STA 06+90EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTIE REACH DS2 INTOEXISTING/PROPOSED BED OFREACH DS2EXISTING TOPOF BANKTIE REACH DS2 INTOEXISTING/PROPOSED BED OFREACH DS2PROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKEXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLEDSEE DETAIL SHEET D3REACH DS2RESTORATIONSTA. 08+77 TO 13+66REACH DS2RESTORATIONSTA. 01+58 TO 06+96REACH DS2ENHANCEMENT IISTA. 06+96 TO 08+77TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.5'1.1'5.2'0.8'3.4'1.5'5.7'1.2'1.2'1.5'3.4'5.7'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH DS2 STA 08+70 TO STA 13+60
9+50
10
+
0
0
10+50
11+009+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+00S4MATCH LINE 11+01S14S15S24S25S26S27S29S33S34S35S36S37S39X
X
X
X
XBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTB
T
B
TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'73074075076077073074075076077011+0011+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+50-1.75%-1.75%-1.75%-1.75%S25S26S27(STA 13+60)
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT S373060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DS2.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/09/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS50386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
REACH DS2
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA EXISTING GRADE ALONGSTREAM CENTERLINEPROPOSED CHANNELBED SLOPEPROPOSED TOPOF BANKTIE REACH DS2 INTOEXISTING/PROPOSED BED OFREACH DS2EXISTING TOPOF BANKEXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLEDSEE DETAIL SHEET D3REACH DS2RESTORATIONSTA. 08+77 TO 13+66REACH DS1RESTORATIONSTA. 04+37 TO 10+98EXISTING CHANNEL TO BEABANDONED AND BACKFILLEDSEE DETAIL SHEET D3TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.5'1.1'5.2'0.8'3.4'1.5'5.7'1.2'1.2'1.5'3.4'5.7'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH DS2 STA 08+70 TO STA 13+60
XXXX
X
X
X
X X X XXXXXBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
BBBBBBBB
B
B
BBB
B
BBBBBBBBBB
BB
BB BBBBBB
BB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTB TB
TBTBTBTB TB
TB TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB TBTBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTB TB TB TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
TBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCELCELCELCE
1002001000FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usDAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PLANTING PLAN
CATBIRD SITE
AFMBRCAFMBPB0386P1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/09/2018REACH DS2REACH DS1PLANTING NOTESALL PLANTING AREAS1.EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATIONIS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECTEROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES AREFUNCTIONING PROPERLY.2.DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BEESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.3.ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR SPRING-TOOTHCHISEL PLOW TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSSPLANTING AREAS WITH THE IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHICCONTOURS.4.BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. LIVESTAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2.5.TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN 6" DBH SHALLBE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.6.SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO 6 PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES AREGROUPED TOGETHER.7.BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.8.LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTHBANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.9.TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREASWITH SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1.10.PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.11.PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THECONSERVATION EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE. PLANTING LEGENDLive Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionSilky dogwoodCornus amomum40%Black willowSalix nigra60%PLANTING TABLEPermanent Riparian Seed MixCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionVirginia WildryeElymus virginicus25%Indian GrassSorghastrum nutans25%Little Blue StemSchi]achyrium scoparium10%Soft RushJuncus effusus10%Blackeyed susanRudbeckia hirta10%DeertongueDichanthelium clandestinum10%Common MilkweedAsclepias syriaca5%Showy GoldenrodSolidago erecta5%LIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTLCEBare Root Planting Tree SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionWater OakQuercus nigra15%Willow OakQuercus phellos15%River BirchBetula nigra15%American SycamorePlatanas occidentalis15%Northern Red OakQuercus rubra10%Green AshFraxinus pennsylvanica10%Yellow PoplarLiriodendron tulipifera10%PersimmonDiospyros virginiana5%Black GumNyssa biflora5%EXISTING TREELINEPROPERTY LINERIPARIAN PLANTING(TOTAL AREA: 5.4 AC)
XXXX
X
X
X
X X X XXXXXBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BB
BB B
B
BB BB
B
B
BB BB
B
B
BB
B
B
BB
BB
BB
B
B
B
B
BB
B
B
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
BBBBBBBB
BBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBB
BB
BB BBBBBB
BB BBBBBB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB
B
B
BBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBTB TB
TB TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TB
TBTB
T
B
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCE
LC
E
LC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCELCELCELC
E
1002001000FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_SITE.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.usDAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MONITORING PLAN
CATBIRD SITE
AFMBRCAFMBPB0386M1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/09/2018REACH DS2REACH DS1LEGENDVPPROPOSED VEGETATION PLOT(AREA: 0.02 AC)PROPOSED CREST GAUGERIPARIAN PLANTINGLIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROPOSED CROSS SECTIONLOCATIONSLCEPROPOSED FLOW GAUGEVPVPVPVPVP
WHEN AND WHERE TO USE ITSILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE IN AREAS:WHERE THE MAXIMUM SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH LENGTH TO THE FENCE IS 100-FEET.WHERE THE MAXIMUM SLOPE STEEPNESS (NORMAL [PERPENDICULAR] TO FENCE LINE) IS 2H:1V.THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CONCENTRATED FLOWS GREATER THAN 0.5 CFS.DO NOT PLACE SILT FENCE ACROSS CHANNELS OR USE IT AS A VELOCITY CONTROL BMP.CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:1.USE A SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC OF AT LEAST 95% BY WEIGHT OF POLYOLEFINS OR POLYESTER, WHICH ISCERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM D 6461.SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY INHIBITORS AND STABILIZERS TO PROVIDE AMINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS OF EXPECTED USABLE CONSTRUCTION LIFE AT A TEMPERATURE RANGE OF 0° TO 120°F.2.ENSURE THAT POSTS FOR SEDIMENT FENCES ARE 1.33 LB/LINEAR FT STEEL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 FEET.MAKE SURE THAT STEEL POSTS HAVE PROJECTIONS TO FACILITATE FASTENING THE FABRIC.CONSTRUCTION:1.CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENT BARRIER OF EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRICS.2.ENSURE THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SEDIMENT FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUNDSURFACE. (HIGHER FENCES MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE OF THESTRUCTURE.)3.CONSTRUCT THE FILTER FABRIC FROM A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOIDJOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER CLOTH ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST WITH 4FEET MINIMUM OVERLAP TO THE NEXT POST.4.EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC WITH 6 FEET POST SPACING DOES NOT REQUIRE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE.SECURELY FASTEN THE FILTER FABRIC DIRECTLY TO POSTS. WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM50 POUND TENSILE STRENGTH.5.EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES WIDE AND 8 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE PROPOSED LINE OFPOSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER.6.PLACE 12 INCHES OF THE FABRIC ALONG THE BOTTOM AND SIDE OF THE TRENCH.7.BACKFILL THE TRENCH WITH SOIL PLACED OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT. THOROUGH COMPACTIONOF THE BACKFILL IS CRITICAL TO SILT FENCE PERFORMANCE.8.DO NOT ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO EXISTING TREES.MAINTENANCE:INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRSIMMEDIATELY.SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE ITPROMPTLY.REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND TOREDUCE PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND STABILIZEIT AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.8"4"24" MIN
24" MIN
8"RUNOFFRUNOFF18" TO 24"FLAT-BOTTOM TRENCH DETAILV-SHAPED TRENCH DETAILSILT FENCE INSTALLATION18" TO 24"TEMPORARY SILT FENCENTSCOIR MATTINGNTSINSTALLATION NOTES:SITE PREPARATION1.GRADE AND COMPACT AREA.2.REMOVE ALL ROCKS, CLODS, VEGETATION, AND OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT MATTING WILLHAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL.3.PREPARE SEEDBED BY LOOSENING 3 TO 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL ABOVE FINAL GRADE.4.TEST SOILS FOR ANY NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND SUBMIT SOIL TEST RESULTS TO THEENGINEER. APPLY ANY TREATMENT SUCH AS LIME OR FERTILIZERS TO THE SOIL IF NEEDED.SEEDING1.SEE PLANTING SHEETS FOR SEEDING REQUIREMENTS.2.APPLY SEED TO SOIL BEFORE PLACING MATTING.INSTALLATION - STREAM BANK1.SEE GRADING NOTES ON PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS AND DETAIL SHEETS FORINFORMATION REGARDING WHAT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE COIR MATTING.2.OVERLAP ADJACENT MATS 3" (IN DIRECTION PARALLEL TO FLOW) AND ANCHOR EVERY 12"ACROSS THE OVERLAP. THE UPSTREAM MAT SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE DOWNSTREAMMAT.3.EDGES SHOULD BE SHINGLED AWAY FROM THE FLOW OF WATER.4.LAY MAT LOOSE TO ALLOW CONTACT WITH SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH TIGHT.5.ANCHOR MAT USING BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINS.6.CUT 8" x 8" TRENCH ALONG TOP OF BANK FOR MAT TERMINATION AS SHOWN IN FIGURES 1& 2. EXTEND MAT 2 TO 3 FEET PAST TOP OF BANK.7.PLACE ADJACENT ROLLS IN THE ANCHOR TRENCH WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OVERLAP.SECURE WITH BIODEGRADABLE STAKES OR PINES, BACKFILL ANCHOR TRENCH, ANDCOMPACT SOIL.8.STAPLE AT 12" INTERVALS ALONG OVERLAP.9.STREAM BANK MATTING TO BE INSTALLED FROM TOE OF BANK TO A MINIMUM OF 2.0'PAST TOP OF BANK. SEE FIGURE 3 FOR TERMINATION AT TOP OF BANK.10.IF MORE THAN ROLL IS REQUIRED TO COVER THE CHANNEL FROM THE TOP OF BANK DOWNTO THE TOE, THEN OVERLAP MATTING BY A MINIMUM OF 1'.EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST MEET OR EXCEED THEFOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:·100 % COCONUT FIBER (COIR) TWINE WOVEN INTO AHIGH STRENGTH MATRIX.·THICKNESS - 0.35 IN. MINIMUM.·SHEAR STRESS – 5 LBS/SQFT·FLOW VELOCITY- OBSERVED 16 FT/SEC·WEIGHT - 29 OZ/SY·OPEN AREA - 38%·SLOPES – UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 1:1SEE S
ITE
P
LAN EXIST
ING
ROAD50' MIN.VARIES COARSE AGGREGATE -STONE SIZE = 2"-3"PURPOSE:STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE USED AT ALL POINTS WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE LEAVING ACONSTRUCTION SITE AND MOVING DIRECTLY ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD.CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:1.CLEAR THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREA OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL ANDPROPERLY GRADE IT.2.PLACE THE GRAVEL TO THE SPECIFIC GRADE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE DETAIL, AND SMOOTH IT.3.PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO CARRY WATER TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET.4.USE GEOTEXTILE FABRICS BECAUSE THEY IMPROVE STABILITY OF THE FOUNDATION IN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TOSEEPAGE OR HIGH WATER TABLE.MAINTENANCE:MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE. AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTUREUSED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALSSPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS, OR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS.TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCENTSNOTE: HOSE SHOULD BEKEPT OUTSIDE OF WORKAREANOTES:1.EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY IN DRY AND/OR ISOLATED SECTIONS OFCHANNEL.2.IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAMFLOW.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED INONE WORKING DAY. A MAXIMUM OF 200 FEET MAY BE DISTURBED AT ANY ONETIME.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING PUMP SIZESUFFICIENT TO PUMP BASE FLOW.5.DIKE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-ERODIBLE MATERIALS SUCH AS SANDBAGS.SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:1.INSTALL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED OUTFALL USING CLASS A RIP RAP AT THEDOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARYPIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK AREATO THE STABILIZED OUTFALL.3.INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FORSTREAM DIVERSION.4.INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND DEWATERING PUMPINGAPPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSEFOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA.THIS WATER WILL ALSO BE PUMPED TO AN OUTFALL STABILIZED WITH CLASS A RIPRAP.5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFOREREMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS DIKE. WHEN DEWATERING AREA, ALL DIRTY WATERMUST BE PUMPED THROUGH A SILT BAG. REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES, PUMPS,AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE/PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKEFIRST.6.ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE ALL RIP RAP AND IMPERVIOUSDIKES AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH.7.ALL WORK IN CHANNEL MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE REMOVING IMPERVIOUS DIKE.SILT BAG PROFILE15' TO 20'FLOWINTAKE HOSEPUMP AROUNDPUMPCLASS ASTONEWORKAREADE-WATERINGPUMPIMPERVIOUSDIKESILT BAGLOCATIONSTABILIZED OUTFALLCLASS A STONEFILTER FABRICEXISTINGGROUNDDISCHARGEHOSE8" OF CLASS ASTONEFILTER FABRICSTABILIZEDOUTFALL CLASS ASTONEEXISTINGCHANNELDISCHARGE HOSEIMPERVIOUS DIKECLASS ASTONEPUMP AROUND & DEWATERING DETAILNTSSECTION B-BFLOWSECTION A-APLANFLOWCLASS I AND II RIPRAPSPILLWAY CREST1' MIN OF # 5WASHED STONECLASS I AND IIRIP RAPFILTER FABRICGENERAL NOTES:1.CONSTRUCT DAM ACCORDING TO NCDENR EROSION CONTROLMANUAL.2.ROCK DAM RIPRAP SHALL BE 50/50 MIX OF CLASS I AND II.3.PLACE ROCK DAM AS SHOWN ON PLANS. EXTEND CLASS B RIPRAP ROCK APRON 5 FEET DOWNSTREAM FROM TOE OF ROCKDAM.1.5' THICK CLASSB ROCK APRON1.5' THICK CLASSB ROCK APRONCUTOFF TRENCHFILTERFABRIC# 5 WASHED STONETEMPORARY ROCK CHECK DAMNTSFLOWSECTION A-ANOTE: END OF DIKE AT GROUND LEVEL TO BEHIGHER THAN THE LOWEST POINT OF FLOW CHECK.SUFFICIENT SANDBAGS ARE TO BE PLACED TOPREVENT SCOURING.SECTION B-BBBAAPLAN VIEWSANDBAG BARRIERS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THREE LAYERS OF SANDBAGS.THE BOTTOM LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 3 ROWS OF BAGS, THE MIDDLE LAYERSHALL CONSIST OF 2 ROWS OF BAGS AND THE TOP LAYER SHALL CONSIST OF 1ROW OF BAGS. THE RECOMMENDED DIMENSION OF A FILLED SANDBAG SHALL BEAPPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT X 0.5 FT X 1.5 FT.SANDBAG IMPERVIOUS DIKENTS1
.
0
'MIN.KEY-IN MATTING PERFIG. 1 OR FIG. 2FLOW18"FLOWSTEP 1STEP 2FLOWSTEP 1STEP 2FLOW1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 18"O.C1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 12"O.C1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 24"O.CFIGURE 1FIGURE 2SOIL PILEFROM TRENCHTRENCH APPROX.8" WIDE X 8" DEEP1 ROW OF STAPLES ORSTAKES, MIN. OF 24"O.CKEY-IN AND/ORSTAKE MATTINGJUST ABOVECHANNEL TOE2.0'MIN.EROSION CONTROL WATTLENTSEXISTINGGRADEMINIMUM 9" EROSIONCONTROL STRAW WATTLEOR COIR WATTLE/LOGNOTE:EROSION CONTROL WATTLES OR COIR LOGS/WATTLES MAY BE USED IN PLACE OFSILT FENCE.SLOPEINSTALL WATTLE IN 3" TO5" TRENCH2" x 1" OR 2" x 2"WOODEN STAKEBACKFILL TRENCH WITHCOMPACTED EARTH1.25 LB./LINEAR FT. STEEL POSTSEXTRA STRENGTHFILTER FABRICUSE EITHER FLAT-BOTTOMOR V-BOTTOM TRENCHSHOWN BELOWBURY FABRICHEAVY DUTY PLASTIC TIEFOR STEEL POSTS6' MAX WITH STANDARD FABRICFILTER FABRICCOMPACTEDEARTHFILTER FABRICFILTER FABRICCOMPACTEDEARTHRUNOFFFILTERFABRICTRENCH APPROX.8" WIDE x 8" DEEPSOIL PILEFROM TRENCHSOIL FILLEDFROM SOIL PILE,COMPACT WITH FOOTSOIL FILLEDFROM SOIL PILE,COMPACT WITH FOOTBBAA3:
1
2:12'5' MIN.W (SPILLWAY)MIN. 23 STREAM WIDTH6" MIN.MIDDLE LAYERBOTTOM LAYERTOP LAYEREARTH SURFACETRENCH 0.25' DEEPONLY WHEN PLACED ONEARTH SURFACEENDS OF BAGS INADJACENT ROWS BUTTEDSLIGHTLY TOGETHERSEE NOTELOWEST POINTGROUND LEVELEARTH SURFACE2'2' MIN. BELOWLOWEST BANKLEVELSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/9/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND10386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NOTES:1.LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, 5-8 FEET LONG, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, ANDHARDWOOD.2.CABLE ANCHORS SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3' FROM EACH END OF LOG. REBAR (5/8" MINIMUM DIAMETER3' MIN. LENGTH TYPICAL) MAY BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR CABLE ANCHORS PER DIRECTION OFENGINEER.3.IF REBAR IS USED, PRE-DRILL HOLES WITH 5/8" DRILL BIT.FINISHED GRADE30'FLOWTYPICAL SECTIONLOG TOE PROTECTIONNTSCHANNEL PLUGNTSPLAN VIEWSECTION VIEWPLANTED COIR FIBERROLLNORMAL WATERLEVELDENSE COIR MATTING(ROLANKA BioD-Mat®90 OREQUIVALENT)WOOD STAKEEXISTING BANKPLANTED COIR FIBERROLLWOODSTAKESVEGETATED SILL DEFLECTORNTS2.0' TO 3.0'0.5' TO 1.25'NOTES:1.DESIGNER TO MARK LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OFSILLS IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.2.INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL.TOP OF STAKE SHOULD NOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.3.EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (APPROX 2" DEEP) FORPLACEMENT OF ROLL.BACKFILL AREA BETWEEN BANK AND COIR FIBER ROLL(APPLY PERMANENT SEED MIX & COIR MATING)KEY IN UPSTREAM ENDOF ROLL APPROX 2-4FT INTO BANKNOTES1.INSTALL STAKES ON 3' CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF ROLL. TOP OF STAKE SHOULDNOT EXTEND ABOVE ROLL.2.EXCAVATE A SMALL TRENCH (DEPTH APPROX 1/2 TO 2/3 OF LOG DIAM) FORPLACEMENT OF ROLL.3.COIR LOGS SHALL BE 10 FT LONG AND HAVE A DIAMETER OF 12 IN.COIR LOG (TOE PROTECTION)NTSWOODSTAKESNOTE:1.ACCEPTABLE SPECIES INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA), SILKY WILLOW(SALIX SERICEA) AND SILKY DOGWOOD (CORNUS AMMOMUM).2.LIVE STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED IN AN AREA EXTENDING 3 FEET OUT FROM TOPOF BANK TO JUST BELOW BANKFULL.3.LIVE STAKES SHALL BE SPACED 3 FEET APART, ALTERNATE SPACING.41DETAILLIVE STAKES SHOULD BE LONG ENOUGHTO REACH BELOW THE GROUNDWATERTABLE. (GENERALLY, A LENGTH OF 2 TO 3FEET IS SUFFICIENT.) ADDITIONALLY, THESTAKES SHOULD HAVE A DIAMETER INTHE RANGE OF 0.75 TO 2 INCHES.WATER TABLELIVE STAKENTSDIBBLE PLANTING METHODUSING THE KBC PLANTING BAR1. INSERTPLANTING BAR ASSHOWN AND PULLHANDLE TOWARDPLANTER.4. PULL HANDLE OFBAR TOWARDPLANTER, FIRMINGSOIL AT BOTTOM.2. REMOVEPLANTING BARAND PLACESEEDING ATCORRECT DEPTH.3. INSERTPLANTING BAR 2INCHES TOWARDPLANTER FROMSEEDING.5. PUSHHANDLEFORWARDFIRMING SOILAT TOP.6. LEAVECOMPACTIONHOLE OPEN.WATERTHOROUGHLY.PLANTING NOTES:PLANTING BAGDURING PLANTING, SEEDLINGS SHALLBE KEPT IN A MOIST CANVAS BAG ORSIMILAR CONTAINER TO PREVENT THEROOT SYSTEMS FROM DRYING.KBC PLANTING BARPLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A BLADEWITH A TRIANGULAR CROSS SECTION,AND SHALL BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH THICK ATCENTER.ROOT PRUNINGALL SEEDLINGS SHALL BE ROOTPRUNED, IF NECESSARY, SO THAT NOROOTS EXTEND MORE THAN 10INCHES BELOW THE ROOT COLLAR.NOTES:BARE ROOTS SHALL BE PLANTED 6FT. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER,RANDOM SPACING, AVERAGING 8FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY680 PLANTS PER ACRE.BARE ROOT PLANTINGNTSMAX. 75'EXISTINGCHANNELMIN. 25'FILL TO TOP OFBANKFILL AT LEAST70% OF CHANNELMAX. 75'MIN. 25'NOTES:1.FILL EXISTING CHANNEL TO TOP OF BANK ELEVATION WHEN POSSIBLE.2.CHANNEL MUST BE FILLED IN 12" TO 18" LIFTS,3.IF CHANNEL CANNOT BE COMPLETELY FILLED TO TOP OF BANK, FILL TO TOP OFBANK FOR 25' OUT OF EVERY 100' SEGMENT.CHANNEL BACKFILLNTSOLD CHANNEL TO BEDIVERTED ORABANDONEDNEW CHANNEL TO BECONSTRUCTEDCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" LIFTS)IMPERVIOUS SELECT MATERIAL(PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)10' MINUNCOMPACTED BACKFILL1.5' MINIMUM1111BANKFULL ELEVATION1/4 TO 1/3 OF LOGDIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSEDPRIOR TO FINAL GRADINGPROPOSED BEDMINIMUM OF 2/3 OF LOG DIAMETERBEDDED BELOW EXISTING CHANNEL INVERT10" MINIMUM LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)INSTALL CABLE ANCHOR AS SHOWN. DRILL (OR SAW CUT)PILOT HOLE THROUGH LOG 1/3 TO 1/4 OF THE WAY DOWNSO THAT ANCHOR CABLE IS NOT EXPOSED.BANKFULL ELEVATION1/4 TO 1/3 OF LOGDIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSEDPRIOR TO FINAL GRADINGPROPOSED BEDMINIMUM OF 1/2 TO 2/3 OF LOGDIAMETER BEDDED BELOWCHANNEL INVERT12" LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)CHANNEL PLUG30' MIN.BANKFULL ELEVATIONNEW CHANNEL BANK SHALLBE TREATED AS SPECIFIEDIN PLANSPROPOSEDCHANNEL INVERTLOG TOE OR COIR LOGFLOWBOTTOM OFEXISTING CHANNELEXISTING CHANNELTOP OF BANKCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" TO 18" LIFTS)COIR FIBERMATTINGFLAT TOP ENDLATERAL BUDSIDE BRANCHREMOVED ATSLIGHT ANGLE45 DEGREETAPERED BUTT END0.5' TO 1.5'18" MIN.0.75" TO 2"1' MIN.COIR FIBERMATTING2"PLAN VIEWSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/9/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND20386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LOG VANENTSFOOTER LOGLEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTBALLAST BOULDEROR DUCKBILL ANCHORSPOOLHEADER LOGBANKFULLVARIES
0' TO 0.8'3% TO 7%BANKFULLHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGSTREAM BEDIN POOLVARIES0' TO 12 WIDTHFLOWSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBALLAST BOULDEROR DUCK BILL ANCHORSPOOLFLOWLOG VANENON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)STREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBANKFULL1/2 WIDTHFLOWFLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")MIN 4.0'LEFT OR RIGHT VANEARM BANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTNOTES1.LOG VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE OR MORE LOGS HELD IN PLACE BY EITHER BALLAST BOULDERS, DUCKBILLANCHORS, OR REBAR. LOGS SHALL BE OF A LENGTH AND DIAMETER SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER AND BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHTHARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED. THE LENGTH SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE LOG IS BURIED INTO THE SOIL OF THE STREAMBANK (ON ONE END) AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT-SIDED BALLAST BOULDERSSHALL BE OF SIZE 2' X 2' X 1.5' OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.2.THE VANE SHALL INTERCEPT THE STREAM BANK AT A HEIGHT EQUAL TO BETWEEN ½ BANKFULL STAGE AND BANKFULL STAGE. ANELEVATION CONTROL POINT MAY BE ESTABLISHED AT THE LEFT OR RIGHT STREAM BANK/VANE INTERCEPT POINT. THE VANEINTERCEPT LOCATION MAY BE OTHERWISE DESCRIBED BY ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BANKFULL STAGE OR BY THE LENGTH AND SLOPEOF THE VANE ARM. BANKFULL IS NOT NECESSARILY THE TOP OF THE STREAM BANK SLOPE.3.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOGS AND UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL OF THEVANE. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED TUCKED, OR TRIMMED ASNEEDED.4.LOG VANES SHALL BE BUILT TYPICALLY AS FOLLOWS:A.OVER-EXCAVATE STREAM BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE HEADER (AND FOOTER IF SPECIFIED)LOGS.B.PLACE FOOTER LOG OF THE VANE ARM IF SPECIFIED. THE SLOPE OF THE VANE ARM IS MEASURED ALONG THE VANE ARMWHICH IS INSTALLED AT AN ANGLE TO THE STREAM BANK AND PROFILE.C.INSTALL HEADER LOG OF THE VANE ARM ON TOP OF AND SLIGHTLY FORWARD OR BACK FROM THE FOOTER LOG.D.NAIL FILTER FABRIC TO THE HEADER LOG USING A GALVANIZED NAIL WITH A PLASTIC CAP. THE SIZE AND GAGE OF NAILAND NAIL SPACING SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.E.PLACE BALLAST BOULDERS OR DUCKBILL ANCHOR ON THE VANE.F.PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND LOGS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE LOGS ARE FILLED.G.BACKFILL REMAINDER OF VANE WITH PREVIOUSLY EXCAVATED MATERIAL.5.IF ANY EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS SPECIFIED FOR USE IN THE VICINITY OF THE STREAM BANK/VANE INTERCEPT POINT THEMATTING EDGES SHALL BE NEATLY SECURED AROUND THE LOGS.SECTION A-A PLAN VIEWPROFILE VIEW20° TO 30°TYPICAL PLAN VIEWCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKCOIR MATTINGF
LOW
BRUSH TOENTSSECTION A-ASMALL LOGS AND/ORLARGE BRANCHES WITH AMIN DIAMETER OF 4"SMALL BRANCHESAND BRUSHCOMPACTED SOILTOP OF BANKLIVE STAKESNOTES1.OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACELARGER BRANCHES AND/OR APPROPRIATELY SIZED LOGS IN ACRISS-CROSS PATTERN. LOCK IN PLACE WITH FILL COVERING 6IN TO 18 IN OF THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.2.PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGERBRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) ANDCOMPACT LIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TOLOCK IN PLACE.3.ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES A INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW(SALIX NIGRA) AND SILKY WILLOW (SALIX SERICEA). WILLOWCUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSED AT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOWBETTER ROOTING.4.INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTEDSOIL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.5.INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVECUTTINGS LAYER PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH1/4 MAX POOL DEPTHLIVE CUTTINGSNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DWG D1MIN 2.0'AAAASCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/9/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND30386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA NTSROCK SILLNOTESLIVE STAKESNOTESSEDIMENT TRAPNTS6"
CHANNEL TOPOF BANKA'APLAN VIEWSECTIONAL VIEW A - A'NOTES:REBAR (1/2" MINIMUM DIAMETER 3' MIN. LENGTHTYPICAL) SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3' FROM END OFLOG. ADDITIONAL REBAR TO BE PLACED AT 6'OFFSETS. LAST REBAR SHOULD BE PLACED 1' TO 3'FROM END OF LOG. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BEUSED AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR REBAR, 2 PER LOG.ALTERNATIVELY, APPROPRIATELY SIZED BOULDERSMAY BE USED TO ANCHOR SILL LOGS PER DIRECTIONOF THE ENGINEER.FLOODPLAIN SILLNTSNTSLOG SILLSECTION A-ASECTION B-B (OPT 1)FLOWCOARSE BACKFILLCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKTYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 1)AABBFLOWREBAR OR DUCKBILLANCHORREBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) ORDUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PERMANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)COIR MATTINGPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDTACK FABRICTO LOGMIN. 5.0'HEADER LOGFOOTER LOG5.0'MINBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (1" TO 5" DIA.)POOLPOOL APPROX.0.75' TO 1.5' DEEPBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (1" TO 5" DIA.)DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURENTSSECTION A-A0.5% SLOPE(MAX)AAFLOW
VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO 40')VARIES (TYPICALLY 20' TO 40')NOTES:1.NO FLOODPLAIN GRADING IS ALLOWED WITHIN 10 FT OFTHE PROPOSED CHANNEL TOP OF BANK.2.LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10'-20' LONG AND AT LEAST 8INCHES IN DIAMETER, AND HARDWOOD.PLAN VIEWFLOWLOG STRUCTURE(SEE DETAIL)PROPOSEDLIMITSOF GRADINGGRADE AREA SUCH THATMAX SLOPE BELOW LOGSTRUCTURE IS 1%FILL DITCH SUCH THATTHE DOWNSTREAMELEVATION TIES INTOEXISTING GRADE OF THEFLOODPLAINPROPOSED CONSERVATIONEASEMENT LIMITSEXISTING DITCHBANKEXISTING DITCHTOP OF BANKEXISTINGDITCH INVERTPROPOSED GRADEEXISTING GRADETIE-IN TOEXISTINGFLOODPLAINELEVATIONFILL DITCH ANDINSTALL COIRMATTINGSECTION B-BEXISTINGGROUND3:1 MAX SLOPE3:1 MAXSLOPEFILL DITCHCUTBBCONSTRUCTPOOLINSTALL COIR MATTING PERMANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONS1% TO 3%HIGHLOWROOTWAD ORBRUSHTOE1% TO 3%HIGHLOWNOTES:1.LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLYHARVESTED.2.LOG DIMENSIONS:MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'ALONG THE LOG3.DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR.CHANNEL TOPOF BANKTYPICAL PLAN VIEW (OPT 2)AABBFLOW5.0'MINPOOL1% TO 3%HIGHLOWROOTWAD ORBRUSHTOEHIGH
LOW
SECTION B-B (OPT 2)PROPOSED STREAM BANKHEADER LOGFOOTER LOG1% TO 3%HIGHLOWOVERLAP OFDOWNSTREAM LOGREBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) ORDUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PERMANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)COARSE BACKFILLCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKFILTER FABRICMIN. 4.0'NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)MINIMUMDIAMETER 12"6'REBARLOGS5'LENGTH VARIESDOWNVALLEY5/8" REBARPROPOSED FLOODPLAINSURFACE5'6" (TYP.)BANKFULL LIMITS OFPROPOSED CHANNELSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/9/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND40386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINADOUBLE LOG DROPNTSPROFILE A-A'PLAN VIEWBANKFULLFOOTERLOGHEADERLOGHIGHLOWLOG BURIED INBANK MIN 5FTLOG BURIED INBANKMIN 5FT4% TO 6%4% TO 6%MIN. 2.5' OFCOVERMIN 5FTMIN 5FTMIN 5FTMIN 5FTPROFILE B-B'PROFILE C-C'OVERLAP OFUPSTREAM LOGOVERLAP OFDOWNSTREAM LOGHIGHHIGHLOWLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")HIGHLOWPOINT REFERENCED INPROFILEPOINT REFERENCED INPROFILE4' TO 8'REBAR OR DUCKBILLANCHORCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")REBAR OR DUCKBILLANCHORPOINT REFERENCEDIN PROFILEPOINT REFERENCEDIN PROFILENON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")TACK FABRIC TOLOGTACK FABRIC TOLOGNOTES:1.LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND RECENTLYHARVESTED.2.LOG DIMENSIONS:MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 15'3.NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5'ALONG THE LOG4.DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBAR.POINT REFERENCED INPROFILEPOINT REFERENCED INPROFILE
LINE PANELWOVEN WIRE:ASTM CLASS 3 GALVANIZED.TOP AND BOTTOM WIRES MIN. 12 GAUGE.INTERMEDIATE AND STAY WIRES MIN.12 1/2 GAUGE.NOTES:1.LINE POSTS (WOODEN): MIN. 4 IN. DIAM. OR 4 IN. SQUARE.2.LINE POSTS (STEEL): STUDDED OR PUNCHED T, U, OR Y SHAPED, WITH ANCHOR PLATES.3.MIN. WEIGHT 1.3 LBS./FT. (EXCLUDING ANCHOR PLATE). POSTS SHALL BE DRIVEN A MINIMUMOF 18" DEEP AND MUST BE AT LEAST 5.5 FT IN LENGTH4.SPECIES AND TREATMENT FOR ALL WOOD: USE UNTREATED DURABLE POSTS OF SPECIESSUCH AS RED CEDAR, BLACK LOCUST OR OSAGE-ORANGE WITH BARK REMOVED, ORNON-DURABLE WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE PRESSURE TREATED (0.40 LBS./CUBIC FOOTCCA, OR EQUIVALENT NON-CCA TREATMENT). DO NOT USE RED PINE.WOVEN WIRE FENCE (NRCS DETAIL 382A)NTSWOVEN WIRE WITH ONE BARB DETAILLINE POSTWOVEN WIREBARBED ORELECTRIC WIRELINE POST16' MAX.BARBED ORELECTRIC WIREWOVEN WIREGROUND LINE4" TO 6"LINE POST3" MIN.32" TO 42"6"6' MIN.2' MIN.SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/9/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND50386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAPROPOSED CULVERT CROSSINGNTSMIN 3'MIN 3'H FYH FYPLAN VIEWSECTION VIEW“”“”COMPOST FILTER SOCK DETAILNTSTYPICAL HAUL ROAD SECTION DETAILNTSTIMBER MAT CROSSINGTIMBER MAT APPROACHTOP OF BANKCLASS B RIP RAPTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPERPENDICULARTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPARALLELTIMBER MAT,TYPICALCARRIAGE BOLTFLOWTOE OF BANK,TYPICALTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPERPENDICULARTOP OF BANKCLASS B RIP RAPCARRIAGE BOLT,TYPICALFILTER FABRICAPPROXIMATE BASE FLOWWATER SURFACE(5' MIN)RIP RAP APPROACHTIMBER MATINSTALLED PARALLELTOE OF BANKPLAN VIEWSECTION VIEWTIMBER MAT TEMPORARY CROSSINGNTSNOTES:1.TIMBER MATS SHALL BE USED FOR TEMPORARYCONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO TRAVERSE WET AND/OR MUDDYARES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AND TO CROSS THESTREAM AND OTHER CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS.2.THE STREAM CROSSING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A DRYCONDITION WHEN FLOW IS LOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMALTO NO DISTURBANCE OF THE CHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS ARESULT OF INSTALLING THE APPROACHES OR CROSSING.3.THE LENGTH OF TIMBER MAT REQUIRED TO CROSS THESTREAM OR CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS SHALL BE SUCHTHAT THE TIMBER MAT EXTENDS PAST THE TOP OF BANK ONEACH SIDE OF THE CROSSING A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TOSUPPORT THE MAXIMUM EQUIPMENT SIZE USING THECROSSING.4.STREAM CROSSINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBERMAT LENGTHS ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE TOPS OFTHE STREAM BANKS. TIMBER MAT STREAM APPROACHESSHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE TIMBER MAT LENGTHSORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE TOPS OF THE STREAM BANKS.5.A 4" MINIMUM HEIGHT SEDIMENT RAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED ATSTREAM CROSSINGS TO PREVENT TRACKED SEDIMENT FROMFALLING INTO THE STREAM BED.6.STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALLBE CONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVERFILTER FABRIC.7.ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BECOMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE CROSSINGIS REMOVED.SEDIMENT RAILMIN HEIGHT = 4"SEDIMENT RAILMIN HEIGHT = 4"
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/9/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND60386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1.STEP POOL ROCKS MUST HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF 12" TO 14" FOR HEADERS AND 14" TO 18" FOR FOOTERS.2.BACKFILL MATERIAL, IF NEEDED TO ESTABLISH A STEP-POOL SUBPAVEMENT AND/OR TO RAISE THE CHANNEL BED DUE TO SCOUR/INCISION, SHALL BE OF ATYPE, SIZE, AND GRADATION AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OFSTEP-POOL MATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.3.STEP-POOL BED MATERIAL SHALL BE OF A TYPE, SIZE, AND GRADATION AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER TO BE MOBILE OR NON-MOBILE AS THECONDITIONS IN THE CHANNEL WARRANT (I.E. – CLEAN-WATER DISCHARGE ENVIRONMENT, HIGH BEDLOAD SYSTEM, ETC.) BED MATERIAL SHALL BEEXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS WHEREVER PRACTICAL. OTHERWISE BED MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLYROUNDED, “RIVER-TYPE” ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHANNEL. LOGS AND OTHER WOODY DEBRIS MAY BEINCORPORATED INTO THE STEP-POOL BED MATERIALS.4.STEP-POOL INVERTS SHALL CONSIST OF BOULDERS OF AN INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF 12" TO 14" AND FOOTERS SHALL HAVE AN INTERMEDIATEDIAMETER OF 14" TO 18". INVERTS SHALL BE SET AT A DROP/RISE FROM THE ADJACENT UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM INVERT TO ACCOMMODATE THEPASSAGE OF FISH. THE INVERTS SHALL FORM THE THALWEG OF THE STEP POOL STRUCTURE. POOLS SHALL BE FORMED BETWEEN THE INVERTS TO THEDIMENSIONS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.5.THE BENCH OF THE STEP-POOL STRUCTURE SHALL BE FORMED BESIDE THE POOL AT THE DIMENSIONS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. THE BENCH SHALL BEFORMED OF STEP-POOL MATERIALS PLACED TO A DEPTH SUCH THAT THEIR SURFACE MATCHES THE STEP-POOL INVERT IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM.6.USE CLASS A AND B RIPRAP TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF STEP POOL ROCKS.7.AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH CLASS A AND B RIPRAP TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OFTHE HEADER ROCK.8.FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS FOR NCDOT WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.STEP POOLNTSHEADER AND FOOTERBOULDERSPOOLFLOWCROSS VANE INVERTCONTROL POINTFILTER FABRICSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBANKFULLFOOTER ROCKLEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTPOOLHEADER ROCKBANKFULLVARIES0' TO 0.8'3% TO 5%BANKFULLHEADER BOULDERFOOTER BOULDERSTREAM BEDIN POOLFILTER FABRICVARIES0' TO 13 WIDTHFLOWSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKFLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")SECTION A-A'PROFILE VIEWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")MIN5.0'COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTLEFT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINT13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTHMIN5.0'20° TO 30°PLAN VIEWFILTERFABRICFOOTER BOULDERHEADER BOULDER13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13 CHANNELWIDTH13.0'VANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTSECTION B-B'BBAAROCK CROSS VANENTSBANKFULL
BANKFULL
FLOWPROFILE VIEW STREAM INVERTCONTROL POINTFLOWAASTREAM INVERTCONTROL POINTBANKFULLBACKFILL EXISTINGCHANNEL WITH NATIVEMATERIAL AS NEEDEDFOOTER ROCKHEADER ROCKWOODYDEBRISSECTION A-A'FOOTER ROCKWELL GRADED MIX OF#57 STONE, CLASS AAND B RIPRAPFILTER FABRICSTREAM BED0.75' MAX (TYP.)1.5x RIFFLEDEPTH (TYP.)HEADER ROCKBANKFULLPOOLFLOWFOOTER LOGINVERT LOGPOOLA'ASTREAM BED13 W13 W20°-30°FILTER FABRICSTREAM BANKS,TYPICALCROSS VANE INVERTINVERT LOG (SEE NOTE 6 & 11)HEADER LOGBANKFULLDUCKBILL ANCHORMIN5'BANKFULLHEADER LOGFOOTER LOG, IFSPECIFIEDSTREAM BED IN POOLFILTER FABRIC0' TO 13 WSTREAM BANKFILTER FABRICFLOWFLOWFOOTER LOGBANKFULLTOE OF BANK, TYPICAL13 W3% TO 8%COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")PROFILE VIEWPLAN VIEWSECTION A-A'COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")LOG CROSS VANENTSNOTES:1.LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF 12' IN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER ANDRELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.2.A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOGCOMBINATION, PER DIRECTION OF DESIGNER.3.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(S) ANDTHE STREAM BED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BENO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED,TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS NEEDED.4.COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO A THICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTHOF THE HEADER (AND ANY FOOTER) LOGS AND SHALL EXTEND OUT FROM THEVANE ARMS TO THE STREAM BANK AND UPSTREAM.5.AS AN OPTION, FLAT-SIDED BOULDERS MAY BE PLACED AS BALLAST ON TOPOF THE STREAM BANK SIDE OF THE EMBEDDED VANE ARMS. DUCK BILLANCHORS MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.6.DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAY BE USED TOSECURE LOGS INTO THE STREAM BED AND/OR BANKS. FLAT SIDED BOULDERSCAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHOR SYSTEM.VANE ARM LOG, TYPICALOPTIONAL BALLAST BOULDERHEADER LOG
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\CAD\DWG\0386_SHT_DETAILS.dwg SAVED BY: Sfasking
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONMARKDATE
REVISIONS:
RELEASED FOR:PLOT DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:PROJECT MANAGER:DESIGNED:DRAWN:CHECKED:SEAL302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27605Main: 919.829.9909Fax: [phone]www.res.us10/9/2018PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND70386BPBAFMBRCAFMCATBIRD SITE
DETAILS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA FLOW1% - 2% (TYP.)PROFILECROSS SECTION A-A'FLOWVARIES PER PROFILEEND RIFFLE CONTROL POINTPROPOSED TOPOF BANKBEGIN RIFFLECONTROL POINT4" - 6" LOGS1.0' MIN0.5' MINTOP OF BANKPROPOSED TOE OF BANKGRADE CONTROL ROCK50/50 MIX OF CLASS A ANDB RIPRAP4" - 6" LOGS4.0'TYPLARGE COBBLE/SMALLBOULDERS, TYPRIFFLE MATERIAL;SEE TABLE 1FLOWPOOLRUNCHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH4.0'TYPNOTES:1.CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BYTHE DESIGNER.2.ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TOESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE REQUIREDTO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.3.GRADE CONTROL ROCK SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A 50/50 MIX OF CLASS A AND B RIPRAP. GRADECONTROL ROCK SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF RIFFLEMATERIAL SHALL ACHIEVE THE DESIGNATED GRADES.4.RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND LOGS. THE ROCK MATERIAL COMPOSITIONSHALL MATCH TABLE 1. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USED FROMABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL OBTAINED OFFSITE SHALL BE SLIGHTLYROUNDED, “RIVER-TYPE” ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THECHANNEL.5.SPACING AND NUMBER OF LOGS SHOULD BE BASED ON RIFFLE LENGTH AND MAY VARY BASED ON LOGAVAILABILITY. LOGS SHOULD BE SPACED EQUALLY AND ANCHORED TO THE CHANNEL BED WITHBOULDERS.6.THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TOCREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT “JUMP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAMPOOL-GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT “DROP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE ANDTHE DOWNSTREAM RUN-POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALLGENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOMEVARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.7.THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN-STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL , J-HOOK,ETC.). NO LOGS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.8.THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED BYTHE DESIGNER. THE "KEY" SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF THERIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOTBE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.RIFFLE MATERIAL;SEE TABLE 1GRADE CONTROL ROCK50/50 MIX OF CLASS A ANDB RIPRAPRIFFLE GRADE CONTROLNTSAASMALL POOLLARGE COBBLE/SMALL BOULDERS4" - 6" LOGSANCHOR BOULDERANCHOR BOULDERTABLE 1 - RIFFLE COMPOSITIONREACHSTONE SIZE%DS1 & DS2NATIVE25#550SURGE25POOLGLIDEFLOW1% - 2% (TYP.)PROFILECROSS SECTION A-A'FLOWVARIES PER PROFILEEND RIFFLE CONTROL POINTPROPOSED TOPOF BANKBEGIN RIFFLECONTROL POINT4" - 6" LOGS1.0' MIN0.5' MINTOP OF BANKPROPOSED TOE OF BANK4" - 6" LOGS4.0'TYPLARGE COBBLE/SMALLBOULDERS, TYPRIFFLE MATERIAL;SEE TABLE 1FLOWPOOLRUNCHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH4.0'TYPNOTES:1.CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BYTHE DESIGNER.2.ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TOESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE REQUIREDTO ESTABLISH ACCURATE RIFFLE INSTALLATION WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF ±0.2'.3.RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPRISED OF ROCKS AND LOGS. THE ROCK MATERIAL COMPOSITIONSHALL MATCH TABLE 1. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USED FROMABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL OBTAINED OFFSITE SHALL BE SLIGHTLYROUNDED, “RIVER-TYPE” ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THECHANNEL.4.SPACING AND NUMBER OF LOGS SHOULD BE BASED ON RIFFLE LENGTH AND MAY VARY BASED ON LOGAVAILABILITY. LOGS SHOULD BE SPACED EQUALLY AND ANCHORED TO THE CHANNEL BED WITHBOULDERS.5.THE PLACEMENT OF RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITHNO ABRUPT “JUMP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM POOL-GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISENO ABRUPT “DROP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAM RUN-POOL. THEFINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL GENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE ANDDIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEGLOCATION AS A RESULT OF THE SMALL POOLS AND LOGS.6.THE END OF RIFFLE CONTROL POINT MAY TIE IN TO ANOTHER IN-STREAM STRUCTURE (LOG SILL , J-HOOK,ETC.). NO LOGS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.7.THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED BYTHE DESIGNER. THE "KEY" SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OF THERIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOTBE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.RIFFLE MATERIAL;SEE TABLE 1CONSTRUCTED RIFFLENTSAASMALL POOLLARGE COBBLE/SMALL BOULDERS4" - 6" LOGSANCHOR BOULDERANCHOR BOULDERTABLE 1 - RIFFLE COMPOSITIONREACHSTONE SIZE%DS1 & DS2NATIVE25#550SURGE25POOLGLIDE

Appendix B –
Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information

IRT Meeting Minutes

October 1, 2018

Cara Conder, Project Manager
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Subject: Draft Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans
Catbird Site
Yadkin River Basin Cataloging Unit 03040101
DMS Project ID #100022

Dear Cara,

The NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) has reviewed the Draft Mitigation Plan and Preliminary
Plans for the Catbird Site. Following are comments on this Task 3 design deliverable:

BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
a) Page 4, last paragraph. Please clarify the sentence beginning “The channel has a moderate
bedload and a moderate sediment supply.” What is moderate bedload? Is this reference to
substrate size, bedload transport, or coarse sediment? The term “sediment supply” covers all the
bases in this sentence. And the substrate is defined in the next sentence.
b) Page 5, paragraph 1. While Catbird lies in the Milton and Charlotte Belts, the specific unit
underlying the project is gabbro, an intrusive rock likely part of the mafic-volcanic complexes, or
the metagabbros. To find this, I used ARCGIS to overlay the site on the geology.
c) Page 5, land use, paragraph 2 and 3. These 2 paragraphs would be better placed in a section more
relevant to the overall treatment of the site.
d) Page 9 (reach summaries). Discuss bedrock influence in the channel descriptions. Is future
incision possible or does bedrock occur frequently enough to prevent ongoing incision?
FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
Page 13, last paragraph. The reference to determination of credits in the first sentence need to be
removed. The discussion of credits and function is not relevant to this mitigation plan. Sentence 2 and 3
referring to applying an ecosystem approach (and sentence 2, a functional a based approach (at the reach
scale) are a bit overstated. Additionally, the functions RES is able to address directly from restoration are
hydraulic and geomorphology, rather than, as stated, “have the greatest effect on.”
Pages 14-16:
a) Hydraulic. “Healthy” floodplain connectivity? Is the intent to improve/increase the frequency of
floodplain access? And, please clarify the reference to stable base flow and instream structures in
last sentence.

b) Geomorphology. What is not functioning in terms of wood and sediment? Input, output, storage?
How will LWD transport and storage be “improved” by installation of instream structures? Is
the gradient and bed material in these streams suitable for riffle-pool sequences, or step-pools?
DMS does not agree that RES will achieve “dynamic equilibrium” and maximum geomorphic
uplift. Please provide clarification.
c) Physicochemical (not physiochemical) - global edit needed.
d) Biology. Macroinvertebrates are not difficult to measure, so please remove that statement.
e) Page 16. Livestock removal statement does not belong in this section.

MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pages 17-18:
a) Second bullet. Overbanks should be overbank and the word active before floodplain is redundant.
b) First bullet under objectives. The last part of the objective “based on… “ is unnecessary.
c) Will work on enhancement reaches (EII) include bank stabilization, constructed riffles, or woody
materials? If not, please remove enhancement from those statements where full restoration is
proposed.
d) Objective for reducing BHR and increasing ER is implied and understood in objective 1.
Recommend modifying or removing.
e) Paragraph beginning ‘Limitations to achieving’ is unnecessary. Recommend removing.
f) Please add ‘agricultural’ to the heading to emphasize that treatments will not require long-term
maintenance.
g) The BMP section includes information previously stated and explained in the document.
Recommend that removal of cattle and the addition of fencing should be included in the
goals/objective table rather than extensive explanation in this section.
Table 10 is good for relating goals, objectives and measurement. Why did RES choose to exclude
performance standards measurements, e.g., BF events? See suggestions below and please comment.
a) The functional parameter column includes variables meant to be measured that will not be applied
to this project. Please remove this column. And, please remain realistic in stating the benefits of
this restoration, that is, RES is only able to directly affect hydro, geomorph and hydraulics.
b) Hydrology objective refers to the ag BMP has attenuating runoff. Is this BMP truly designed to
achieve this attenuation? And how does RES intend to measure/monitor the integrity of runoff
attenuation structure?
c) Geomorphology objective to improve pool spacing, percent riffles, etc suggest RES intends to
explicitly measure these bedforms, so please remove if that is not the intent. And, stream walk is
basically the same as visually monitoring, so please remove.
d) Biology and Physicochemical also include unmeasurable goals that need to be removed. If RES
would like to leave these functions in the table, do not include a goal, objective, of measurement
method. Instead, state that as expected benefits.
e) Vegetation plots and fencing cannot be used to address physicochemical and biology within this
framework. Rather, state the goal and objective, i.e., plant buffer, and conduct veg plot surveys.
f) The justification for the delta in the functional ratings is not well defined. DMS suggests removal
of this column. The intent is understood and appreciated although the execution is not clear.

MITIGATION WORK PLAN

a) Page 20. The reference discharge section refers to UT Hauser discharge. Is RES stating that the
UT Hauser discharge was used as reference for design? Hauser Creek DA is much larger than
this projects’ streams. How will the UT Hauser be ‘scaled’ for this project?
b) Page 21. Design approach. This majority of this section is nonspecific and does not provide
useful information until the reach specific paragraphs.
c) Reach DS1. Is RES ‘widening’ the riparian area or simply planting wider buffers? And, what is
the primary function of the ag BMP?
d) Reach DS1, DS2-A, DS2-B. RES has listed, explained and emphasized the benefits of the project
to water quality and habitat throughout the document: DMS suggests further reference be
removed.
e) Reach DS2-B. Will shifting the channel to a new alignment provide appropriate morphology and
floodplain connection? Please re-think this statement.
f) Page 23 Design Methods. Please remove this section.
g) Page 25-26. Shear stress approach. The shear stress being calculated is the average boundary
shear stress. If RES needs to explain this concept, please include critical shear stress in the
explanation and report boundary shear accurately.
h) The sediment size distribution reported in the morph table (fine gravel and sand) appear to be a
magnitude smaller than the sediment sizes referenced in this section. Does RES intend to replace
the bed material with larger gravel and cobble? Will the excavated material be large enough to
use? If so, will this material be sustained over time?

Table 15 (Mitigation Components). Total existing stream lengths for DS1 and DS2 do not reflect the
preliminary JD lengths (see PJD, Appendix I). Please clarify.

IRT meeting minutes (Appendix B) indicated a concern that P1 Restoration near the top of DS-1 may
result in loss of seasonal stream flow. RES staff indicated they would base the design and channel origin
on the JD and provide post construction flow monitoring to document flow conditions. Please include
further discussion in the plan about how stream origin was determined on DS-1, and provide justification
for the P1 approach given the intermittent flow and the concern about losing hydrology.

IRT members also suggested monitoring water quality and/or benthics to document aquatic uplift in the
upper end of DS1. Please comment on if/how the plan will address this suggestion.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
RES state that a flow monitoring device will be placed near the top of DS-1 to document post-
construction flow conditions. However, Plan Sheet M1 indicates the planned flow gauge located towards
the lower end of DS-1. Please clarify or correct this apparent discrepancy.

MONITORING PLAN
Table 16. The functional category definition should not serve as a goal in this project and the monitoring
requirements. Please make sure Table 10 and Table 16 do not contradict each other. And, the same
comments for Table 10 apply to Table 16, e.g., outcomes (look like the goals from table 19),
physicochemical and biology.

Plan Sheets
a) S1 - Culvert needs to be plotted accurately on profile.
b) D3 Rock Sill (Section A-A’) - Recommend extending filter fabric above footer rock onto header
rock.
c) D3 Brush Toe (Section A-A) - Consider adding an additional course of footer logs to be buried
beneath the channel bed to reduce the potential for toe scour.

d) D4 Floodplain Sill – Thank you for including this structure and for providing the detail. Add
boulders as an alternate anchoring method if deemed appropriate.
e) D5 Culvert Crossing Plan View – Due to frequent observations of perched sills at these type of
culvert treatments please add a channel grade control feature downstream of the culvert outlet to
prevent a perched sill.
f) D6 Rock Cross Vane Section A-A’ - Extend filter fabric onto header.
g) E1 (Legend) -Indicates ‘existing stream’ as blue shading; however, in many locations the
apparent stream widths shaded in blue are 50-60 feet wide. Please clarify what exactly does the
blue represent, and edit the plan sheets/legend as necessary.

Figures
Figure 1, Vicinity Map: Add text boxes with leaders to call out the several sites shown on the figure.

Figure 10:
a) Mitigation work plan indicates that an agricultural BMP will be placed at the upper end of DS-1;
please show this on the conceptual map.
b) Please indicate planned culvert crossing on the map.
c) Please show reach breaks more clearly to match up with the asset table; for example it is not
shown where DS-2B starts, where DS-1 (above crossing?) and DS-1 (below crossing?) start and
stop. Typically, there is a unique Reach ID assigned for each unique reach / approach
combination. Suggest labelling reaches such as DS-1 (upper), DS-1 (lower), DS-2A, DS-2B
(upper), DS-2B (middle), DS-2B (lower), or similar. This will make for easier database and asset
tracking, credit release discussions, etc.

Appendices
Appendix B
a) Please include the email thread with the IRT site visit meeting memo dated 9/29/2017.
Specifically, email dated 10/6/17 from Paul Wiesner copied to RES, dating back to initial memo
submittal email dated 10/2/2018, and including additional comments/concerns from IRT about
the memo itself.
b) Morphological Table – The proposed width to depth ratios are low which is consistent with E
stream types as previously mentioned in the Mockingbird Project Comments. Please observe all
available stability indicators during monitoring to minimize potential adaptive management
requirements.

Appendix G, Stream ID Forms
Please provide sketches on the forms or a map showing locations where along each reach the forms were
filled out.

Thank you for your time in addressing these comments. Please send a revised PDF to me for final
completeness review, along with comment responses. RES can then generate and send four final bound
hard copies to IRT contacts, in addition to a single flash drive or CD with a PDF of the report and all digital
support files in the correct file structure. Please include a copy of your response letter, bound inside the
front cover of each hard copy report (and included in the final PDF).

If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] or email me at [e-mail] .

Sincerely,
Harry Tsomides
Project Manager, NCDEQ-DMS

412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2nd Floor 3751 Westerre Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 137½ East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

MEMORANDUM
Date: September 29, 2017

Re: Catbird Site Post-Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
CU: 03040101
DMS Project No.: 100022
DEQ Contract No.: 7186
County: Davie
Location: 36.030644° N, -80.500865 ° W, Spillman Road
DMS Project Manager: Harry Tsomides

Meeting Summary
Date: August 15, 2017
RES Attendees: Daniel Ingram, Cara Conder, David Godley, Daniel Ramsay
DMS Attendees: Paul Wiesner, Harry Tsomides, Kirsten Ullman
IRT Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Mac Haupt (NCDWR), Olivia Munzer (NCWRC)

General Summary: IRT members generally agreed the Catbird Site is suitable to provide
compensatory stream mitigation credits. IRT members also confirmed the technical approach,
and ratios proposed as appropriate. No decreases to contracted credit totals are expected,
however, the survey and design approach on Reach DS2 will determine final credit yield.
Specific discussions related to each reach are discussed below.

Reach DS1: Todd Tugwell and Mac Haupt both expressed concern that P1 Restoration near the
top of the stream channel may result in loss of seasonal stream flow. RES staff indicated they
would base the design and channel origin on the JD and provide post construction flow
monitoring to document flow conditions. The generally accepted flow criteria is 30 days of
continuous flow annually. IRT members also suggested monitoring water quality and/or
benthics to document aquatic uplift in the upper end of DS1.

Reach DS2: The lower portion of Reach DS2 was generally accepted as a good candidate for P1
Restoration. The upper end of DS2 includes stream segments of varying degrees of impairment.
IRT members suggested the mitigation plan utilize a “blended ratio” combined with a detailed
description of impairments and enhancement/restoration interventions. Another option would be
splitting the credit ratios by distinct stream segments and interventions. The proposed mitigation
approach and associated crediting on the upper end of Reach DS2 will be based on survey and
assessment data and will be justified in the project mitigation plan. Final project limits will be
based on the JD. All IRT members generally agreed with the upstream limits of enhancement.
Wiesner, Paul
From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 8:44 AM
To: Haupt, Mac; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Browning, Kimberly D CIV
USARMY CESAW (US); Munzer, Olivia; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc: Daniel Ingram; Tsomides, Harry; Cara Conder
Subject: RE: RES Sites -Yadkin 01 -Post Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
Mac,
DMS and RES understand that all final agreements on ratios and approaches are established and approved by the IRT
during the Mitigation Plan review.
We will attach this e-mail to the project meeting minutes for Catbird, Mockingbird, and Little Sebastian to document
your concerns.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
paul.wiesner(c)ncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
vc;hing C.mpares .
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Haupt, Mac
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 3:44 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV
USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Daniel Ingram <[e-mail]>; Tsomides, Harry <[e-mail]>; Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: RES Sites -Yadkin 01 -Post Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
Paul,

Thanks,
Mac
From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:21 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd 1 CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>;
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Daniel Ingram <[e-mail]>; Tsomides, Harry <[e-mail]>; Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Subject: RES Sites—Yadkin 01_Post Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
►o®
Please find the Catbird, Mockingbird, and Little Sebastian Post Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes attached.
Please let us know if you have questions or additional comments/ concerns.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Western DMS Field Office

5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Wiesner, Paul
From: Tugwell, Todd 1 CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 2:16 PM
To: Haupt, Mac; Wiesner, Paul; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Munzer,
Olivia; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc: Daniel Ingram; Tsomides, Harry; Cara Conder
Subject: [External] RE: RES Sites -Yadkin 01 -Post Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Paul,
I have also looked over the minutes. Other than the comments made by Mac, the minutes look fine to me.
Thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message -----
From: Haupt, Mac [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 3:44 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<Kimberly.D.Brown [e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV
USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Daniel Ingram <[e-mail]>; Tsomides, Harry <[e-mail]>; Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RES Sites—Yadkin 01—Post Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
Paul,
I reviewed the minutes for all of these and generally agree, however, I do take exception with one sentence that appears
in the first paragraph of the Catbird and Mockingbird minutes, "IRT members also confirmed the technical approach,
and ratios proposed as appropriate."
At the Catbird site we did have few discussions about the approach and flow at the top of DS1 and other discussions
regarding the other reach and appropriate level of intervention. At the Mockingbird site we did generally agree with the
approach, however, we did not look closely at NMI and NM4.
As we have said before, all final agreements on ratios and approach are associated with the Mitigation Plan.
The Little Sebastian site minutes and revised concept plan did a good job of capturing what was discussed.

I reviewed the minutes for all of these and generally agree, however, I do take exception with one sentence that appears
in the first paragraph of the Catbird and Mockingbird minutes, "IRT members also confirmed the technical approach,
and ratios proposed as appropriate."
At the Catbird site we did have few discussions about the approach and flow at the top of DS1 and other discussions
regarding the other reach and appropriate level of intervention. At the Mockingbird site we did generally agree with the
approach, however, we did not look closely at NM1 and NM4.
As we have said before, all final agreements on ratios and approach are associated with the Mitigation Plan.
The Little Sebastian site minutes and revised concept plan did a good job of capturing what was discussed.
Thanks,
Mac
From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:21 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>;
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Kimberly. [e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>
Cc: Daniel Ingram <[e-mail]>; Tsomides, Harry <[e-mail]>; Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Subject: RES Sites—Yadkin 01—Post Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes
ON
Please find the Catbird, Mockingbird, and Little Sebastian Post Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes attached.
Please let us know if you have questions or additional comments/ concerns.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
paul.wiesnerancdenr.aov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
"'Nothing Comrares .
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Vegetation Survey

Protocol for Existing Conditions Vegetation Surveying
Plot Selection and Setup
Survey multiple plots on-site, which together are representative of all ecotypes present within the
easement boundaries. Each plot is a 5m X 20m belt transect, positioned parallel to the channel in the
floodplain or adjacent upland.
Take a GPS point at the origin and set the bounds with 5m as the “x-axis” and 20m as the “y-axis.” Set
the plot with the y-axis as the side parallel to the stream channel. Record the y-axis azimuth to allow for
future resampling. Conclude selection and set-up with a representative photo of the plot taken from the
origin.

Data Collection
Identify each plant in the plot to the species level. Sort and measure tree species by height class and
diameter at breast height (DBH). Count seedlings <54in (137cm) in height into height categories 0-9cm,
10-50cm, 51-100cm, or 101-137cm. Count saplings >54in (137cm) in height into DBH categories 0-1cm,
1-2.5cm, 2.5-5cm, or 5-12.7cm. Measure the DBH of all trees ≥5in (12.7cm) DBH. Shrubs, vines, and
herbaceous taxa receive an estimation of their percent cover over the substrate within the plot. If the
personnel are unable to identify to the species level, collect voucher photos and/or specimen(s) for later
identification. Record these on the data sheet as UNK-1, UNK-2, etc.

Data Processing
Begin processing collected data by identifying the unknown species observed from voucher photos and
specimen(s) collected. When species present are sufficiently identified, use the dominant canopy species
assemblages and ecological region to identify a habitat type from Schafale (2012).
Calculate both basal area and stems per acre for each plot surveyed using the formulas below. These
metrics help to inform the existing conditions of the canopy on-site and inform the development of the
project’s planting plan.
Basal Area Formula:
Basal area of each tree (m2) = 0.00007854 X (DBHcm)2
Basal area of plot (m2/ha) = (sum of basal areas for all trees in plot) X 100
•100 is to scale up from our 0.01ha plot to 1ha
Stems per Acre Formula:
Stems/Acre = (# of stems)/0.02471
")")VP-2
VP-1
0 200100
Feet
Vegetation Survey
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
©Date: 6/15/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\Veg Survey Map.mxd C hecked by: CSC
Legend
Proposed Easement
")Vegetation Survey Plots
000>10cm Measure Size Record 5% to 100% inincrements of 5; <5% for(>Sin) anything below

Millmom=
>10cm Measure Size
(>Sin)
Record 5% to 100% inincrements of5; <5% for
anything below

Morphological Parameters

Catbird Morphological ParametersFeatureRiffle Pool Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle PoolDrainage Area (ac)Drainage Area (mi2)NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)DimensionCross Section ID1313 14 20 21BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.8 3.9 3.4 2.3 3.3 1.1 3.1 2.1 2.1 3.1 2.2 3.1 2.8 4.1BF Width (ft) 4.4 6.6 7.4 3.0 6.6 3.8 4.8 4.3 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.7BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7BF Max Depth (ft) 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.2Wetted Perimeter (ft) 4.8 7.1 7.6 4.2 7.1 4.0 5.8 4.7 4.8 5.6 4.8 5.6 5.6 6.5Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6Width/Depth Ratio 6.9 10.9 16.1 3.9 12.9 12.9 7.3 9.0 9.7 7.7 9.3 7.7 9.7 7.8Floodprone Width (ft) >10 >15 10.0 5.4 10.1 4.9 7.6 5.6 30 26.5 30 26.5 30 26.5Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.3 6.7 5.4 6.7 5.4 5.8 4.6Bank/Height Ratio 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.0 2.5 6.00.8 8.41.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0SubstrateDescription (D50)D16 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)PatternMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxChannel Beltwidth (ft) 18 35 - - 13 30 13 30 15 35Radius of Curvature (ft) 7 19 - - 5 15 5 15 6 17Radius of Curvature Ratio 1.6 4.3 - - 1.1 3.3 1.1 3.3 1.2 3.3Meander Wavelength (ft) 30 44 - - 20 37 20 37 23 43Meander Width Ratio 4.1 8.0 - - 2.9 6.7 2.9 6.7 2.9 6.7ProfileMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxRiffle Length (ft) 4 18 - - 3 15 3 15 4 18Run Length (ft) 3 8 - -373738Pool Length (ft) 3 10 - -3838310Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft) 12 35 - - 10 30 10 30 12 35Additional Reach ParametersValley Length (ft)Channel Length (ft)SinuosityValley Slope (ft/ft)Channel Slope (ft/ft)Rosgen Classification 1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions dataE or C 2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003) 3 NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003)512---1.06------Min0.0305G40.06601.09526Max-----261.72612510.0383-0.0455------4820.0200DS1260.048.69.40.0170 0.0175E4 F5b0.0282 0.04550.0130 0.06391.31 1.14- 0.066012110.048.89.7E4 E4Gravel1.1 0.85GravelFine Gravel Coarse Sand1.27 1.04924 450185 300146 288105199025---0.85Coarse Sand1.4-6-8 4-5 779.4 5.3 9.710.2 5.3DS1 DS2-B (Upstream) DS2-B (Downstream)Reference Reach ExistingDesignDS2-A8.6 4.8 8.89.3 4.80.04 0.02 0.0426 12 270.05 0.0229 12DS2-B27UT to Hauser CreekMax----Riffle23.75.40.71.13.7 1.7GravelMax--E46.37.80.66.81.32.5Min---Max-G5113611791.040.0282Gravel-
CATBIRD
Mitigation Type Restoration E2 Restoration
Reach DS1 DS2‐A DS2‐B
DA (ac)26 12 27
DA (sqmi)0.04 0.02 0.04
Ex. Conds XSs
~ QBKF
FFQ Analysis
Q1.1 14 9 15
Q1.5 21 14 22
Q2 29 19 30
Q10 56 35 57
Rural Piedmont Regional Curves
NC‐QBKF orig 959
NC‐QBKF rev 9510
~ BKFCSA 2.6 1.5 2.6
VA‐QBKF 212
SCS (Hydraflow Hydrographs with 6 hour duration and a PSF of 484)
Q1 436
Q2 8611
Q5 14 10 19
Q10 20 13 27
Q25 29 18 37
Q50 37 22 46
SCS (Hydraflow Hydrographs with 6 hour duration and a PSF of 384)
Q1 435
Q2 7610
Q5 13 10 18
Q10 18 13 25
Q25 26 18 35
Q50 34 22 43
USGS RR Eqns (Region 1)
Q2(1996 EQNS)16 9 16
Q2(2001 EQNS)14 8 15
Q2 20 12 20
Q5 40 24 41
Q10 55 34 56
Q25 77 48 79
Q50 97 61 99
Recommended Design Flows = 
Qbnkfull 5‐74 7
Cross Sections of Current Conditions
& Reference Reaches

Upstream Downstream91.59292.59393.59494.59595.50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach DS1 - XS1 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area91.59292.59393.59494.59595.50 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach DS1 - XS1 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream86878889909192939495960 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach DS1 - XS2 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream8989.59090.59191.59292.59393.59402468101214161820Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach DS1 - XS3 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream9292.59393.59494.59595.59696.5970 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach DS2-B - XS4 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream89909192939495960 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach DS2-B - XS5 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream9495969798991001010 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach DS2-A - XS13 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream9696.59797.59898.59999.5100100.502468101214161820Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach DS2-A - XS14 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream82838485868788899002468101214161820Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach DS2-B - XS20 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Upstream Downstream80818283848586878802468101214161820Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Reach DS2-B - XS21 (Riffle)GroundApprox. BankfullFloodprone Area
Hauser Creek Reference
Cross Section 1 – UT to Hauser Creek - Pool
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Downstream Upstream
Hauser Creek Reference
Cross Section 2 – UT to Hauser Creek – Riffle
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Downstream Upstream
Hauser Creek Reference
Cross Section 3 – UT to Hauser Creek – Pool
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Downstream Upstream
Hauser Creek Reference
Cross Section 4 – UT to Hauser Creek – Riffle
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
Downstream Upstream
Channel Stability Assessment

Channel Stability Assessment Summary Table
DS1 DS2-A DS2-B
1 Watershed characteristics 11 11 11
2 Flow habit 868
3 Channel pattern 444
4 Entrenchment/channel
confinement 10 7 11
5 Bed material 976
6 Bar development 533
7 Obstructions/debris jams 522
8 Bank soil texture and
coherence 777
9 Average bank angle 81010
10 Bank vegetation/protection 10 7 9
11 Bank cutting 8810
12 Mass wasting/bank failure 8610
13 Upstream distance to bridge NA NA NA
Score 93 78 91
Rating* Fair Fair Fair
* Excellent (0 < Score <= 36), Good (36 < Score <= 72), Fair (72 < Score <= 108), Poor (108 < Score <= 144)
Stream: 9-G4v¢ 15 i
Reach:
Date:
Weather:
Location:
S4aMi1r4v Inriirafnr Fvrallant (1 .3 1 Good (4 - 61
Observers:
Project:
Drainage Area:
Stream Type: %NZ� 1"—' r r-'7— _.
Fair (7 - 91
Poor (10 -12) Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
watershed. Significant cattle activity,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
landslides, channel sand or gravel
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
mining, logging, farming, or construction
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
of buildings, roads, or other
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
infrastructure. Highly urbanized or
significant portion of watershed
rapidly urbanizing watershed
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
straight (step -pool system, narrow
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
valley), stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
areas of Instability and/or erosion
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
around bends. Straightened, stable
channel.
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
exposed; levees are low and set well
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood
plain abandoned; levees are moderate
infrastructure; channel-width-to-top-of-
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
1
back from the river
in size and have minimal setback from
active flood plain; levees are high and
C
the river
along the channel edge
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very ryloose assortment with no packing.
'
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and wty > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of
1/2 the stream width at low flow. Bars
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
newly deposited coarse sand to small
are composed of extensive deposits of
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
cobbles and/or may be sparsely
fine particles up to coarse gravel with
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation
vegetated. Bars forming for S > 0.02
little to no vegetation. No bars for S <
12, no bars are evident
on portions of the bar. For S > 0.02
and w/y < 12
0.02 and w/y > 12
and w/y <12, no bars are evident
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams,
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause
continual shift of sediment and flow.
grade control, bridge bed paving,
noticeable erosion of the channel.
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
revetments, dikes or vanes, riprap
Considerable sediment accumulation
to migrate andlor widen
behind obstructions

i ..4:.,a,.. r—Tm-nent r1 -11 Anna (A - RI Fair (7 - 01 Poor (10 -12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and
glacial or other materials; layers of
exist, but are cohesive materials
lenses of noncohesive or
lenses that include noncohesive sands
unconsolidated mixtures
and gravels
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1 H: IV (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90' is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60" in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
50-70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily soft wood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root)
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
off of the bank. Woody vegetation
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring
often with evident root exposure. No
oriented at less than 70% from
armored
of one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring
horizontal with extensive root exposure.
may be in place on one bank
Na lining or armoring of banks
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of
total bank
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
Raw banks comprise large portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
some extending over most of the
banks. Undercutting and sod -root
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
overhangs
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
�)
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercultin>gs, and bank slumping is
�U[
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
Irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well-
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
aligned with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not
with flow
centered beneath bridge
t�
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score XW

Stream:
Reach:
Date: 2- /C i
Weather:
Location:
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -31 Good (4 - 61
Observers:
Project: (x.+77tJlf-'
Drainage Area:
Stream Type: E--tJ'"'q'nj^"f _
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor (10 -121 Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
watershed. Significant cattle activity,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
landslides, channel sand or gravel
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
mining, logging, farming, or construction
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
of buildings, roads, or other
activities
other infrastructure. Urbanization over
infrastructure. Highly urbanized or
significant portion of watershed
rapidly urbanizing watershed
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
t
straight (step -pool system, narrow
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
valley), stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
areas of instability aril/or erosion
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
around bends. Straightened, stable
channel.
4. Entrenchment( channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream; ,
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
plain abandoned; levees are moderate
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
back from the river
in size and have minimal setback from
active flood plain; levees are high and
the river
along the channel edge
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed.
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of
112 the stream width at low flow. Bars
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
newly deposited coarse sand to small
are composed of extensive deposits of
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
cobbles and/or may be sparsely
fine particles up to coarse gravel with
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation
vegetated. Bars forming for S > 0.02
little to no vegetation. No bars for S <
12, no bars are evident
on portions of the bar. For S > 0.02
and w/y < 12
0.02 and w/y > 12
and Wy <12, no bars are evident
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams,
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause
continual shift of sediment and flow.
grade control, bridge bed paving,
noticeable erosion of the channel.
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
�7
revetments, dikes or vanes, riprap
Considerable sediment accumulation
to migrate and/or widen
C/Jr
behind obstructions

csr.ua, I. Ain f„ FY. -suers 11 A 1 Gnnd (d - Bl Fair (7 - 91 Poor (10 -12) Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and
glacial or other materials; layers of
/)
exist, but are cohesive materials
lenses of noncohesive or
lenses that include noncohesive sands
unconsolidated mixtures
and gravels
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3H:1 V (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1 V (27") in
Bank slopes to 1 HAV (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° Is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 60° in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
both banks
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
both banks
clays common on one or both banks
both sides
one or occasionally
common on one or
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
50-70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily soft wood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80yo from horizontal,
off of the bank. Woody vegetation
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring
,often with evident root exposure. No
oriented at less than 70°% from
armored
of one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring
horizontal with extensive root exposure.
may be In place on one bank
No. lining or armoring of banks
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the
total bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
banks. Undercutting and sod -root
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
overhangs
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent andlor minor
Evidence of frequent and/or significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuttings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well-
20-35 in; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 in; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
aligned with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not
with flow
centered beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, wly = width -to -depth ratio
Total Score

Stream:
Reach: / G
Date:
Weather:
Location:
Stability Indicator Excellent M -3 ) Good R - 6)
Observers:
Project:
Drainage Area: _
Stream Type: 2679-67rvry ) e91—
Fair (7 - 9)
Poor NO -121 Score
1. Watershed and flood plain activity
Stable, forested, undisturbed
Occasional minor disturbances in the
Frequent disturbances in the
Continual disturbances in the
and characteristics
watershed
watershed, including cattle activity
watershed, including cattle activity,
watershed. Significant cattle activity,
(grazing and/or access to stream),
landslides, channel sand or gravel
landslides, channel sand or gravel
construction, logging, or other minor
mining, logging, farming, or
mining, logging, farming, or construction
/
deforestation. Limited agricultural
construction of buildings, roads, or
of buildings, roads, or other
activities
other infrastructure. UrkZ=tion over
infrastructure. Highly urbanized or
1l(
significant portion of watershed
rapidly urbanizing watershed
2. Flow habit
Perennial stream with no flashy
Perennial stream or ephemeral first-
Perennial or intermittent stream with
Extremely flashy; flash floods prevalent
behavior
order stream with slightly increased
flashy behavior
mode of discharge; ephemeral stream
rate of flooding
other than first -order stream
3. Channel pattern (revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Appears to have previously been
Meandering, stable channel or
channelized. Stream is relatively
channelized. Stream is actively
channelized. Stream is actively
straight (step -pool system, narrow
stable. Channel has some meanders
adjusting (meandering); localized
adjusting (laterally and/or vertically) with
, r
valley), stable channel.
due to previous channel adjustment.
areas of instability and/or erosion
few bends. Straight, unstable reach.
around bends. Straightened, stable
channel.
4. Entrenchment/ channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
Active flood plain abandoned, but is
Moderate confinement in valley or
Knickpoints visible downstream;
banks; no sign of undercutting
currently rebuilding; minimal channel
channel walls; some exposure of
exposed water lines or other
infrastructure; no levees
confinement; infrastructure not
infrastructure; terraces exist; flood
infrastructure; channel -width -to -top -of -
exposed; levees are low and set well
plain abandoned; levees are moderate
banks ration small; deeply confined; no
j
back from the river
in size and have minimal setback from
active flood plain; levees are high and
(l!
the river
along the channel edge
5. Bed material
Assorted sized tightly packed,
Moderately packed with some
Loose assortment with no apparent
Very loose assortment with no packing.
Fs = approximate portion of sand in the
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
overlapping. Very small amounts of
overlap. Small to medium amounts of
Large amounts of material < 4 mm. Fs
bed
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
material < 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
material < 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
> 70%
6. Bar development
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bar widths
Bar widths are generally greater than
mature, narrow relative to stream
may have vegetation and/or be
tend to be wide and composed of
1/2 the stream width at low flow. Bars
width at low flow, well -vegetated,
composed of coarse gravel to
newly deposited coarse sand to small
are composed of extensive deposits of
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles, but minimal recent growth of
cobbles and/or may be sparsely
fine particles up to coarse gravel with
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
bar evident by lack of vegetation
vegetated. Bars forming for S > 0.02
little to no vegetation. No bars for S <
3
12, no bars are evident
on portions of the bar. For S > 0.02
and wly < 12
0.02 and wly > 12
and w/y <12, no bars are evident
7. Obstructions, including bedrock
Rare or not present
Occasional, causing cross currents
,Moderately frequent and occasionally
Frequent and often unstable, causing a
outcrops, armor layer, LWD jams,
and minor bank and bottom erosion
unstable obstructions, cause
continual shift of sediment and flow.
grade control, bridge bed paving,
noticeable erosion of the channel.
Traps are easily filled, causing channel
1Z
revetments, dikes or vanes, riprap
Considerable sediment accumulation
to migrate and/or widen
behind obstructions

Stabilitv Indicator Excellent 11 -31 Good (4 - 61 Fair (7 - 91 Poor (10 -121 Score
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material
Clay loam to sandy clay loam; minor
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
Loamy sand to sand; noncohesive
amounts of noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures of glacial or
material; unconsolidated mixtures of
unconsolidated mixtures; layers may
other materials; small layers and
glacial or other materials; layers of
^
exist, but are cohesive materials
lenses of noncohesive or
lenses that include noncohesive sands
unconsolidated mixtures mixtures
and gravels
9. Average bank slope angle (where
Bank slopes < 3HAV (18°) for
Bank slopes up to 2H:1V (27°) in
Bank slopes to 1H:1V (45°) in
Bank slopes over 45° in noncohesive or
90° is a vertical bank)
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
noncohesive or unconsolidated
unconsolidated materials or over 601 in
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
materials to 0.8:1 (50°) in clays on
materials to 0.6:1 (60°) in clays
clays common on one or both banks
(/�\
both sides
one or occasionally both banks
common on one or both banks
( v
10. Vegetative or engineered bank
Wide band of woody vegetation with
Medium band of woody vegetation
Small band of woody vegetation with
Woody vegetation band may vary
protection
at least 90% density and cover.
with 70-90% plant density and cover.
50-70% plant density and cover. A
depending on age and health with less
Primarily hard wood, leafy, deciduous
A majority of hard wood, leafy,
majority of soft wood, piney, coniferous
than 50% plant density and cover.
trees with mature, healthy, and
deciduous trees with maturing,
trees with young or old vegetation
Primarily soft wood, piney, coniferous
diverse vegetation located on the
diverse vegetation located on the
lacking in diversity located on or near
trees with very young, old and dying,
bank. Woody vegetation oriented
bank. Wood vegetation oriented 80-
the top of bank. Woody vegetation
and/or monostand vegetation located
vertically. In absence of vegetation,
90% from horizontal with minimal root
oriented at 70-80% from horizontal,
off of the bank. Woody vegetation
both banks are lined or heavily
exposure. Partial lining or armoring
often with evident root exposure. No
oriented at less than 70% from
armored
of one or both banks
lining of banks, but some armoring
horizontal with extensive root exposure.
may be in place on one bank
No lining or armoring of banks
11. Bank cutting
Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
Some intermittently along channel
Significant and frequent on both banks.
Almost continuous cuts on both banks,
banks, insignificant percentage of
bends and at prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise large portion of
some extending over most of the
total bank
Raw banks comprise minor portion of
bank in vertical direction. Root mat
banks. Undercutting and sod -root
/
bank in vertical direction
overhangs
overhangs
CJ
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
Evidence of infrequent and/or minor
Evidence of frequent andlor significant
Frequent and extensive mass wasting.
very small amounts of mass wasting.
mass wasting. Mostly healed over
occurrences of mass wasting that can
The potential for bank failure, as
Uniform channel width over the entire
with vegetation. Relatively constant
be aggravated by higher flows, which
evidenced by tension cracks, massive
11
reach
channel width and minimal scalloping
may cause undercutting and mass
undercuffings, and bank slumping is
of banks
wasting of unstable banks. Channel
considerable. Channel width is highly
V
Width quite irregular, and scalloping of
irregular, and banks are scalloped
banks is evident
13. Upstream distance to bridge from
More than 35 m; bridge is well-
20-35 m; bridge is aligned with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to flow, or
Less than 10 m; bridge is poorly aligned
meander impact point and alignment
aligned with river flow
flow alignment is otherwise not
with flow
centered beneath bridge
H = horizontal, V = vertical, FS = traction of sand, 5 = slope, Wfy = w70th-to-depth ratio
Total Score

Appendix C – Site Protection Instrument

SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
Site Protection Instrument(s) Summary Information
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed below in Table C1. EBX (an entity of RES) has obtained a conservation
easement from the current landowners for the project area. The easement deed and survey plat will be
submitted to DMS and State Property Office (SPO) for approval and will be held by the State of North
Carolina. The easement deed will follow the NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template dated
May 5, 2017 and included in this appendix. Once recorded, the secured easement will allow EBX to proceed
with the project development and protect the mitigation assets in perpetuity. Once finalized, a copy of the
land protection instrument(s) will be included in Appendix C.

Table C1. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record PIN
County Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book and
Page Numbers
Acreage
Protected
Dwight Sparks

5853633218

Davie Conservation
Easement -- 6.5 ac

NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 11

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
_______________ 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 5 May 2017
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 Environmental
Quality, to provide stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality 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 Environmental
Quality, 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 5 May 2017
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 5 May 2017
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 5 May 2017
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 5 May 2017
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 on the property 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 5 May 2017
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 be
affected thereby.

B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
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 5 May 2017
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 5 May 2017
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 5 May 2017
Page 11 of 11

Exhibit A

[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]

Appendix D – Credit Release Schedule

CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved final mitigation
plan, unless there are major discrepancies and then a mitigation plan addendum will be submitted. 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 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 be restarted 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 in Table D1.

Table D1. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit Release Milestone Release Activity Interim Release Total Release
0 Initial Allocation – see requirements below 30% 30% 1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 40%
2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met 10% 50%
3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 60%

4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 65%
(75%**)
5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 10% 75%
(85%**) 6* Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met 5% 80%
(90%**)
7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates
performance standards are being met and project has
received closeout approval
10% 90%
(100%**)
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years
unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan, can be released by DMS without
prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan.
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
3) Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the DMS Instrument, construction means
that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as-built
report has been produced. As-built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
4) Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.
Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve of
10% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred, in separate
years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less than
four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the
discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, DMS will submit a
request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria
required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report.

Appendix E – Financial Assurance

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the NCDEQ DMS (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement
Program) In-Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) has provided the USACE-Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by NCDEQ DMS. This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.

Appendix F – Maintenance Plan

MAINTENANCE PLAN
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection will 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:

F1. Maintenance Plan
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. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel
may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head-cutting.
Stream maintenance activities will be documented and reported in annual
monitoring reports. Stream maintenance will continue through the
monitoring period.
Wetland N/A
Vegetation Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic
invasive plant species shall be treated by mechanical and/or chemical
methods. Any vegetation requiring herbicide application will be performed
in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations. Vegetation maintenance activities will be documented and
reported in annual monitoring reports. Vegetation maintenance will continue
through the monitoring period.
Site Boundary Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries will be
marked with signs identifying the property as a mitigation site, and will
include the name of the long-term steward and a contact number. Boundaries
may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree-blazing, or other means
as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary
markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on
an as-needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance
will continue in perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Road Crossing Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
conservation easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way,
or corridor agreements. Crossings in easement breaks are the responsibility
of the landowner to maintain.
Livestock Fencing Livestock fencing is to be placed outside the easement limits. Maintenance
of fencing is the responsibility of the landowner.
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Beaver Routine site visits and monitoring will be used to determine if beaver
management is needed. If beaver activity poses a threat to project stability or
vegetative success, RES will trap beavers and remove impoundments as
needed. All beaver management activities will be documented and included
in annual monitoring reports. Beaver monitoring and management will
continue through the monitoring period.

Appendix G – DWR Stream ID Forms

DS1 DS2-A DS2-B
A. Geomorphology
1. Continuity 2 2 3
2. Sinuosity 2 2 2
3. In-channel structure 1 2 2
4. Particle size 2 2 2
5. Floodplain 1 1 1
6. Depositional bars 1 0 1
7. Alluvial deposits 1 0 1
8. Headcuts 1 1 2
9. Grade control 1 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 1 1 1
11. Second order 0 0 0
B. Hydrology
12. Baseflow 2 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 1 2
14. Leaf litter 1 1 1.5
15. Sediment 0 0.5 0.5
16. Organic debris 0.5 0.5 0.5
17. Hydric soil 3 3 3
C. Biology
18. Fibrous roots 3 2 3
19. Rooted upland plants 3 2 3
20. Macrobenthos 0 1 1
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 0 0
22. Fish 0 0 0
23. Crayfish 0 0 0
24. Amphibians 0 0 0
25. Algae 0 0 0
26. Wetland plants 0 0 0
Total 26.5 25 34
NC DWQ Stream Identification Scores
DS1
DS2-A
DS2-B
WB
WA
0 200100
Feet
Existing Conditions and Stream ID Map
Catbird Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
!CNC DWQ Stream Identification Form Location
Proposed Easement
Existing Wetlands
Parcels
Existing Stream s
©Date: 10/4/2018
Drawn by: SCF
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\Mit Plan\DWQ Form Map_Catbird.mxd1 inch = 200 feet
Checked by: MDE!C!C!C
ReGc�1
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 � S 1
Date: Ih ,j 17
Project(Site: Cot f-
Latitude:
Evaluator: t -J fl r e -d o W
County: nUv.
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is et least intermittent
��r
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral mi a Perennial
.
Other CIea w+enS
Quad Name:
if>_19 or Perennial ifZ 30'
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
e.g.
Farvr Jn }o
117
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I J
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool se uence
0
�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
FACW = 0.75;
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o = 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= %. )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 i2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5 1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0. 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 es =
1
C. Biology (Subtotal= )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See P. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Re 0_C_ k D S a -A
Date: I (V511 7
Project/Site: Ccil `p f -d
Latitude:
Evaluator: (Sr -0.J U r es j o w
County: Ukv. `
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent �)
oc
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral ermt - Perennial
OtherL
e.g. Quad Name: ro rm; -y10 n
ifs Igor perennial if _ 30'
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I 2�)
Absent
Wesak__T
Moderate
Strong
11" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0 0.
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
©
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
es -73-_
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
0.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
FACW = 0.75;
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = R )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
(2)
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
0.5
es -73-_
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
d
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
Q
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 �GG� D✓ `�
Date: I / V 5 / 1 7
ProjectISite: CUt � t rd
Latitude:
Evaluator: IJ`aj I
County: DaV a
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
C ew , eh3
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if _ 19 or perennial if _ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent rennta
e.g. Quad Name: Fa r r.i4'n a1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I D 'D
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
(
`J
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
Notes:
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 2 G3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1 3
14. Leaf litter
1. 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0. 1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 es = 3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal=
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Appendix H – USACE District Assessment
Forms

DS1 DS2-A DS2-B
1 Presence of flow / persistent
pools in stream 313
2 Evidence of past human alteration 2 2 2
3 Riparian zone 1 1 1
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical
discharges 000
5 Groundwater discharge 0 0 1
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 2 1 3
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0 1 0
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0 0 1
9 Channel sinuosity 2 1 1
10 Sediment input 1 2 2
11 Size & diversity of channel bed
substrate 212
12 Evidence of channel incision or
widening 110
13 Presence of major bank failures 1 2 0
14 Root depth and density on banks 1 2 1
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or
timber production 000
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool
complexes 122
17 Habitat complexity 3 3 3
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 1 3 1
19 Substrate embeddedness 1 1 1
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 2 2 2
21 Presence of amphibians 1 1 1
22 Presence of fish 0 0 0
23 Evidence of wildlife use 2 2 2
27 29 29BiologyTotal Score:
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet Summary
PhysicalStabilityHabitat
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
CHAR.A Cftlusucs
EiiRIO. P"(lI1T
GE
S ORt I
coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Pmsenc a of flow/ persistent pools to stream
0-5
0-4
0--5
(40 flow -0 saturation = 0: strop .#14w = tnat€ hits)
2
Evidence of Mast human alteration
0-6
6_5
0- -5
2-
exter va alteration = 0, no alteration W mn ints
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0--4
0-5
no _buffer = 0, contiguous, wide buffer = nm i nts
�
Evidence of nutrient or chew"] discharges
0-15
0-4
0-4
(extensimdisch - es = 0, no disc .. s = max rots)
�J
5
Groundwater discharge
0--3
0-4
0-4
(no discharge - 0; springs,'seeps, wrxlancls, exc = noau_ _. 30ts)
60-
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-2
/f
/�-
(no flood laiat = 0; ex4ensi flood laid =me, ints
7
Entrenchment ! floodplain ateess
0-5
0-4
0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0• .. heat flooding = maxpoints)
Presence of adjacent wetlands8 ...
0-6
0-4
0-�2
ds = , Ear e aceitt w ctlands. = m%X pts)
( oto W e Er
9
Cbannel•sitxaaosity
0 -- 5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0-naUgW meander- uaax K,mtsr
90
Sediment input
0-9
0-4
0-4(extensive
dep2sition=0; little or no sediment- max _ints
1 1
4 gine &diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
11-5
(fide, hompacno_us s O5 lM&ej,,diV,9M sem'=-max
12
Evidence of -channel incision or �wideniumg
0-5
0-4
0-5
>W
[dee Iv incised = fl stWeibed & banks = max rots
I-
l reseneeofmajor bank failures
1
(severe ers�sf9aa =fl' no er�on, stable:banics = . _its)
0-5
0-5
0-5
�q
14
)!loot depth and density on, battles
0�- 3
0 -4
0-5
..
(no v_astble -mog, o;. dense rboLs tb coy . out =max pats)
is
Impact byagadcufture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
n-4
o -s
( substantial i n act =0=•no evidence.= malt .ants
16
Presence of riffle-poolhipple-pool :complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
J
no .riffIWt i p ples or p2 o is = 0; well- devejo p ed = max.. mts
1
ll
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
fre uen . vwW—haltitats=:m=ppints
wlittle;9'r-402bitat=0•
Canopy coverage overstreambed(
I8
no shadi vegetation= 0; _contnuulus:canopy -max, ints
0'=5
0-3
0-5
l
Substrate embeddedness
Nom#
0-4
fl-�4
dee 1 embedded -=0 loose_s_tmpWre=max)
20.
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0'-4
O_S
0-5
(no evidence = 0; comnign numerous types =max posnts)
21
Presence olt amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
C
(no evidence = , common, numerous types= max points)
O
_ l
1
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0 common, numerous,types = max nets)
-Evidence
23
of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0=5
(no evidence = 4; abundant evidence = max rots)
Total Points Pomble
100
100
100
TECTAL SCORE (also -enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACT19RIMCS
..RTtOIi POST'RA
SCoo
Caasbrl
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow 1 persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
(
(qqw sateara Oon =4; strong. w = nNm finis)
1
Evidence of past hamm� alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
vert _Ocration - 0; no alteration ax ints
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0- 5
no buffer -0; contiguous, wide {suffer = umpoints)
4
EAdence of nutrient or chemical discharges
_ 5
0-4
0 - 4
extensive dis�cha es = 0; no discb s = max inti)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
(no discharge = 0; springs, see _s wedgp4, etc -'max ruts)
60-.4
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max rots
Entrenchment I floodplain mess
4 -5
0 -4
f3- 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; fie cent flooding= max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
fntr wetlands = 0; ] e ad'ac "t wetlands = marc points
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0- 3
i
(esdeaps eb nne tion:= U; natural mender- maxpoints)
i
10
Sediment input
0--5
0-4
0-4
Z
extensive deposition= 0; lithe, n4_sediment = max. rots)
11
Sire & diversity of channel bel substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homo cnous =q lame, dive "m = mans p2ints
1
Evidence of channel incision, or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
�.
(dee P ]v inpi sed -{i?<stableked& banks =:max rots)
l30-_5
Presence of major baulk failures
0-5
0-5
i�
sca�gre ergsi9�R = �; � erg©pstabie.banks = m.�:, omts]
14
_
Root depth and 4eniity on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
F
{nq vistb�e sots 0=,demise ropts tiprou_ hqut=max ., arts)
�
z _.
Impact by agracatture, livestock, or timber production
15
i
(substantias _act =0- no evidence = max Milts)
0-5
0-4
0-5
16
Presence of riftle-pooVripple-pool completes
0-3
0-5
0-6
�r
�
oo,riffi�ri lesor ,ls 0; well-deveio ed = nsax lints:
17
Haltrtatjcainpletit'y
0-6
0-6
0-6
Z
(W-demmJiabitat 0. fse. uenf, vwJpdhabttats =Max.. Jigs)
Y$
Canopy coverage over strearnb
0-5
0--5
0-5
IIO.$hadin q Veetatl0[1=�; COIItmu(�US CaIii7 =max-- ts)
14)--
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0--4
f
(dee 1 „embedded �BIoosetructure=.max
r
20
Presence of stream usveriefrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0•:common, numerous t =max rots)
.
21.
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0 - 4
0 -4
Q(no
evidence=0, common, numerous types = max points)
C
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = O; ,common, numerous: s, = max, points)
23,
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
o-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max pinta)
Total Pointspossible
100
100
100
T-OTAL SCORE (a ls+o-e nteir on •f-trst )
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

rt Ia-'D
DS2r 13
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ICOREGI . MNT
#
CLARA['TE�IS'i'CS
SG''
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
t
Presence of flow / persiffftnt pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
no 'll'."fw, S$t radOn ='O; stFOD .flOW = rnax .. 1i}_t5
`
Evidence of past human alteration
{� -6
0-5
fl -5
2
extensive alteration0,.Ao aiteraficLn =max ints
3
-R psrian zone
0-6
0- 4
0-5
/
no buffer = 0, Conn uous, vide burg = naax amts
4
Evidence of nutrient or cheinical discharges
0-5
0-4
53--4
t' ]tle"Siv , discl3 es'= 0.i
nor d�schr = max nits)
5
Groundwater discharge
0_3
@- 4
0-4
Q
no discharge = t3; so . d s, s we _. ebc_ = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(no; #lard lata {�„: c xtexassive'floati lain = to x, points
t7
Entrenchment! floodplain aecess
0-5
0 -4
0-2
(deeply entrenchedlt-U; fr ueni,floodii -maxpoints)
$
Presence or adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
Channef.sinuosity
9
extens{vephappel=0,-O#Uualmeander=max ants
0-5
0-4
0-3
10
5eWmene {ppm
0-5
0-4
0-4
Z
extenmve deposition= 0, l ttt ror no-sedtnaent = Tuaxpoints)
it
Size& Averskyot�annel-bed substrate
N� «
0-4
0-5
(fine, homo enms =0_I_arrge, diversesim-maxpoints)
12
kvidence of channelapsion or w aening
0-5
0-4
0-5
�+
{dee Ly incised = 0- stable bed :& hanks - amax.. ints-)
113(sev,ct+e:e�5�o�
]presence of major bank failurrs
0-15
fl -5
0-5
r�
t): _nu ero�en stabte�iianirs = utax--nlPtsl
i
Root depth and density on banks
14
i-na v�siblistc>ats 6t -dense met%,tltMo 41hGAt = max ints)
0-3
0.-4
0-5
i
at
impact by timber
15
agAcuftu re, livestock, or production
0-S
0-4
0-5
f substanttai fm act no ewldence =max amts)
1G
Presence of rfile.,pool%ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0 -G
itri
oo fi3gs! � ,plea or eols - 0! wll-deyeJo ed =mw ints
17
gabitaat compleal`ty
0-6
0-6
0-5
(bttleor.niQ �bitat = 0 � u �:habrtats =mai: SEs}
Canopy coverage over sfreambed
j
18
na.$"Si x ve agitation= 0; contmue'us Won v; = max lits
0=S
O --S
0-5
l
19
St:bsti ate embeddedness
NA-*
0=4
0--4
/
(dee ,lv3embedded=0.loase�structure=_max
20
Presence of st'reain invertebrates (seepage 4)
0-4
0=5
0 - 5
(no evidence =A lcommon, numerous types =max -points)
[
21
Presence of amphiblans
0-4
0-4
0-4
j
d
no evidence = 0, common, numerous s = maxpoints)
0H23
Presence of i6h
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0- common, numerous ty = max: _ ints
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0: abundaw-eN idence = niax points)
Total Points PossiNe
100
109
100
TOTAL .SCORE {also -enter (M first Pap)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

Appendix I – Wetland JD Forms and Maps

86$50<&25362)(1*,1((56
:,/0,1*721',675,&7

$FWLRQ,G6$:&RXQW\'DYLH86*64XDG1&)DUPLQJWRQ

127,),&$7,212)-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21

3URSHUW\2ZQHU1RUWK&DUROLQD'HSDUWPHQWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\'LYLVLRQRI0LWLJDWLRQ6HUYLFHV
+DUU\7VRPLGHV
$GGUHVV5DYHQVFURIW'ULYH6XLWH
 $VKHYLOOH1& 
7HOHSKRQH1XPEHU
(PDLOKDUU\WVRPLGHV#QFGHQUJRY

6L]HDFUHV 1HDUHVW7RZQ0RFNVYLOOH
1HDUHVW:DWHUZD\<DGNLQ5LYHU 5LYHU%DVLQ8SSHU3HH'HH
86*6+8& &RRUGLQDWHV /DWLWXGH
     /RQJLWXGH
/RFDWLRQGHVFULSWLRQ7KHUHYLHZDUHDLVORFDWHGRQWKHHDVWVLGHRI6SLOOPDQ5RDGDSSUR[LPDWHO\PLOHVQRUWKRIWKH
LQWHUVHFWLRQRI6SLOOPDQ5RDGDQG1&3,15HIHUHQFHUHYLHZDUHDGHVFULSWLRQVKRZQLQ-XULVGLFWLRQDO
'HWHUPLQDWLRQ3DFNDJHHQWLWOHG³3RWHQWLDO:HWODQGRU1RQ:HWODQG:DWHUVRIWKH860DS´DQG3ULQWHG'DWHRI

,QGLFDWH:KLFKRIWKH)ROORZLQJ$SSO\
$.PreliminaryDetermination

7KHUHDSSHDUWREHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\WKDWPD\EHVXEMHFWWR6HFWLRQ
RIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW&:$86&†DQGRU6HFWLRQRIWKH5LYHUVDQG+DUERUV$FW5+$86&†7KH
ZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVKDYHEHHQGHOLQHDWHGDQGWKHGHOLQHDWLRQKDVEHHQYHULILHGE\WKH&RUSVWREHVXIILFLHQWO\DFFXUDWH
DQGUHOLDEOH7KHDSSUR[LPDWHERXQGDULHVRIWKHVHZDWHUVDUHVKRZQRQWKHHQFORVHGGHOLQHDWLRQPDSGDWHG7KHUHIRUH
WKLVSUHOLPLQDU\MXULVGLFWLRQGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\EHXVHGLQWKHSHUPLWHYDOXDWLRQSURFHVVLQFOXGLQJGHWHUPLQLQJFRPSHQVDWRU\
PLWLJDWLRQ)RUSXUSRVHVRIFRPSXWDWLRQRILPSDFWVFRPSHQVDWRU\PLWLJDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWVDQGRWKHUUHVRXUFHSURWHFWLRQ
PHDVXUHVDSHUPLWGHFLVLRQPDGHRQWKHEDVLVRIDSUHOLPLQDU\-'ZLOOWUHDWDOOZDWHUVDQGZHWODQGVWKDWZRXOGEHDIIHFWHGLQDQ\
ZD\E\WKHSHUPLWWHGDFWLYLW\RQWKHVLWHDVLIWKH\DUHMXULVGLFWLRQDOZDWHUVRIWKH867KLVSUHOLPLQDU\GHWHUPLQDWLRQLVQRWDQ
DSSHDODEOHDFWLRQXQGHUWKH5HJXODWRU\3URJUDP$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO3URFHVV5HIHUHQFH&)53DUW+RZHYHU\RXPD\
UHTXHVWDQDSSURYHG-'ZKLFKLVDQDSSHDODEOHDFWLRQE\FRQWDFWLQJWKH&RUSVGLVWULFWIRUIXUWKHULQVWUXFWLRQ

7KHUHDSSHDUWREHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\WKDWPD\EHVXEMHFWWR6HFWLRQ
RIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW&:$86&†DQGRU6HFWLRQRIWKH5LYHUVDQG+DUERUV$FW5+$86&†
+RZHYHUVLQFHWKHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVKDYHQRWEHHQSURSHUO\GHOLQHDWHGWKLVSUHOLPLQDU\MXULVGLFWLRQGHWHUPLQDWLRQ
PD\QRWEHXVHGLQWKHSHUPLWHYDOXDWLRQSURFHVV:LWKRXWDYHULILHGZHWODQGGHOLQHDWLRQWKLVSUHOLPLQDU\GHWHUPLQDWLRQLV
PHUHO\DQHIIHFWLYHSUHVXPSWLRQRI&:$5+$MXULVGLFWLRQRYHUDOORIWKHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVDWWKHSURMHFWDUHDZKLFK
LVQRWVXIILFLHQWO\DFFXUDWHDQGUHOLDEOHWRVXSSRUWDQHQIRUFHDEOHSHUPLWGHFLVLRQ:HUHFRPPHQGWKDW\RXKDYHWKHZDWHUV
LQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQ\RXUSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\GHOLQHDWHG$VWKH&RUSVPD\QRWEHDEOHWRDFFRPSOLVKWKLVZHWODQG
GHOLQHDWLRQLQDWLPHO\PDQQHU\RXPD\ZLVKWRREWDLQDFRQVXOWDQWWRFRQGXFWDGHOLQHDWLRQWKDWFDQEHYHULILHGE\WKH&RUSV
%$SSURYHG'HWHUPLQDWLRQ

7KHUHDUH1DYLJDEOH:DWHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVZLWKLQWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\VXEMHFWWRWKHSHUPLW
UHTXLUHPHQWVRI6HFWLRQRIWKH5LYHUVDQG+DUERUV$FW5+$86&†DQG6HFWLRQRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW
&:$86&†8QOHVVWKHUHLVDFKDQJHLQODZRURXUSXEOLVKHGUHJXODWLRQVWKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\EHUHOLHGXSRQIRU
DSHULRGQRWWRH[FHHGILYH\HDUVIURPWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLILFDWLRQ

7KHUHDUHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\VXEMHFWWRWKHSHUPLWUHTXLUHPHQWVRI6HFWLRQ
RIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW&:$86&†8QOHVVWKHUHLVDFKDQJHLQWKHODZRURXUSXEOLVKHGUHJXODWLRQVWKLV
GHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\EHUHOLHGXSRQIRUDSHULRGQRWWRH[FHHGILYH\HDUVIURPWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLILFDWLRQ

:HUHFRPPHQG\RXKDYHWKHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQ\RXUSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\GHOLQHDWHG$VWKH&RUSVPD\QRWEH
DEOHWRDFFRPSOLVKWKLVZHWODQGGHOLQHDWLRQLQDWLPHO\PDQQHU\RXPD\ZLVKWRREWDLQDFRQVXOWDQWWRFRQGXFWDGHOLQHDWLRQWKDW
FDQEHYHULILHGE\WKH&RUSV

6$:
7KHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVRQ\RXUSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\KDYHEHHQGHOLQHDWHGDQGWKHGHOLQHDWLRQKDVEHHQYHULILHGE\
WKH&RUSV7KHDSSUR[LPDWHERXQGDULHVRIWKHVHZDWHUVDUHVKRZQRQWKHHQFORVHGGHOLQHDWLRQPDSGDWHG0$3'$7(,I\RX
ZLVKWRKDYHWKHGHOLQHDWLRQVXUYH\HGWKH&RUSVFDQUHYLHZDQGYHULI\WKHVXUYH\XSRQFRPSOHWLRQ2QFHYHULILHGWKLVVXUYH\
ZLOOSURYLGHDQDFFXUDWHGHSLFWLRQRIDOODUHDVVXEMHFWWR&:$DQGRU5+$MXULVGLFWLRQRQ\RXUSURSHUW\ZKLFKSURYLGHGWKHUHLV
QRFKDQJHLQWKHODZRURXUSXEOLVKHGUHJXODWLRQVPD\EHUHOLHGXSRQIRUDSHULRGQRWWRH[FHHGILYH\HDUV

7KHZDWHUVLQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVKDYHEHHQGHOLQHDWHGDQGVXUYH\HGDQGDUHDFFXUDWHO\GHSLFWHGRQWKHSODWVLJQHGE\WKH
&RUSV5HJXODWRU\2IILFLDOLGHQWLILHGEHORZRQ6859(<6,*1(''$7(8QOHVVWKHUHLVDFKDQJHLQWKHODZRURXUSXEOLVKHG
UHJXODWLRQVWKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\EHUHOLHGXSRQIRUDSHULRGQRWWRH[FHHGILYH\HDUVIURPWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLILFDWLRQ

7KHUHDUHQRZDWHUVRIWKH86WRLQFOXGHZHWODQGVSUHVHQWRQWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGSURMHFWDUHDSURSHUW\ZKLFKDUHVXEMHFWWRWKH
SHUPLWUHTXLUHPHQWVRI6HFWLRQRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW86&8QOHVVWKHUHLVDFKDQJHLQWKHODZRURXUSXEOLVKHG
UHJXODWLRQVWKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\EHUHOLHGXSRQIRUDSHULRGQRWWRH[FHHGILYH\HDUVIURPWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLILFDWLRQ

7KHSURSHUW\LVORFDWHGLQRQHRIWKH&RDVWDO&RXQWLHVVXEMHFWWRUHJXODWLRQXQGHUWKH&RDVWDO$UHD0DQDJHPHQW$FW&$0$
<RXVKRXOGFRQWDFWWKH'LYLVLRQRI&RDVWDO0DQDJHPHQWLQ0RUHKHDG&LW\1&DWWRGHWHUPLQHWKHLU
UHTXLUHPHQWV

3ODFHPHQWRIGUHGJHGRUILOOPDWHULDOZLWKLQZDWHUVRIWKH86LQFOXGLQJZHWODQGVZLWKRXWD'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH$UP\SHUPLWPD\
FRQVWLWXWHDYLRODWLRQRI6HFWLRQRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW86&†3ODFHPHQWRIGUHGJHGRUILOOPDWHULDOFRQVWUXFWLRQRU
SODFHPHQWRIVWUXFWXUHVRUZRUNZLWKLQQDYLJDEOHZDWHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVZLWKRXWD'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH$UP\SHUPLWPD\
FRQVWLWXWHDYLRODWLRQRI6HFWLRQVDQGRURIWKH5LYHUVDQG+DUERUV$FW86&†DQGRU,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQV
UHJDUGLQJWKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQDQGRUWKH&RUSVUHJXODWRU\SURJUDPSOHDVHFRQWDFW%U\DQ5RGHQ5H\QROGVDWRU
EU\DQURGHQUH\QROGV#XVDFHDUP\PLO

C.%DVLV)RU'HWHUPLQDWLRQ%DVLV)RU'HWHUPLQDWLRQ6HHWKHSUHOLPLQDU\MXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQ
IRUPGDWHG
'.5HPDUNV 1RQH

($WWHQWLRQ86'$3URJUDP3DUWLFLSDQWV

7KLVGHOLQHDWLRQGHWHUPLQDWLRQKDVEHHQFRQGXFWHGWRLGHQWLI\WKHOLPLWVRI&RUSV¶&OHDQ:DWHU$FWMXULVGLFWLRQIRUWKHSDUWLFXODUVLWH
LGHQWLILHGLQWKLVUHTXHVW7KHGHOLQHDWLRQGHWHUPLQDWLRQPD\QRWEHYDOLGIRUWKHZHWODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQSURYLVLRQVRIWKH)RRG6HFXULW\
$FWRI,I\RXRU\RXUWHQDQWDUH86'$3URJUDPSDUWLFLSDQWVRUDQWLFLSDWHSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQ86'$SURJUDPV\RXVKRXOGUHTXHVW
DFHUWLILHGZHWODQGGHWHUPLQDWLRQIURPWKHORFDORIILFHRIWKH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFHSULRUWRVWDUWLQJZRUN

)$SSHDOV,QIRUPDWLRQ7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQDSSOLHVRQO\WRDSSURYHGMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQVDVLQGLFDWHGLQ%
DERYH

7KLVFRUUHVSRQGHQFHFRQVWLWXWHVDQDSSURYHGMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQIRUWKHDERYHGHVFULEHGVLWH,I\RXREMHFWWRWKLV
GHWHUPLQDWLRQ\RXPD\UHTXHVWDQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHDSSHDOXQGHU&RUSVUHJXODWLRQVDW&)53DUW(QFORVHG\RXZLOOILQGD
1RWLILFDWLRQRI$SSHDO3URFHVV1$3IDFWVKHHWDQGUHTXHVWIRUDSSHDO5)$IRUP,I\RXUHTXHVWWRDSSHDOWKLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQ\RX
PXVWVXEPLWDFRPSOHWHG5)$IRUPWRWKHIROORZLQJDGGUHVV

 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV
 6RXWK$WODQWLF'LYLVLRQ
 $WWQ-DVRQ6WHHOH5HYLHZ2IILFHU
 )RUV\WK6WUHHW6:5RRP0
 $WODQWD*HRUJLD

,QRUGHUIRUDQ5)$WREHDFFHSWHGE\WKH&RUSVWKH&RUSVPXVWGHWHUPLQHWKDWLWLVFRPSOHWHWKDWLWPHHWVWKHFULWHULDIRUDSSHDO
XQGHU&)5SDUWDQGWKDWLWKDVEHHQUHFHLYHGE\WKH'LYLVLRQ2IILFHZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKH1$36KRXOG\RX
GHFLGHWRVXEPLWDQ5)$IRUPLWPXVWEHUHFHLYHGDWWKHDERYHDGGUHVVE\1RWDSSOLFDEOH

,WLVQRWQHFHVVDU\WRVXEPLWDQ5)$IRUPWRWKH'LYLVLRQ2IILFHLI\RXGRQRWREMHFWWRWKHGHWHUPLQDWLRQLQWKLVFRUUHVSRQGHQFH



&RUSV5HJXODWRU\2IILFLDOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

'DWHRI-' ([SLUDWLRQ'DWHRI-'1RWDSSOLFDEOH
RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574 Digitally signed by RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=RODEN REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
Date: 2018.03.26 14:28:30 -04'00'
6$:
7KH:LOPLQJWRQ'LVWULFWLVFRPPLWWHGWRSURYLGLQJWKHKLJKHVWOHYHORIVXSSRUWWRWKHSXEOLF7RKHOSXVHQVXUHZH
FRQWLQXHWRGRVRSOHDVHFRPSOHWHWKH&XVWRPHU6DWLVIDFWLRQ6XUYH\ORFDWHGDW
KWWSFRUSVPDSXXVDFHDUP\PLOFPBDSH[I"S 

&RS\IXUQLVKHG


$JHQW5HVRXUFH(QYLURQPHQWDO6ROXWLRQV
 -HUHP\6FKPLG
$GGUHVV-HIIHUVRQ6WUHHW6XLWH
 5DOHLJK1& 
7HOHSKRQH1XPEHU
(PDLOMVFKPLG#UHVXV
6$:
127,),&$7,212)$'0,1,675$7,9($33($/237,216$1'352&(66$1'
5(48(67)25$33($/
$SSOLFDQW1RUWK&DUROLQD'HSDUWPHQWRI
(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\'LYLVLRQRI0LWLJDWLRQ6HUYLFHV
+DUU\7VRPLGHV
)LOH1XPEHU6$:'DWH
$WWDFKHGLV 6HH6HFWLRQEHORZ
 ,1,7,$/352))(5('3(50,76WDQGDUG3HUPLWRU/HWWHURISHUPLVVLRQ $
 352))(5('3(50,76WDQGDUG3HUPLWRU/HWWHURISHUPLVVLRQ %
 3(50,7'(1,$/&
 $33529('-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21 '
 35(/,0,1$5<-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21 (
6(&7,21,7KHIROORZLQJLGHQWLILHV\RXUULJKWVDQGRSWLRQVUHJDUGLQJDQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHDSSHDORIWKHDERYHGHFLVLRQ
$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQPD\EHIRXQGDWRUKWWSZZZXVDFHDUP\PLO0LVVLRQV&LYLO:RUNV5HJXODWRU\3URJUDPDQG3HUPLWVDVS[
RUWKH&RUSVUHJXODWLRQVDW&)53DUW
$,1,7,$/352))(5('3(50,7<RXPD\DFFHSWRUREMHFWWRWKHSHUPLW
x$&&(37,I\RXUHFHLYHGD6WDQGDUG3HUPLW\RXPD\VLJQWKHSHUPLWGRFXPHQWDQGUHWXUQLWWRWKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHUIRUILQDO
DXWKRUL]DWLRQ,I\RXUHFHLYHGD/HWWHURI3HUPLVVLRQ/23\RXPD\DFFHSWWKH/23DQG\RXUZRUNLVDXWKRUL]HG<RXU
VLJQDWXUHRQWKH6WDQGDUG3HUPLWRUDFFHSWDQFHRIWKH/23PHDQVWKDW\RXDFFHSWWKHSHUPLWLQLWVHQWLUHW\DQGZDLYHDOO
ULJKWVWRDSSHDOWKHSHUPLWLQFOXGLQJLWVWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVDQGDSSURYHGMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH
SHUPLW
x2%-(&7,I\RXREMHFWWRWKHSHUPLW6WDQGDUGRU/23EHFDXVHRIFHUWDLQWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVWKHUHLQ\RXPD\UHTXHVW
WKDWWKHSHUPLWEHPRGLILHGDFFRUGLQJO\<RXPXVWFRPSOHWH6HFWLRQ,,RIWKLVIRUPDQGUHWXUQWKHIRUPWRWKHGLVWULFW
HQJLQHHU<RXUREMHFWLRQVPXVWEHUHFHLYHGE\WKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHUZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLFHRU\RXZLOO
IRUIHLW\RXUULJKWWRDSSHDOWKHSHUPLWLQWKHIXWXUH8SRQUHFHLSWRI\RXUOHWWHUWKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHUZLOOHYDOXDWH\RXU
REMHFWLRQVDQGPD\DPRGLI\WKHSHUPLWWRDGGUHVVDOORI\RXUFRQFHUQVEPRGLI\WKHSHUPLWWRDGGUHVVVRPHRI\RXU
REMHFWLRQVRUFQRWPRGLI\WKHSHUPLWKDYLQJGHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKHSHUPLWVKRXOGEHLVVXHGDVSUHYLRXVO\ZULWWHQ$IWHU
HYDOXDWLQJ\RXUREMHFWLRQVWKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHUZLOOVHQG\RXDSURIIHUHGSHUPLWIRU\RXUUHFRQVLGHUDWLRQDVLQGLFDWHGLQ
6HFWLRQ%EHORZ
%352))(5('3(50,7<RXPD\DFFHSWRUDSSHDOWKHSHUPLW
x$&&(37,I\RXUHFHLYHGD6WDQGDUG3HUPLW\RXPD\VLJQWKHSHUPLWGRFXPHQWDQGUHWXUQLWWRWKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHUIRUILQDO
DXWKRUL]DWLRQ,I\RXUHFHLYHGD/HWWHURI3HUPLVVLRQ/23\RXPD\DFFHSWWKH/23DQG\RXUZRUNLVDXWKRUL]HG<RXU
VLJQDWXUHRQWKH6WDQGDUG3HUPLWRUDFFHSWDQFHRIWKH/23PHDQVWKDW\RXDFFHSWWKHSHUPLWLQLWVHQWLUHW\DQGZDLYHDOO
ULJKWVWRDSSHDOWKHSHUPLWLQFOXGLQJLWVWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVDQGDSSURYHGMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH
SHUPLW
x$33($/,I\RXFKRRVHWRGHFOLQHWKHSURIIHUHGSHUPLW6WDQGDUGRU/23EHFDXVHRIFHUWDLQWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVWKHUHLQ
\RXPD\DSSHDOWKHGHFOLQHGSHUPLWXQGHUWKH&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO3URFHVVE\FRPSOHWLQJ6HFWLRQ,,RI
WKLVIRUPDQGVHQGLQJWKHIRUPWRWKHGLYLVLRQHQJLQHHU7KLVIRUPPXVWEHUHFHLYHGE\WKHGLYLVLRQHQJLQHHUZLWKLQGD\V
RIWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLFH
&3(50,7'(1,$/<RXPD\DSSHDOWKHGHQLDORIDSHUPLWXQGHUWKH&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO3URFHVVE\
FRPSOHWLQJ6HFWLRQ,,RIWKLVIRUPDQGVHQGLQJWKHIRUPWRWKHGLYLVLRQHQJLQHHU7KLVIRUPPXVWEHUHFHLYHGE\WKHGLYLVLRQ
HQJLQHHUZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLFH
'$33529('-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21<RXPD\DFFHSWRUDSSHDOWKHDSSURYHG-'RUSURYLGHQHZ
LQIRUPDWLRQ
x$&&(37<RXGRQRWQHHGWRQRWLI\WKH&RUSVWRDFFHSWDQDSSURYHG-')DLOXUHWRQRWLI\WKH&RUSVZLWKLQGD\VRIWKH
GDWHRIWKLVQRWLFHPHDQVWKDW\RXDFFHSWWKHDSSURYHG-'LQLWVHQWLUHW\DQGZDLYHDOOULJKWVWRDSSHDOWKHDSSURYHG-'
x$33($/,I\RXGLVDJUHHZLWKWKHDSSURYHG-'\RXPD\DSSHDOWKHDSSURYHG-'XQGHUWKH&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO3URFHVVE\FRPSOHWLQJ6HFWLRQ,,RIWKLVIRUPDQGVHQGLQJWKHIRUPWRWKHGLVWULFWHQJLQHHU7KLVIRUP
PXVWEHUHFHLYHGE\WKHGLYLVLRQHQJLQHHUZLWKLQGD\VRIWKHGDWHRIWKLVQRWLFH
6$:
(35(/,0,1$5<-85,6',&7,21$/'(7(50,1$7,21<RXGRQRWQHHGWRUHVSRQGWRWKH&RUSVUHJDUGLQJWKH
SUHOLPLQDU\-'7KH3UHOLPLQDU\-'LVQRWDSSHDODEOH,I\RXZLVK\RXPD\UHTXHVWDQDSSURYHG-'ZKLFKPD\EHDSSHDOHG
E\FRQWDFWLQJWKH&RUSVGLVWULFWIRUIXUWKHULQVWUXFWLRQ$OVR\RXPD\SURYLGHQHZLQIRUPDWLRQIRUIXUWKHUFRQVLGHUDWLRQE\WKH
&RUSVWRUHHYDOXDWHWKH-'

6(&7,21,,5(48(67)25$33($/RU2%-(&7,21672$1,1,7,$/352))(5('3(50,7
5($6216)25$33($/252%-(&7,216'HVFULEH\RXUUHDVRQVIRUDSSHDOLQJWKHGHFLVLRQRU\RXUREMHFWLRQVWRDQLQLWLDO
SURIIHUHGSHUPLWLQFOHDUFRQFLVHVWDWHPHQWV<RXPD\DWWDFKDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQWRWKLVIRUPWRFODULI\ZKHUH\RXUUHDVRQVRU
REMHFWLRQVDUHDGGUHVVHGLQWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUG





$'',7,21$/,1)250$7,217KHDSSHDOLVOLPLWHGWRDUHYLHZRIWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUGWKH&RUSVPHPRUDQGXPIRUWKH
UHFRUGRIWKHDSSHDOFRQIHUHQFHRUPHHWLQJDQGDQ\VXSSOHPHQWDOLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWWKHUHYLHZRIILFHUKDVGHWHUPLQHGLVQHHGHGWR
FODULI\WKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUG1HLWKHUWKHDSSHOODQWQRUWKH&RUSVPD\DGGQHZLQIRUPDWLRQRUDQDO\VHVWRWKHUHFRUG
+RZHYHU\RXPD\SURYLGHDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQWRFODULI\WKHORFDWLRQRILQIRUPDWLRQWKDWLVDOUHDG\LQWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYH
UHFRUG
32,172)&217$&7)2548(67,21625,1)250$7,21
,I\RXKDYHTXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKLVGHFLVLRQDQGRUWKH
DSSHDOSURFHVV\RXPD\FRQWDFW
'LVWULFW(QJLQHHU:LOPLQJWRQ5HJXODWRU\'LYLVLRQ
$WWQ%U\DQ5RGHQ5H\QROGV
$VKHYLOOH5HJXODWRU\2IILFH
86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV
3DWWRQ$YHQXH5RRP
$VKHYLOOH1RUWK&DUROLQD

,I\RXRQO\KDYHTXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKHDSSHDOSURFHVV\RXPD\
DOVRFRQWDFW
0U-DVRQ6WHHOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO5HYLHZ2IILFHU
&(6$'3'2
86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV6RXWK$WODQWLF'LYLVLRQ
)RUV\WK6WUHHW5RRP0
$WODQWD*HRUJLD
3KRQH
5,*+72)(175<<RXUVLJQDWXUHEHORZJUDQWVWKHULJKWRIHQWU\WR&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUVSHUVRQQHODQGDQ\JRYHUQPHQW
FRQVXOWDQWVWRFRQGXFWLQYHVWLJDWLRQVRIWKHSURMHFWVLWHGXULQJWKHFRXUVHRIWKHDSSHDOSURFHVV<RXZLOOEHSURYLGHGDGD\
QRWLFHRIDQ\VLWHLQYHVWLJDWLRQDQGZLOOKDYHWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRSDUWLFLSDWHLQDOOVLWHLQYHVWLJDWLRQV

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
6LJQDWXUHRIDSSHOODQWRUDJHQW
'DWH 7HOHSKRQHQXPEHU

For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:

'LVWULFW(QJLQHHU:LOPLQJWRQ5HJXODWRU\'LYLVLRQ$WWQ%U\DQ5RGHQ5H\QROGV'DUOLQJWRQ$YHQXH:LOPLQJWRQ1RUWK
&DUROLQD

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

'LYLVLRQ(QJLQHHU&RPPDQGHU86$UP\(QJLQHHU'LYLVLRQ6RXWK$WODQWLF$WWQ0U-DVRQ6WHHOH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH$SSHDO
2IILFHU&(6$'3'2)RUV\WK6WUHHW5RRP0$WODQWD*HRUJLD
3KRQH













35(/,0,1$5< -85,6',&7,21$/ '(7(50,1$7,213-' )250
%$&.*5281',1)250$7,21
$5(3257&203/(7,21'$7()253-'

%1$0($1'$''5(662)3(56215(48(67,1*3-'1RUWK&DUROLQD'HSDUWPHQWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\
'LYLVLRQRI0LWLJDWLRQ6HUYLFHV+DUU\7VRPLGHV5DYHQVFURIW'ULYH6XLWH$VKHYLOOH1&

&',675,&72)),&(),/(1$0($1' 180%(5:LOPLQJWRQ'LVWULFW&DWELUG6LWH6$:

'352-(&7/2&$7,216$1'%$&.*5281',1)250$7,217KHUHYLHZDUHDLVORFDWHGRQWKHHDVWVLGH
RI6SLOOPDQ5RDGDSSUR[LPDWHO\PLOHVQRUWKRIWKHLQWHUVHFWLRQRI6SLOOPDQ5RDGDQG1&3,1
5HIHUHQFHUHYLHZDUHDGHVFULSWLRQVKRZQLQ-XULVGLFWLRQDO'HWHUPLQDWLRQ3DFNDJHHQWLWOHG³3RWHQWLDO:HWODQGRU1RQ
:HWODQG:DWHUVRIWKH860DS´DQG3ULQWHG'DWHRI
86(7+(7$%/(%(/2:72'2&80(17 08/7,3/($48$7,&5(6285&(6$1'25
$48$7,&5(6285&(6$7',))(5(176,7(6
6WDWH1&&RXQW\'DYLH&LW\0RFNVYLOOH
&HQWHUFRRUGLQDWHVRIVLWHODWORQJLQGHJUHHGHFLPDOIRUPDW/DWLWXGH/RQJLWXGH
8QLYHUVDO7UDQVYHUVH0HUFDWRU
1DPHRIQHDUHVWZDWHUERG\<DGNLQ5LYHU
(5(9,(:3(5)250(')256,7((9$/8$7,21&+(&.$//7+$7$33/<
2IILFH'HVN'HWHUPLQDWLRQ'DWH
)LHOG'HWHUPLQDWLRQ'DWHV

7$%/(2)$48$7,&5(6285&(6,15(9,(:$5($:+,&+0$<%(68%-(&7725(*8/$725<
-85,6',&7,21

^ŝƚĞEƵŵďĞƌ>ĂƚŝƚƵĚĞ;ĚĞĐŝŵĂů
ĚĞŐƌĞĞƐͿ
>ŽŶŐŝƚƵĚĞ;ĚĞĐŝŵĂů
ĚĞŐƌĞĞƐͿ
ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨ
ĂƋƵĂƚŝĐƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŝŶ
ƌĞǀŝĞǁĂƌĞĂ;ĂĐƌĞĂŐĞ
ĂŶĚůŝŶĞĂƌĨĞĞƚ͕ŝĨ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ
dLJƉĞŽĨĂƋƵĂƚŝĐ
ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘
ǁĞƚůĂŶĚǀƐ͘ŶŽŶͲ
ǁĞƚůĂŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƐͿ
'ĞŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJƚŽ
ǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞĂƋƵĂƚŝĐƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ
͞ŵĂLJďĞ͟ƐƵďũĞĐƚ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϰϬϰŽƌ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ϭϬͬϰϬϰͿ
tĞƚůĂŶĚ
tϯϲ͘ϬϮϵϮϵϰ ͲϴϬ͘ϱϬϭϯϵϴ Ϭ͘ϬϭĂĐƌĞƐ tĞƚůĂŶĚ ϰϬϰ
tĞƚůĂŶĚ
tϯϲ͘ϬϮϵϬϳϲ ͲϴϬ͘ϱϬϭϰϮϬ Ϭ͘ϬϯĂĐƌĞƐ tĞƚůĂŶĚ ϰϬϰ
^ƚƌĞĂŵ
^ϭϯϲ͘Ϭϯϭϰϱϭ ͲϴϬ͘ϱϬϬϳϮϰ ϲϳϬůŝŶĞĂƌĨĞĞƚ EŽŶͲǁĞƚůĂŶĚ ϰϬϰ
^ƚƌĞĂŵ
^ϭϯϲ͘ϬϯϬϲϳϰ ͲϴϬ͘ϰϵϵϱϬϵ ϮϰϮůŝŶĞĂƌĨĞĞƚ EŽŶͲǁĞƚůĂŶĚ ϰϬϰ
^ƚƌĞĂŵ
^Ϯϯϲ͘ϬϮϴϵϮϯ ͲϴϬ͘ϱϬϭϯϳϴ ϭ͕ϭϵϱůŝŶĞĂƌĨĞĞƚ EŽŶͲǁĞƚůĂŶĚ ϰϬϰ
    





7KH&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUVEHOLHYHVWKDWWKHUHPD\EHMXULVGLFWLRQDODTXDWLFUHVRXUFHVLQWKHUHYLHZ
DUHDDQGWKHUHTXHVWRURIWKLV3-'LVKHUHE\DGYLVHGRIKLVRUKHURSWLRQWR UHTXHVWDQGREWDLQDQ
DSSURYHG-'$-'IRUWKDWUHYLHZDUHDEDVHGRQDQLQIRUPHGGHFLVLRQDIWHUKDYLQJGLVFXVVHGWKH
YDULRXVW\SHVRI-'VDQGWKHLUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGFLUFXPVWDQFHVZKHQWKH\PD\EHDSSURSULDWH
,QDQ\FLUFXPVWDQFHZKHUHDSHUPLWDSSOLFDQWREWDLQVDQLQGLYLGXDOSHUPLWRUD1DWLRQZLGH*HQHUDO
3HUPLW1:3RURWKHUJHQHUDOSHUPLWYHULILFDWLRQUHTXLULQJSUHFRQVWUXFWLRQQRWLILFDWLRQ3&1RU
UHTXHVWVYHULILFDWLRQIRUDQRQUHSRUWLQJ 1:3RURWKHUJHQHUDOSHUPLWDQGWKHSHUPLWDSSOLFDQWKDV
QRWUHTXHVWHGDQ$-'IRUWKHDFWLYLW\WKHSHUPLWDSSOLFDQWLVKHUHE\PDGHDZDUHWKDWWKHSHUPLW
DSSOLFDQWKDVHOHFWHGWRVHHNDSHUPLWDXWKRUL]DWLRQ EDVHGRQD3-'ZKLFKGRHVQRWPDNHDQRIILFLDO
GHWHUPLQDWLRQRIMXULVGLFWLRQDODTXDWLFUHVRXUFHVWKHDSSOLFDQWKDVWKHRSWLRQWRUHTXHVWDQ$-'
EHIRUHDFFHSWLQJWKHWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRIWKHSHUPLWDXWKRUL]DWLRQDQGWKDWEDVLQJDSHUPLW
DXWKRUL]DWLRQRQDQ$-'FRXOGSRVVLEO\UHVXOWLQOHVVFRPSHQVDWRU\PLWLJDWLRQEHLQJUHTXLUHGRU
GLIIHUHQWVSHFLDOFRQGLWLRQVWKHDSSOLFDQWKDVWKHULJKWWRUHTXHVWDQLQGLYLGXDOSHUPLWUDWKHUWKDQ
DFFHSWLQJWKHWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRIWKH1:3RURWKHUJHQHUDOSHUPLWDXWKRUL]DWLRQWKHDSSOLFDQW
FDQDFFHSWDSHUPLWDXWKRUL]DWLRQDQGWKHUHE\DJUHHWRFRPSO\ZLWKDOOWKHWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRIWKDW
SHUPLWLQFOXGLQJZKDWHYHUPLWLJDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWVWKH&RUSVKDVGHWHUPLQHGWREHQHFHVVDU\
XQGHUWDNLQJDQ\DFWLYLW\LQUHOLDQFHXSRQWKHVXEMHFWSHUPLWDXWKRUL]DWLRQZLWKRXWUHTXHVWLQJDQ$-'
FRQVWLWXWHVWKHDSSOLFDQW
VDFFHSWDQFHRIWKHXVHRIWKH3-'DFFHSWLQJDSHUPLWDXWKRUL]DWLRQHJ
VLJQLQJDSURIIHUHGLQGLYLGXDOSHUPLWRUXQGHUWDNLQJDQ\DFWLYLW\LQUHOLDQFHRQDQ\IRUPRI&RUSV
SHUPLWDXWKRUL]DWLRQEDVHGRQD3-'FRQVWLWXWHVDJUHHPHQWWKDWDOODTXDWLFUHVRXUFHVLQWKHUHYLHZDUHD
DIIHFWHGLQDQ\ZD\E\WKDWDFWLYLW\ZLOOEHWUHDWHGDVMXULVGLFWLRQDODQGZDLYHVDQ\FKDOOHQJHWRVXFK
MXULVGLFWLRQLQDQ\DGPLQLVWUDWLYHRUMXGLFLDOFRPSOLDQFHRUHQIRUFHPHQWDFWLRQRULQDQ\
DGPLQLVWUDWLYHDSSHDORULQDQ\)HGHUDOFRXUWDQGZKHWKHU WKHDSSOLFDQWHOHFWVWRXVHHLWKHUDQ$-'
RUD3-'WKH-'ZLOOEHSURFHVVHGDVVRRQDVSUDFWLFDEOH)XUWKHUDQ$-'DSURIIHUHGLQGLYLGXDO
SHUPLWDQGDOOWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVFRQWDLQHGWKHUHLQRULQGLYLGXDOSHUPLWGHQLDOFDQEH
DGPLQLVWUDWLYHO\DSSHDOHGSXUVXDQWWR&)53DUW,IGXULQJDQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHDSSHDOLW
EHFRPHVDSSURSULDWHWRPDNHDQRIILFLDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQZKHWKHUJHRJUDSKLFMXULVGLFWLRQH[LVWVRYHU
DTXDWLFUHVRXUFHVLQWKHUHYLHZDUHDRUWRSURYLGHDQRIILFLDOGHOLQHDWLRQRIMXULVGLFWLRQDODTXDWLF
UHVRXUFHVLQWKHUHYLHZDUHDWKH&RUSVZLOOSURYLGHDQ$-'WRDFFRPSOLVKWKDWUHVXOWDVVRRQDVLV
SUDFWLFDEOH7KLV3-'ILQGVWKDWWKHUH"may be" ZDWHUVRIWKH86DQGRUWKDWWKHUH"may be"
QDYLJDEOHZDWHUVRIWKH86RQWKHVXEMHFWUHYLHZDUHDDQGLGHQWLILHVDOODTXDWLFIHDWXUHVLQWKH
UHYLHZDUHDWKDWFRXOGEHDIIHFWHGE\WKHSURSRVHGDFWLYLW\EDVHGRQWKHIROORZLQJLQIRUPDWLRQ














6833257,1*'$7$'DWDUHYLHZHGIRU3-'FKHFNDOOWKDWDSSO\

&KHFNHGLWHPVVKRXOGEHLQFOXGHGLQVXEMHFWILOH$SSURSULDWHO\UHIHUHQFHVRXUFHVEHORZZKHUH
LQGLFDWHGIRUDOOFKHFNHGLWHPV
0DSVSODQVSORWVRUSODWVXEPLWWHGE\RURQEHKDOIRIWKH3-'UHTXHVWRU
0DS9LFLQLW\0DS'DWHG
'DWDVKHHWVSUHSDUHGVXEPLWWHGE\RURQEHKDOIRIWKH3-'UHTXHVWRU
2IILFHFRQFXUVZLWKGDWDVKHHWVGHOLQHDWLRQ UHSRUW
2IILFHGRHVQRWFRQFXUZLWKGDWDVKHHWVGHOLQHDWLRQUHSRUW5DWLRQDOH
'DWDVKHHWVSUHSDUHGE\WKH&RUSV
&RUSVQDYLJDEOHZDWHUV
VWXG\
86*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\+\GURORJLF$WODV
86*61+'GDWD
86*6DQGGLJLW+8&PDSV
86*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\PDSV&LWHVFDOH TXDGQDPH86*60DS)DUPLQJWRQ
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH6RLO6XUYH\&LWDWLRQ6RLOV0DS6RLO6XUYH\RI'DYLH&RXQW\
1DWLRQDOZHWODQGVLQYHQWRU\PDSV&LWHQDPH1DWLRQDO:HWODQGV,QYHQWRU\0DS86):61:,0DSSHU'DWHG

6WDWHORFDOZHWODQGLQYHQWRU\PDSVB
)(0$),50PDSVB
\HDU)ORRGSODLQ(OHYDWLRQLV  1DWLRQDO*HRGHWLF9HUWLFDO'DWXPRI
3KRWRJUDSKV$HULDO1DPH 'DWH3RWHQWLDO:DWHUVRIWKH860DS'DWHG
RU2WKHU1DPH 'DWH
3UHYLRXVGHWHUPLQDWLRQV)LOHQRDQGGDWHRIUHVSRQVHOHWWHU
2WKHULQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHVSHFLI\ 

,03257$17127(7KHLQIRUPDWLRQUHFRUGHGRQWKLVIRUPKDVQRWQHFHVVDULO\EHHQ
YHULILHGE\WKH&RUSVDQGVKRXOGQRWEHUHOLHGXSRQIRUODWHUMXULVGLFWLRQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQV





 6LJQDWXUHDQGGDWHRI5HJXODWRU\
VWDIIPHPEHUFRPSOHWLQJ3-'



6LJQDWXUHDQGGDWHRISHUVRQUHTXHVWLQJ3-'
5(48,5('XQOHVVREWDLQLQJWKHVLJQDWXUHLV
LPSUDFWLFDEOH


'LVWULFWVPD\HVWDEOLVKWLPHIUDPHVIRUUHTXHVWHUWRUHWXUQVLJQHG3-'IRUPV ,IWKHUHTXHVWHUGRHVQRWUHVSRQGZLWKLQWKH
HVWDEOLVKHGWLPHIUDPHWKHGLVWULFWPD\SUHVXPHFRQFXUUHQFH DQGQRDGGLWLRQDOIROORZ XSLVQHFHVVDU\SULRUWRILQDOL]LQJDQ
DFWLRQ





RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KE
NNETH.1263385574
Digitally signed by RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD,
ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=RODEN
REYNOLDS.BRYAN.KENNETH.1263385574
Date: 2018.03.26 14:28:09 -04'00'
M``aDP-2DP-1WBWADS2DS1DS1Document Path: C:\Users\jschmid\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Catbird\MXD\JD\Catbird_WOUS_11x17.mxd - Date Saved: 3/9/2018 PROJECT MANAGER: DRAWN: ATP JOB NUMBER: ###### DATE: 09/29/2017 REVISIONS: NONE 0200100Feet©LegendMWetland Data Points``aUpland Data PointsProposed EasementPotential Non-Wetland Waters of the USPotential Wetland Waters of the USPotential Wetland or Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. Map Catbird Mitigation Site Davie County, North Carolina

Appendix J – Invasive Species Plan

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. RES will treat invasive
species vegetation within the project area and provide remedial action on a case by- case basis. Common
invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), will be treated to
allow native plants to become established within the conservation easement. Invasive species vegetation
will be treated by approved mechanical and/or chemical methods such that the percent composition of
exotic/invasive species is less than 5% of the total riparian buffer area. Any control methods requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules
and regulations. If areas of invasive species exist within the easement, they will be monitored yearly as part
of the monitoring protocol, and treated if necessary. If required, problem areas will continue to be treated
until the project easement shows overall trending towards meeting all monitoring requirements.

Appendix K – Approved FHWA
Categorical Exclusion Form

Categorical Exclusion Form for Division Mitigation Services
Projects
Version 1.4
•
art 1: General Project Information
Project blame: iCatbird
County Name: Davie
DMS ID Number: 100022
Project Sponsor: Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Project Contact Name: Cara Conder
Project Contact Address: 302 Jefferson Street Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
Project Contact E-mail: cconder@_res.us
DMS Pro-ect Mana er: Har Tsomides
Project Description
The Catbird site is a stream restoration site in Davie County (Yadkin River:
030401 01 1 6001 0) whose objectives are to restore or enhance 2,220 linear feet of
two unnamed tributaries. The project watershed is primarily forested and mixed
agricultural land, and has historically served this purpose. Most project reaches are
currently being impacted by livestock production, agricultural production, and lack of
riparian buffer. A combination of stream restoration and enhancement is proposed to
increase hydrologic and ecological function and protect these natural features in
perpetuity.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date DMS Prbject Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date or Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8116105

Version 1.4, 8/16/05
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, 8/16/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities

Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or
objects of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the specie and/or “likely to adversely
modify” Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination?

Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05
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
Appendix E – Categorical Exclusion Summary

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly
known as Superfund, created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries to clean up abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

As a part of the ERTR and CERCLA compliance, an EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was ordered
for the Catbird Mitigation Site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) on July 7, 2017.
According to the EDR report, there were not listed sites located within 1 mile of the project site. In addition
to the EDR search, a visual inspection of the Catbird site was conducted to assess the potential for the
occurrence of recognized environmental conditions on the property that might not have been revealed in
the EDR report. The inspection was conducted to locate and identify any obvious use, storage, or generation
of hazardous materials. No hazardous storage containers or substances were observed.

Overall, the EDR assessment revealed no evidence of “recognized environmental conditions” in connection
with the target property. The summary of the EDR report is included in the Appendix.

National Historical Preservation Act (Section 106)
The National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) is legislation intended to preserve historical and
archaeological sites in the United States of America. RES requested review and comment from the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archaeological and architectural resources related
to the Catbird Mitigation Site on October 20th, 2017. SHPO responded on October 24, 2017 and had no
objections to the Catbird Project. The correspondence SHPO can be found in the Appendix.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) provides
important protections and assistance for those people affected by federally funded projects. The Uniform
Act applies to the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for federally funded projects.
The Catbird Mitigation Site is a full-delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of fair
market value of the property and the lack of condemnation authority was completed by RES. The landowner
was notified of fair market value and condemnation authority was listed in the option agreement.

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.

Davie County’s list of threatened and endangered species include Michaux’s Sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis). Other than the NLEB, the Catbird Mitigation
Site does not support any habitat related to any of the threatened or endangered species listed above.

During site visits performed by RES, no NLEB individuals were found to exist on the site. A completed
NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamline Consultation Form will be submitted by the Federal Highways Administration
to the USFWS. The NLEB 4(d) Rules states “that the project may affect the NLEB, but that any resulting
incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.” All correspondence with the USFWS
is included in the Appendix.

Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on
the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The Catbird Mitigation
Site includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD-1006 has been completed and submitted
to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The completed form and correspondence
documenting the submittal is included in the Appendix.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of the United States was enacted to protect fish and
wildlife when federal actions result in the control or modification of a natural stream or body of water.
Since the Catbird Mitigation Site includes stream restoration RES requested comment from the North
Carolina Fish and Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). The NCWRC responded on December 1,
2017 and stated there are no records for any listed aquatic species in the vicinity of the project. All
correspondence can be found in Appendix F.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship import, or
extort and 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 at taking.

RES requested comment on the Catbird Mitigation Site from the USFWS in regard to migratory birds on
October 20th, 2017. The USFWS responded on November 20, 2017 and stated that besides the Northern
long-eared bat, there is no record of other federally protected species in the project vicinity. All
correspondence with USFWS will be included in the Appendix.
Letters to and from Agencies

October 20, 2017

Renee Gledhill-Earley
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617

Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,

The Catbird Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES) to provide
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts. The proposed project involves the
restoration and enhancement of approximately 2,220 linear feet of stream.

RES requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
archaeological or cultural resources associated with a potential stream mitigation project on the
Catbird Site (a USGS site map with approximate limits of conservation easement is attached).

A review of the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) HPOWEB GIS Service database
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/; accessed October 11, 2017) was performed as part of the site due
diligence evaluation. The database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or
archeological resources on the proposed properties. In addition, the majority of the site has
historically been disturbed due to cattle grazing.

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. You
may return the comment to my attention at the address below, or via email. Please feel free to
contact me at [e-mail] with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of
site disturbance associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist

302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]

10055 Red Run Blvd.
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD
21117

412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802

100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401

5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Houston, TX
77006

1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
70508

137½ East Main St.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
25901

33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219

302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605

1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
R.vnona M. Rartas, Administrator
Governor Roy' Caoller
Secretary Susi E f. f fm»ilton
October 17, 2017
Kimberly Browning Kimberly.D.Browninlzgusace.army.rnil
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Re: Catbird Mitigation Site, Davie County, ER 17-1797
Dear Ms. Browning:
Of iec of Archives and l listory
Deputy SccretarY Devin Cherry
Thank you for your public notice of September 20, 2017, 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 500.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. ncder.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
r
arnona M. Balrtos
Location: 1119 Hast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 276(11 Mailing Address: 4617 \fail Sun ice Center, Raleigh NC .27699-4617 Telephone/ Fax: [phone]-0599

October 20, 2017

Mr. Vann Stancil
Habitat Conservation Biologist
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
215 Jerusalem Church Road
Kenly, NC 27542

Subject: Project Scoping for Catbird Stream Mitigation Project in Davie County.

Dear Mr.Stancil,

The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a potential stream restoration project on
the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property lines and areas of potential ground
disturbance are enclosed). The Catbird Site has been identified by Resource Environmental
Solutions, LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts. The
proposed project involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 2,220 linear feet of
stream. The site is currently used for cattle grazing and the stream channels have been channelized
and impounded.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist

302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]

10055 Red Run Blvd.
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD
21117

412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802

100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401

5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Houston, TX
77006

1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
70508

137½ East Main St.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
25901

33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219

302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605

1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220

From: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 1:17 PM
To: Matthew DeAngelo
Subject: RE: [External] Mockingbird Mitigation Site

Matt,

Thanks for the opportunity to review these 3 mitigation project for issues related to fish and wildlife.

The Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site is located on Hauser Creek and its tributaries in Davie
County. Hauser Creek is a direct tributary to the Yadkin River. There’s an existing easement
downstream of this new mitigation site. There are no records for any listed aquatic species in the
vicinity of this project.

The Catbird Stream Mitigation Site appears to be located on an unnamed tributary to the Yadkin River
located east of Hauser Creek in Davie County. There are no records for any listed aquatic species in the
vicinity of this project.

The Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site is located in Surry County on Mill Creek and 3 of it’s
tributaries. Mill Creek is a tributary to the Mitchell River. While there are no records of listed aquatic
species in Mill Creek, there are records for brook floater, Alasmidonta varicosa, in the Mitchell River
upstream and downstream of the Mill Creek confluence. Brook floater is a state endangered
species. I’ve consulted with our aquatic biologists about the possibility of brook floaters in Mill
Creek. There are no records from Mill Creek, but we don’t have any records of collection efforts there
either. So brook floaters may inhabit Mill Creek, near the area proposed for restoration. Our biologist
plan to investigate Mill Creek to see if there are brook floaters present or if the habitat there is likely to
support them. If brook floaters, or another listed aquatic species is found, additional measures will be
needed to protect these species if restoration efforts are likely to impact them. While restoration
efforts are likely to improve habitat conditions in the long term in Mill Creek, and potentially improve
conditions downstream in the Mitchell River as well, there may be short term impacts to aquatic species
and habitats during restoration. Additional measures during restoration may be needed to minimize
these short term impacts.

Regarding terrestrial species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently listed the northern
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Davie & Surry
counties are within the range
(https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf) of the northern long-
eared bat and may be present or in the vicinity of the project site. As such, consultation with the USFWS
may be required. For more information, please see
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/ or
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/NLEB_RFO.html or contact the Asheville office of the USFWS to ensure
that potential issues related to this species are addressed.

Please let me know if I can assist further. Also, feel free to follow up on the results of survey efforts in
Mill Creek if you have not yet heard from me.

Thanks,
Vann

From: Matthew DeAngelo [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 12:50 PM
To: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Cc: Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Mockingbird Mitigation Site

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail].

Dear Mr. Stancil,

The Mockingbird Stream Mitigation Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
(RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts through the
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. The purpose of this letter is to request, review, and
comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife associated with a
potential stream restoration project on the attached site (USGS site maps with approximate property
lines and areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed along with a KMZ file). We thank you in
advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment to my attention at the
address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any questions that you may
have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist

RES | res.us
Direct: 984.255.9133 | Mobile: [phone]

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

October 20, 2017

Mrs. Janet Mizzi
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801

Subject: Project Scoping for Catbird Mitigation Site in Davie County

Dear Mrs. Mizzi,

Resource Environmetal Solutions (RES) requests review and comment from the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on any possible concerns they may have with regards to the
implementation of the Catbird Mitigation Project. Please note that this request is in support of the
development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the referenced project. The proposed project
involves the restoration and enhancement of approximately 2,220 linear feet of stream The Site is
currently in agricultural use, specifically as pasture and row crops.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (accessed 11 October 2017) lists one
endangered species for Davie County, North Carolina: Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii). The
database also lists the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as a threatened species. No
protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during preliminary site
evaluations. A review of the NHP database indicates that there are no known occurrences of state
threatened or endangered species within a one-mile radius of the project area. Based on initial site
investigations, no impacts to federally protected species are anticipated as a result of the proposed
project.

Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the planting of a stream enhancement project
on the subject property. Maps showing the location and approximate limits of the conservation
easement are enclosed.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. You may return the comment
to my attention at the address below. Please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Matt DeAngelo
Ecologist

302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]

10055 Red Run Blvd.
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD
21117

412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802

100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401

5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Houston, TX
77006

1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
70508

137½ East Main St.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
25901

33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219

302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605

1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220

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

November 20, 2017

Mr. Matt DeAngelo
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Dear Mr. DeAngelo:

Subject: Catbird Mitigation Site; Davie County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-18-028

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence received via email dated October 20, 2017. We submit 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
According to your correspondence, you are seeking our scoping comments to inform a NEPA
document for a proposed mitigation bank near Farmington, North Carolina. The proposed bank
would entail restoration and enhancement of approximately 2,220 linear feet of an unnamed
tributary to the Yadkin River. Adjacent land use is dominated by pasture and row crops.

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
According to Service records, suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the project
area for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). However, the
final 4(d) rule (effective as of February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-eared
bat associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site,
and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June 1
– July 31). Based on the information provided, the project (which may or may not 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. Although not required, we encourage you to avoid
any associated tree clearing activities during the maternity roosting season from May 15 –
August 15 if possible.

The Service has record of no other federally protected species in the project vicinity.

We offer the following comments in the interest of protecting fish and wildlife resources:
Stream Channel and Bank Restoration
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
2

(accelerating the erosion of banks and scour of the channel bed) nor aggrading (accelerating the
deposition of sediment within the channel). Alterations to the dimension (cross-sectional view of
the channel), pattern (the sinuosity of the channel), or profile (longitudinal slope) of the stream
channel as well as changes to streambank vegetation, floodplains, hydrology, or sediment input
can significantly alter this equilibrium. Accordingly, we recommend the following:

1. Only the absolute minimum amount of work should be done within stream channels to
accomplish necessary reconstruction. The amount of disturbance to in-stream and
riparian areas should not exceed what can be stabilized by the end of the workday.
Restoration plans should account for the constraints of the site and the opportunities to
improve stream pattern, dimension, and profile with minimal disturbance.

2. All reconstruction work should follow natural channel design methodologies that are
based on the bank-full, or channel-forming, stage of the stream. Bank-full stage
maintains the natural channel dimensions and transports the bulk of sediment over time
(Doll et al. 2003). 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. The Service is available to assist with the identification of reference
reaches.

3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area to the
extent possible. Sandbags, cofferdams, bladder dams, or other diversion structures
should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water. These diversion structures should
be removed as soon as the work area is stable. When practical, a pump-around operation
shall be used to divert flow during construction.

4. Equipment should not be operated in the stream unless absolutely necessary. Machinery
should be operated from the banks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody
vegetation. 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.

5. Streambanks with deep-rooted woody vegetation are the most stable, and stream
restoration efforts should incorporate the use of native vegetation adapted to the site
conditions. Biodegradable erosion-control materials may be incorporated into
bank-restoration design in order to stabilize soils as vegetation becomes established.
Live dormant stakes (such as black willow) may be used to reestablish root structure in
riparian areas. In areas where banks are severely undercut, high, and steep, whole-tree
revetment or rock may be used as a stabilization treatment (small rock, gravel, sand, and
dirt are not recommended due to their erosive nature), and it should not extend above the
bank-full elevation (the elevation of the channel where the natural floodplain begins).
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.

6. Adequate measures to control sediment and erosion must be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing activities in order to minimize effects on downstream aquatic
resources. In North Carolina, non-cohesive and erosion-prone soils are most common in
the felsic-crystalline terrains of the mountain and upper piedmont regions (Miller and
Kochel 2010). Therefore, reconstruction work should be staged such that disturbed areas
would be stabilized with seeding, mulch, and/or biodegradable (coir) erosion-control
matting prior to the end of each workday. No erosion-control matting or blankets should
contain synthetic (netting) materials. 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).

7. Woody debris, detritus, and other vegetative materials are the main sources of nutrients
and carbon necessary for primary productivity in stream ecosystems. Removal of this
material can impact the production of higher trophic levels, including fish. The Service
does not recommend the removal of woody debris within the stream channel or
floodplain unless it is causing a debris blockage (logjam) or will affect the ability to
achieve bank stability along a specific reach of stream. Woody debris that must be
removed should be chipped on the site.

8. At each restoration site, 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 (Palmer
et al. 2005).

The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. 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 4-2-18-028.

Sincerely,

- - original signed - -

Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

4

References

Doll, B.A., G.L. Grabow, K.R. Hall, J. Halley, W.A. Harman, G.D. Jennings, and
D.E. Wise. 2003. Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute, North Carolina State University.
128 pp.

Hall, K. 2003. Recommended Native Plant Species for Stream Restoration in North
Carolina. Raleigh: North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute, North Carolina
State University.

Miller, J.R., and Kochel, R.C. 2010. Assessment of channel dynamics, in-stream
structures and post-project channel adjustments in North Carolina and its
implications to effective stream restoration. Environmental Earth Sciences, 59(8),
pp. 1681-1692.

Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr,
S. Clayton, C.N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, and D.L. Galat. 2005. Standards for
ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2),
pp. 208-217.

Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra-Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance: YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone 1? ☐ ☒
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency 2 to determine if your project is near
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
☒ ☐
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum? ☐ ☒
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
hibernaculum?
☐ ☒
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
any time of year?
☐ ☒
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
☐ ☒

You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question #1 or yes to question #2 and no to
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the
BO.

Agency and Applicant3 (Name, Email, Phone No.):
Donnie Brew, [e-mail], 919-747-7017
Federal Highway Administration

Cara Conder, [e-mail], 919-209-1052
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (EBX is an entity of RES)

1 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
2 See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nhisites.html
3 If applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation.
Project Name: Catbird Stream Mitigation Project, DMS Project #100022
Project Location (include coordinates if known):
The Project is located in Davie County approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of
Bermuda Run. From Raleigh, proceed west on I-40 towards Greensboro. Continue on I-40 West for 115 miles. Take
exit 180B to merge onto NC-801. Stay on NC-801 for 4 miles. Take a right onto Spillman Road and continue for
approximately one mile and the project will be on the right. Coordinates for the site are as follows: 36.030644 N, -
80.500865 W.
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Catbird Stream Mitigation Site is located in Davie County, approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and
five miles northwest of Bermuda Run (Figure 1). The Project is located in the Yadkin River Basin within Cataloging
Unit 03040101 and TLW 03040101160010. The Project’s watershed is primarily active cattle pasture. The Project
area includes two unnamed tributaries that eventually drain to the Yadkin River. Water quality stressors currently
affecting the Project include livestock production, agricultural production, and lack of riparian buffer. The Project’s
watershed is primarily forested and mixed agricultural land, and has historically served this purpose. Field
evaluations determined all reaches to be either intermittent or perennial. A combination of stream restoration and
enhancement is proposed to increase hydrologic and ecological function and protect these features in perpetuity
(Figure 2). All reaches proposed for inclusion in the Project include a minimum 50-foot buffer on each bank.

The Project will include Priority I stream restoration and stream Enhancement II on two stream reaches (DS1, DS2-
A, and DS2-B). Restoration activities will include constructing an E/C type stream with appropriate dimensions and
pattern, reconnecting the channel to the floodplain, and backfilling the abandoned channel. In-stream structures
such as log sills and brush toes will be installed for vertical stability and to improve habitat. Buffer improvements
will filter runoff from agricultural fields, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. The widening
and restoration of the riparian areas will also provide wildlife corridors throughout the project area.

Enhancement II activities will include the re-establishment of a riparian buffer and live-staking the channel banks
with native vegetation. Proposed buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent
pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Livestock exclusion fencing will be installed
per current Natural Resource Conservation Services specifications.

One agricultural BMP will be installed at the upper end of the reach (DS1, Figure 2) to provide nutrient/sediment
control and flow attenuation from the adjacent pasture.

Any tree removal due to the construction of the stream mitigation site will be limited to the area along the channel
banks. An effort will be made to conduct any tree cutting of suitable summer roosting tree species between August
1 and May 31, but will ultimately depend on the construction/contractor timeline.

The following objectives are proposed for accomplishing project goals:
a. Provide an estimated 2,095 stream mitigation units (SMUs) through Priority I restoration of approximately
2,011 linear feet and Enhancement II on 209 linear feet of existing stream (see table below).
b. Restore stable channel morphology and proper sediment transport capacity.
c. Create and improve stream bed form and improve aquatic and benthic macroinvertebrate habitat.
d. Construct a floodplain bench that is accessible at the proposed bankfull channel elevation.
e. Improve channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in-stream structures and native bank
vegetation.
f. Provide approximately 5.95 acres of riparian buffer restoration by establishing a native forested and
herbaceous riparian buffer plant community with a minimum width of 50 feet from the edge of the restored
channels. This new community will be established in conjunction with the eradication of any existing exotic
or undesirable plant species.

Proposed Mitigation
Reach Restoration Level Linear Feet Mitigation Ratio Stream Mitigation
Units (SMUS)
DS1 Restoration 940 1:1 940
DS2-A Enhancement II 209 2.5:1 209
DS2-B Restoration 1,071 1: 1 1,071
Stream Totals 2,220 2,095

General Project Information
YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum?
❑
Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree?
❑ CK
Does the project include forest conversion'? (if yes, report acreage below)
® 1 ❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
1.7 ac
If known, estimated acres5 of forest conversion from April l to October 31
1.7 ac
If known estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 316
Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
E17 X
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April I to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑
Estimated wind capacity MW
Agency Determination:
By signing this form, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any
resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from submittal of this form, the action agency may
presume that its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project
responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5,
2016, Programmatic BO. The action agency will update this determination annually for multi-year
activities.
The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as
described herein. The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field
Office with the results of any surveys conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the
appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding a dead, injured, or sick NLEB.
Signature: Date Submitted: 1 ��
' Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, mining, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO).
5 If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than 0.1 acre.
6 If the activity includes tree clearing in June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors,
and the GIS User Community
0 3 61.5
Miles
Figure 1
Watershed Map Catbird Stream Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Catbird Easement
TLW 03040101160010
©Date: 11/13/2017
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: C:\Users\mengel\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\nc\Catbird\MXD\ERTR\NLEB\Figure1-VicinityMap.mxd1 in = 3 miles
d2 DS1
DS2-BDS2
-A
DS
1
0 200 400100
Feet
Figure 2
Conceptual Design Map Catbird Stream Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
Legend
Catbird Easement
d2 Agricultural BMP
Restoration
Enhancement II
©Date: 11/13/2017
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: C:\Users\mengel\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\nc\Catbird\MXD\ERTR\NLEB\Figure3-ConceptualMap.mxd1 inch = 200 feet
Reach ID Mitigation Type Reach Length Mitigation Ratio SMU Yield
DS1 Restoration 940 1.0 : 1 940
DS2-A Enhancement II 209 2.5 : 1 84
DS2-B Restoration 1071 1.0 : 1 1071Stream Totals 2220 2095
DS1
DS2-B
DS2-A
DS1
0 200 400100
Feet
Figure 3
Temporary Forest Impacts Map Catbird Stream Mitigation Site
Davie County, North Carolina
1.7 ac of Temporary Forest Impacts
*Tree removal will be limited to the minimum amount needed along channel banks for construction. Native trees will be planted along reaches that are for proposed restoration.
Legend
Proposed_Easement
Temporary Forest Impacts
Proposed_Stream_Catbird
Enhancement II
Restoration
©Date: 11/10/2017
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: C:\Users\mengel\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\nc\Catbird\MXD\ERTR\NLEB\Figure3_TemporaryForestImpacts.mxd1 inch = 200 feet

October 20, 2017

Randy Blackwood
Natural Resources Conservation Service
301 E Center St.
Lexington, NC 27292-4107

Subject: AD-1006 Request for the Catbird Mitigation Site in Davie County

Dear Mr. Blackwood,

Resource Environmetal Solutions (RES) requests review and comment from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service on any possible concerns that may emerge with respect to farmland resources
including prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland assocaited with the Catbird stream
mitigation project. This project is being developed for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services. Please note that this request is in support of the development of the Categorical Exclusion
(CE) and an Environmental Resource Technical Report for the referenced project.

The Catbird Site has been identified for the purposes of providing mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel impacts in the Yadkin River Basin. RES has been awarded the contract to design
and implement the Mockingbird project. A requirement of the project is to prepare and
Environmental Resource Technical Document that describes resources present on the project site.

The Project is located in the Turner and Hauser Creeks Watershed (03040101160010), a Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW). The Project supports many of the Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) goals and presents an opportunity to restore 2,100 linear feet and enhance 209
linear feet of warm water stream and riparian corridor. The Project will provide numerous
ecological and water quality benefits within the Yadkin River Basin. These benefits are not limited
to the project area, but have more far-reaching effects throughout the Yadkin River Basin. The
Project will provide improvements to water quality, hydrologic function, and habitat. Coordinates
for the site are as follows: 36.030644 N, -80.500865 W.

An inventory of soils data was completed by RES utilizing Web Soil Survey to determine prime
farmland classifications for the project area. Two soil map units in the project area are classified
as farmland of state importance, making up approximately 37% of the site. One soil map unit in
the project area is classified as not prime farmland, making up 62% of the site.

Encolosed is Form AD-1006 with Parts I and III Completed and maps of the Mockingbird Site. We ask that
you review the site information and complete Parts II, IV, and V as required by NRCS. Please email
([e-mail]), or mail your reply to the address below.

10055 Red Run Blvd.
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD
21117

412 N. 4th St.
Suite 300
Baton Rouge, LA
70802

100 Calhoun St.
Suite 320
Charleston, SC
29401

5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 650
Houston, TX
77006

1200 Camellia Blvd.
Suite 220
Lafayette, LA
70508

137½ East Main St.
Suite 210
Oak Hill, WV
25901

33 Terminal Way
Suite 431
Pittsburgh, PA
15219

302 Jefferson St.
Suite 110
Raleigh, NC
27605

1521 W. Main
2nd Floor
Richmond, VA
23220

2

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.

Sincerely,

Megan D Engel
Field Ecologist

302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Tel. [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Attachements: Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS topographc map (Figure 2), Conceptual Plan Maps (Figure 7),
& AD-1006

1
Megan Engel
From:Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:55 PM
To:Megan Engel; Blackwood, Randy - NRCS, Asheboro, NC
Cc:Brad Breslow
Subject:RE: AD1006 requests, Davie County, NC
Attachments:AD1006__Catbird_Mitigation.pdf; Letter_Catbird_Mitigation_DavieCo.pdf
Importance:High
Megan: 

Please, find attached the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for the Catbird Conservation Easement, Davie County, NC.  

If we can be of further assistance please let us know. 

Cordially; 

`|ÄàÉÇ VÉÜàxá
Assistant State Soil Scientist
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117 
Raleigh, NC  27609 
Phone: 919‐873‐2171 
[e-mail] 

From: Megan Engel [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 10:52 AM 
To: Cortes, Milton ‐ NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>; Blackwood, Randy ‐ NRCS, Asheboro, NC 
<[e-mail]> 
Cc: Brad Breslow <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: AD1006 requests, Davie County, NC 

Milton, 

Good morning, and thank you for providing me with the updated FY2018 FPPA guidance.  I have attached the two AD‐
1006 requests for Davie County (Mockingbird and Catbird mitigation sites) and they now include the WSS maps as per 
your email below.   

Please let me know if you need anything else, and have a great day.  

Megan D Engel 
Field Ecologist 
RES | res.us 
Mobile: [phone] 

2
From: Cortes, Milton ‐ NRCS, Raleigh, NC [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 10:29 AM 
To: Megan Engel <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Blackwood, Randy ‐ NRCS, Asheboro, NC <[e-mail]> 
Subject: AD1006 requests, Davie County, NC 
Importance: High 

Hi Megan: 

I received the attached Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Requests from Randy Blackwood, Supervisory Soil 
Conservationist, Team 9. 

I have attached a document with some instructions on what it is required to complete this type of request. All I need, at 
this time, is the soils map as described in the included instructions. Now, an alternative would be to get the GIS 
boundary shape file in a zip file so that I can import the file to WSS and generate the map and the mapunit inventory I 
need to complete the farmland evaluation. 

If you have any question, please let me know. 

Cordially: 

`|ÄàÉÇ VÉÜàxá 
Assistant State Soil Scientist 
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117 
Raleigh, NC  27609 
Phone: 919‐873‐2171 
[e-mail] 

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 law and 
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender and delete the email immediately.  

The Natural Resources Conservation Service
is an agency of the Department of Agriculture’s
Natural Resources mission.

An Equal Opportunity Provider, Employer and Lender
November 14, 2017

Megan D Engel
Field Ecologist
Res
302 Jefferson St., Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Dear Megan D Engel:

Thank you for your letter dated October 25, 2017, Subject: Catbird Conservation
Easement, Davie County, NC. The following guidance is provided for your
information.

Projects are subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requirements
if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to non-
agricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a
federal agency. Farmland means prime or unique farmlands as defined in section
1540(c)(1) of the FPPA or farmland that is determined by the appropriate state or
unit of local government agency or agencies with concurrence of the Secretary of
Agriculture to be farmland of statewide local importance.

For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland,
and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA
requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be
forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up
land.

Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development
or water storage. Farmland already in urban development or water storage
includes all such land with a density of 30 structures per 40-acre area. Farmland
already in urban development also includes lands identified as urbanized area
(UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a tint overprint
on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, or as
urban-built-up on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Important Farmland Maps.

The area in question meets one or more of the above criteria for Farmland.
Farmland area will be affected or converted. Enclosed is the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating form AD1006 with PARTS II, IV and V completed by
NRCS. The corresponding agency will need to complete the evaluation,
according to the Code of Federal Regulation 7CFR 658, Farmland Protection
Policy Act.

Natural Resources
Conservation Service

North Carolina
State Office

4407 Bland Road
Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Voice 919-873-2171
Fax [phone]
Megan D Engel
Page 2

If you have any questions, please contact Milton Cortes, Assistant State Soil Scientist at
919-873-2171 or by email: [e-mail].

Again, thank you for inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

Sincerely,

Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist

cc:
Kent Clary, State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Raleigh, NC

412 N. 4th St. #300 1200 Camellia Blvd. #220 1434 Odenton Rd. 10055 Red Run Blvd. #130 302 Jefferson St. #110 33 Terminal Way #431
Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Lafayette, LA 70508 Odenton, MD 21113 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Raleigh, NC 27605 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

701 E. Bay St. #306 5020 Montrose Blvd. #650 2750 Prosperity Ave. #220 1521 W. Main 2nd Floor 3751 Westerre Pkwy. #A 5367 Telephone Rd. 137½ East Main St. #210
Charleston, SC 29403 Houston, TX 77006 Fairfax, VA 22031 Richmond, VA 23233 Richmond, VA 23220 Warrenton, VA 20187 Oak Hill, WV 25901

November 20, 2017
Dwight Sparks
231 Hidden Creek Drive
Advance, NC 27006

Re: Catbird Mitigation Project

Dear Dwight,

As part of the environmental documentation process in preparation for the stream mitigation
project on your property, this letter is to inform you of provisions in the Federal Highway
Administration Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, as amended, referred to as the Uniform Act.

The Uniform Act requires that we inform you in writing that this conservation easement
transaction is voluntary and that the project is being developed by Environmental Banc &
Exchange, LLC for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). Neither EBX
nor NCDMS have the authority to acquire the property by eminent domain. In addition, EBX
believes that the agreed purchase price for the conservation easement area represents the fair
market value.

This letter is for your information, and you do not need to respond. As always, please feel free to
call me at 919-817-7378 with any questions.

Sincerely,

Daniel Ramsay
Land Representative

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County and State
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)Date Request Received By
NRCS
Person Completing Form:
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: %
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Name of Land Evaluation System Used Name of State or Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
Alternative Site Rating PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
(Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106)
Maximum
Points Site A Site B Site C Site D
1. Area In Non-urban Use
(15)
2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use
(10)
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
(20)
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government
(20)
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area
(15)
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
(15)
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
(10)
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland
(10)
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
(5)
10. On-Farm Investments
(20)
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
(10)
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
(10)
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment)160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
Site Selected: Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES NO
Reason For Selection:
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)
STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM

Step 1 - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place
of form AD-1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, http://fppa.nrcs.usda.gov/lesa/.

Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the
U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator may be found at http://offices.usda.gov/scripts/ndISAPI.dll/oip_public/USA_map, or the offices can usually be
found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State
Office in each State.)

Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime,
unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days.

Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form.

Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records.

Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing
NRCS office.

Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent
with the FPPA.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
(For Federal Agency)

Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land
use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.

Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following:

1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the
conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways,
utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion.

Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS
assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).

1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor-type
project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero,
however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.

2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the
FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other
weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites
where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse
impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).

Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total
maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:

For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center.

NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD-1006 form.

Total points assigned Site A 180
Maximum points possible 200 =X 160 = 144 points for Site A

Appendix L – DMS Floodplain
Requirements Checklist

FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 1 of 4

EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist

This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of
the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with
three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.

Project Location

Name of project:

Catbird
Name if stream or feature:

Unnamed Tributary to Yadkin Creek
County:

Davie County
Name of river basin:

Yadkin – Pee Dee River Basin
Is project urban or rural?

Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:

Davie County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:

5842
(map number 3710584200L, effective date May 18,
2009)
Consultant name:

Resource Environmental Solutions
Phone number:

[phone]
Address:

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 2 of 4
Design Information

The Catbird Mitigation Site is located within a rural watershed in Davie County, within
the Yadkin River Basin and USGS 14-digit HUC 03040101160010. The Project proposes
to restore 1,987 linear feet (LF), enhance 237 LF of stream, and provide water quality
benefit for 53 acres of drainage area. The stream mitigation components are summarized
in the table below. The purpose of the Project is to meet water quality improvements
addressed in the River Basin Restoration Priorities and improve overall stream health.

Reach Length Mitigation Type
DS1 949 Restoration
DS2-A 78 Enhancement II
DS2-B 526 Restoration
DS2-B 159 Enhancement II
DS2-B 512 Restoration

FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist Page 3 of 4
Floodplain Information

Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?

If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:

List flood zone designation: Zone X (outside 0.2% floodplain)

Check if applies:

If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:

Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?

Land Acquisition (Check)

Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed
to the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone])

Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
t: Yes C` No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: State NFIP Enaineer, [phone])
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Andrew Meadwell
Phone Number: [phone]
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
Id No Action
I— No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
I— Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: —Olivia L. Pilkington Signature:
Title: _Engineer II
Date: 08.31.201
FEMA—Floodplain Checklist.docx Page 4 of 4