20171291 Ver 1_Mitigation-Plan_FINAL_20190610

ID#* 20171291
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review
Completed Date
06/11/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal - 6/10/2019
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? *
Type of Mitigation Project:*
W Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Brad Breslow
Project Information
Existing 20171291
(DWR) (nunbers only no dash)
I D#: *
Project Type: r DMS f• Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Gideon Mitigation Site
County: Surry
Document Information
r Yes t: No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing 1
Version: (nun-bersonly)
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Gideon_Mitigation-Plan_FINAL.pdf 23.96MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jamey McEachran
Signature:
J" Va6&1b

302 Jefferson St. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605

Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400

res.us

June 6, 2019

Steven Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Dear Mr. Kichefski,

RES is pleased to submit the Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Instrument (UMBI) Gideon Final
Mitigation Plan (SAW-2017-01462) and Nationwide Permit 27 Pre-Construction Notification (PCN). As
outlined in the 2017 RES Yadkin 01 UMBI Final Prospectus, the Gideon Site is being developed
concurrently with four other mitigation sites to the establish the UMBI. The Mitigation Plan submittal
includes a response memo addressing all IRT comments on the draft plan. The attached PCN package
includes PCN Form, PCN supplemental information, supporting figures , and a Waters of the US Map to
accompany the previously-confirmed PJD. The PCN has also been submitted to NCDWR and USACE via
the joint online submission tool.

As specified in the mitigation plan, RES requests that the initial allocation of released credits, equivalent to
15 percent of the restoration/enhancement credits and 100 percent of the stream preservation credits, be
released by the IRT with written approval upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
b) Approval of the final mitigation plan;
c) Mitigation site must be secured;
d) Delivery of financial assurances;
e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
f) Issuance of the 404-permit verification for construction of the site, if required.

According to our accounting, this request represents 487.49 SMUs.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this important project. Please contact me at 919-209-1062 or
[e-mail] if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Sincerely,

RES, LLC
Brad Breslow
Regulatory Manager

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:

CESAW-RG/Browning May 1, 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument—Gideon Mitigation Site- Draft
Mitigation Plan Review, Yadkin County, NC

PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received from the NCIRT during the 30-day comment
period in accordance with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.

USACE AID#: SAW-2017-01462

30-Day Comment Deadline: November 21, 2018

Mac Haupt, NCDWR:
1. Section 4 Functional Uplift- there is no mention of the on-site degraded wetlands. There should be
discussion of the functional uplift of these wetlands due to riparian planting, cattle exclusion, and
hydrologic uplift due to stream channel modification.
2. Section 6.2- Design Parameters- there is no mention of the wetlands on this reach. There are two significant
wetlands areas associated with this reach. The lower reach of JN6-C will be put back into the wetland,
there is no discussion of this approach, of how this will impact the wetland, or how it will enhance the
wetland. Some discussion of this approach is needed to ensure that no less loss of wetlands is occurring.
In addition, what is the nature of the bed material in this wetland? When the water is turned into the wetland,
will the bed material be able to maintain proper channel form? Is gravel or cobble currently present in the
pavement or subpavement?
3. Section 6.6- Credit Calculations for Non-Standard Buffer Widths- DWR believes that the calculations and
figures representing the proposed additional stream credit were not performed as per the method and request
that these calculations be resubmitted. Figure 11b clearly shows areas where some credit would be deducted
yet the calculations state that there is no credit loss for these areas.
4. Section 8- Monitoring Plan- needs to include discussion of monitoring hydrology of wetlands both for the
purpose of enhancing wetland hydrology, increased overbank flooding, and maintenance of wetland
hydrology.
5. Is the vegetation data being sent to the CVS database?
6. Section 13- Financial Assurances- these costs are low. The costs need to be revised and increased to reflect
true replacement.
7. Figure 5- Existing Conditions- this map shows the current stream going through wetland (WF) which it
does not, nor does it show the true connection to MC2.
8. Design sheets- E2 is not the existing conditions, DWR believes it is the planting plan map.
9. DWR requires wetland gauge placement along reach JN6 at station 15+75 stream right, 19+75 stream left,
and 22+25 stream right.
10. DWR recommends some channel structure enhancements in the channel from station 20+50 through station
25+38.
11. DWR would also recommend a tie-in structure in the connection from JN6 to MC2.
12. Revised Design sheet M1 needs to show wetland gauges.
13. Appendix B- shows some cross sections but there is no reference to where on the reach the cross section
are located. Please include a map showing the location of the labeled cross sections.

Kim Browning, USACE:
1. The plan should be revised to reflect the removal of additional stream buffers.
2. Please accurately depict and label streams and wetlands on all maps and design plans. The labels should
match the labels used for the JD. For example, On the JD map, MC2b is labeled JN7. JN6 is depicted as
currently flowing through wetland F but currently flows directly south to MC2.
3. Page 6, under existing wetlands: Wetland D is labeled twice with separate acreage. Also, please update
this section for consistency with the JD provided in the document that was issued May 22, 2018.
4. Page 8, the document states the project easement will have 4816 linear feet of stream. This is inconsistent
with amounts listed elsewhere in the document.
5. Page 8, section 3.4: The field notes state the road crossing between JN6-A and JN6-B is eroding and RES
agreed to stabilize this road. Discussion regarding stabilization measures should be provided in this
section.
6. Page 10, table 7: Baseline data should include bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio.
7. Page 10, under Discharge: The document states that estimating flows is difficult due to channelization and
agricultural impacts of the existing streams. This statement conflicts with the photos provided in the
document and the majority of the stream assessments that indicate moderate to no evidence of human
alteration.
8. Please QA/QC the description of resource locations. For example, according to the maps, JN6 is located
in the northeast portion of the Gideon site rather than the northwest portion. MC2 is located on the
western portion of the property and flows south/southeast.
9. Page 22, Table 9: Please explain why a stability assessment method that was designed to assess stability
at bridges was selected and then modified to assess the stability of the project streams rather than using a
stream stability assessment method that do not require modification such as WARSSS, the Stream
Quantification Tool, etc.
10. Page 22, Table 9: Please explain why reaches JN6-C and MC2-A are listed as NF for hydraulic and how
you intend to improve floodplain connectivity if these reaches each currently exhibit a bank height ratio
of 1.0?
11. Page 25, Section 6.2: Paragraph four indicates analytical design techniques were used to determine the
design discharge and to verify the design. Paragraphs five and six appear to conflict with the previous
paragraph by indicating that engineering analysis, geomorphic and habitat studies, etc. will be performed
in the future to estimate bankfull flows, determine design discharge, and develop design parameters.
Please clarify.
12. Page 26: Reach JN4A indicates livestock exclusion. The cover page indicates the enhancement ratio is
also based on light supplemental planting.
13. Pages 26-27: This section should include discussion regarding wetlands including the existing condition
and potential impacts and/or uplift associated with the project. Also, please QA/QC descriptions. For
example, reach MC-2A appears to flow east to MC-2B rather than west.
14. Page 33, Invasive species: Appendix G includes an invasive species plan that states invasive species will
be controlled to limit nuisance species to less than 5% of the total riparian buffer. This section should
reference Appendix G.
15. Page 34, Section 6.5: Deviations to the mitigation plan post approval including adjustments to credits will
require a request for modification.
16. Page 35, Table 15: Please explain the increase in linear footage from existing to proposed lengths for the
enhancement reaches.
17. The Pages 37 and 38: Monitoring wells should be installed in existing wetlands adjacent to stream
restoration and enhancement reaches to demonstrate the wetlands will not be impaired by the proposed
activities.
18. Page 37, Performance standards: Entrenchment ratios should be greater than 2.2 for C and E stream
reaches.
19. The long term management plan and funding should include line items for long term maintenance, repair,
replacement of structures and signage. Please revise.
20. Page 46, Section 13: The table does not include costs associated with design. In the event of default, the
financial assurances should include all costs associated with design and construction.
21. Gideon Morphological Parameters: Please provide existing pattern and profile data to document lateral
and vertical stability conditions. Also, please provide a table depicting proposed morphological
parameters (ratios).
22. Please provide a draft copy of the financial assurance documents.
23. Design Plans:
a. Please explain how you propose to transition JN5 to MC2A.
b. Sheet E2 is labeled existing conditions. The sheet depicts appears to depict proposed conditions.

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Steve Kichefski

M E M O R A N D U M
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NCIRT
FROM: Brad Breslow - RES
DATE: June 6, 2019
RE: Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank, Gideon Mitigation Plan EPA, USACE and NCDWR Draft
Mitigation Plan Comments (SAW-2018-01462)

NCDWR Comments:
1. Section 4 Functional Uplift- there is no mention of the on-site degraded wetlands. There should be
discussion of the functional uplift of these wetlands due to riparian planting, cattle exclusion, and
hydrologic uplift due to stream channel modification.
This section has been revised to include language about the function uplift of degraded wetlands.

2. Section 6.2- Design Parameters- there is no mention of the wetlands on this reach. There are two
significant wetlands areas associated with this reach. The lower reach of JN6-C will be put back
into the wetland, there is no discussion of this approach, of how this will impact the wetland, or
how it will enhance the wetland. Some discussion of this approach is needed to ensure that no less
loss of wetlands is occurring. In addition, what is the nature of the bed material in this wetland?
When the water is turned into the wetland, will the bed material be able to maintain proper channel
form? Is gravel or cobble currently present in the pavement or subpavement?
Language has been added to Section 6.2 about the alignment of JN6-C temporarily impacting
Wetland E and Wetland F, but ultimately increasing the hydraulic function of the wetland, and
providing a functional uplift to the stream-wetland system. All wetland impacts for the site will be
accounted for in the Pre-Construction Notification form.

Currently, the wetland is well vegetated and sand and gravel substrate was observed along an
intermittent flowpath through the wetland. We anticipate that more typical channel bedforms will
develop as hydrology is added to the wetland, and given the existing vegetation, we feel that the
wetland/channel will remain laterally and vertically stable.

3. Section 6.6- Credit Calculations for Non-Standard Buffer Widths- DWR believes that the
calculations and figures representing the proposed additional stream credit were not performed as
per the method and request that these calculations be resubmitted. Figure 11b clearly shows areas
where some credit would be deducted yet the calculations state that there is no credit loss for these
areas.
The plan has been revised to reflect the removal of additional stream buffers, and RES is no longer
pursuing additional credit for wider buffers.

4. Section 8- Monitoring Plan- needs to include discussion of monitoring hydrology of wetlands both
for the purpose of enhancing wetland hydrology, increased overbank flooding, and maintenance of
wetland hydrology.
Language has been added into the monitoring plan to discuss monitoring of wetland hydrology
along JN6.

5. Is the vegetation data being sent to the CVS database?
Vegetation data is not sent to the CVS database. However, this is the preferred method for data
collection and analysis for vegetation monitoring.

6. Section 13- Financial Assurances- these costs are low. The costs need to be revised and increased
to reflect true replacement.
This design will be completed prior to mitigation plan approval and t he first credit release, which
requires the construction phase bond. The design costs will not be included in the financial
assurances. Construction costs of $349,000 for a 2,900 SMU site is realistic. Monitoring costs have
been increased to consider external costs of monitoring (not RES conducting monitoring).

7. Figure 5- Existing Conditions- this map shows the current stream going through wetland (WF)
which it does not, nor does it show the true connection to MC2.
Figure 5 has been updated to accurately depict where the existing stream is located.

8. Design sheets - E2 is not the existing conditions, DWR believes it is the planting plan map.
Sheet E2 revised to show existing conditions.

9. DWR requires wetland gauge placement along reach JN6 at station 15+75 stream right, 19+75
stream left, and 22+25 stream right.
A Monitoring Figure has been added (Figure 11) and includes the three wetland gauges requested
in the comment. The information will be reported in the yearly monitoring reports but no
performance criteria will be associated with these wells.

10. DWR recommends some channel structure enhancements in the channel from station 20+50
through station 25+38.
RES engineers/designers feel that any uplift that may result from adding structures within this
section would be negated by the impacts and vegetation loss required for construction.
Additionally, the well-established vegetation and associated root system should provide vertical
stability, protecting against potential downcutting from increased flows.

11. DWR would also recommend a tie-in structure in the connection from JN6 to MC2.
Sheet S17 revised to include a drop structure at the confluence of JN6 & MC2.

12. Revised Design sheet M1 needs to show wetland gauges.
We have removed the design sheet M1 and have included Figure 11 instead. Figure 11 shows our
wetland gauges.

13. Appendix B- shows some cross sections but there is no reference to where on the reach the cross
section are located. Please include a map showing the location of the labeled cross sections.
We have added a cross section location map and added the cross section numbers to the cross
section graphs in Appendix B.

USACE Comments:

1. The plan should be revised to reflect the removal of additional stream buffers.
This language has been removed from the plan.

2. Please accurately depict and label streams and wetlands on all maps and design plans. The labels
should match the labels used for the JD. For example, On the JD map, MC2b is labeled JN7. JN6
is depicted as currently flowing through wetland F but currently flows directly south to MC2.
During the design process, reach names changed to reflect treatment breaks. Attached to the end of
this memo is a Reach ID Summary for the initial concept plan, JD, and concept design stage. The
most notable change was changing MC3-A and MC3-B to MC2-A and MC2-B respectively (due
to reach name changes in adjacent Little Sebastian site). On the JD, Reach JN7 refers to a 40 linear-
foot reach starting immediately downstream of Wetland WF and ending at the confluence with Mill
Creek (MC2-B), and was not intended to be the label for Mill Creek (MC2-B).

The correct current alignment of JN-6 (flowing south) is now noted in Figure 5; however the new
alignment of JN6-C will ultimately flow through Wetland F as seen on Figure 11. The entirety of
the aforementioned JN-7 reach will be part of JN6-C after construction activities are complete.
Revisions were made on Figure 5, and in Sections 3.5 and 6.2 to accurately depict existing
conditions and the design approach.

3. JN6 is depicted as currently flowing through wetland F but currently flows directly south to MC2.
The wrong GIS file was used for the draft figure. Figure 5 has been updated to accurately depict
where the existing stream is located.

4. Page 6, under existing wetlands: Wetland D is labeled twice with separate acreage. Also, please
update this section for consistency with the JD provided in the document that was issued May 22,
2018.
The duplication of the Wetland D label was an error and the label should have been Wetland F.
This has been revised. The confirmed PJD and mitigation plan are now consistent with their
wetland labels and acreages.

5. Page 8, the document states the project easement will have 4,816 linear feet of stream. This is
inconsistent with amounts listed elsewhere in the document.
This was an error and has been revised in Section 3.3 “Land Use- Historic, Current, Future”. The
revision discusses the total area and stream protected for both the combined Gideon and Little
Sebastian easements.

6. Page 8, section 3.4: The field notes state the road crossing between JN6-A and JN6-B is eroding
and RES agreed to stabilize this road. Discussion regarding stabilization measures should be
provided in this section.
RES intends to replace an undersized culvert at this road to address the existing instability and
erosion at the crossing. We will then stabilize the crossing as deemed necessary during construction
with one to two water bars, minor grading, and/or stone. This has been added to Reach JN6 -A in
Section 6.2.

7. Page 10, table 7: Baseline data should include bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio.
Table 7 was updated per the comment. Additionally, this information is provided in Appendix B.

8. Page 10, under Discharge: The document states that estimating flows is difficult due to
channelization and agricultural impacts of the existing streams. This statement conflicts with the
photos provided in the document and the majority of the stream assessments that indicate moderate
to no evidence of human alteration.
RES agrees with the comment and the language has been removed from the mitigation plan.

9. Please QA/QC the description of resource locations. For example, according to the maps, JN6 is
located in the northeast portion of the Gideon site rather than the northwest portion. MC2 is located
on the western portion of the property and flows south/southeast.
Thank you for pointing out these discrepancies, these errors have been revised and reviewed to
ensure they are accurate. The “Existing Channel Morphology” section has been updated for most
of the reaches.

10. Page 22, Table 9: Please explain why a stability assessment method that was designed to assess
stability at bridges was selected and then modified to assess the stability of the project streams
rather than using a stream stability assessment method that do not require modification such as
WARSSS, the Stream Quantification Tool, etc.
This tool is one of many channel stability assessment methods, and it is our professional opinion
this method provides a good qualitative assessment for channel stability.

11. Page 22, Table 9: Please explain why reaches JN6-C and MC2-A are listed as NF for hydraulic and
how you intend to improve floodplain connectivity if these reaches each currently exhibit a bank
height ratio of 1.0?
JN6-C and MC2-A should have been considered FAR (function at risk) for hydraulic function, due
to the lack of connectivity through the natural floodplain, active lateral instability, and mass wasting
of the banks observed during feasibility. Post-restoration, the two reaches will be connected to their
natural floodplain. The ratings for JN6-C and MC2-A have been updated (Table 9).

12. Page 25, Section 6.2: Paragraph four indicates analytical design techniques were used to determine
the design discharge and to verify the design. Paragraphs five and six appear to conflict with the
previous paragraph by indicating that engineering analysis, geomorphic and habitat studies, etc.
will be performed in the future to estimate bankfull flows, determine design discharge, and develop
design parameters. Please clarify.
Section 6.2 was revised to provide clarity on the design approach.

13. Page 26: Reach JN4A indicates livestock exclusion. The cover page indicates the enhancement
ratio is also based on light supplemental planting.
Reach JN4-A does include livestock exclusion. The plan set is correct in showing planting along
JN4-A and a fencing plan has been added to the design sheets to show the areas of livestock
exclusion. Revisions were made to accurately describe enhancement activities.

14. Pages 26-27: This section should include discussion regarding wetlands including the existing
condition and potential impacts and/or uplift associated with the project. Also, please QA/QC
descriptions. For example, reach MC-2A appears to flow east to MC-2B rather than west.
Flow direction corrections were made throughout the “Stream Restoration Approach” descriptions.
Language was added to JN6-A, JN6-B, and JN6-C, in reference to existing wetlands and impacts
to those wetlands.

15. Page 33, Invasive species: Appendix G includes an invasive species plan that states invasive species
will be controlled to limit nuisance species to less than 5% of the total riparian buffer. This section
should reference Appendix G.
This has been added in the “On Site Invasive Species Management” Section, and this section now
references Appendix G.

16. Page 34, Section 6.5: Deviations to the mitigation plan post approval including adjustments to
credits will require a request for modification.
This language has been added in Section 6.5 “Determination of Credit”.

17. Page 35, Table 15: Please explain the increase in linear footage from existing to proposed lengths
for the enhancement reaches.
The existing lengths in the draft were referenced from GIS, rather than the surveyed existing
lengths. The updated existing lengths from survey have been added to the mitigation plan and Table
15.

18. The Pages 37 and 38: Monitoring wells should be installed in existing wetlands adjacent to stream
restoration and enhancement reaches to demonstrate the wetlands will not be impaired by the
proposed activities.
Language has been added into the monitoring plan to discuss monitoring of wetland hydrology
along JN6-C. A Monitoring Figure has been added (Figure 11) and includes the three wetland
gauges requested in the comment. The information will be reported in the yearly monitoring reports
but no performance criteria will be associated with these wells.

19. Page 37, Performance standards: Entrenchment ratios should be greater than 2.2 for C and E stream
reaches.
This has been revised in Section 7.1 and in Table 17. The performance standard for the
entrenchment ratio that was used in the mitigation plan was consistent with the 2016 Wilmington
District Guidance, it states that the entrenchment ratio must be no less than 1.4 at any measured
riffle cross-section.

20. The long term management plan and funding should include line items for long term maintenance,
repair, replacement of structures and signage. Please revise.
This has been revised within the Long-term Management section and Appendix C.

21. Page 46, Section 13: The table does not include costs associated with design. In the event of default,
the financial assurances should include all costs associated with design and construction.
This design will be completed prior to mitigation plan approval and the first credit release, which
requires the construction phase bond. The design costs will not be included in the financial
assurances. Construction costs of $349,000 for a 2,900 SMU site is realistic. Monitoring costs have
been increased to consider external costs of monitoring (a third-party firm conducting monitoring).

22. Gideon Morphological Parameters: Please provide existing pattern and profile data to document
lateral and vertical stability conditions. Also, please provide a table depicting proposed
morphological parameters (ratios).
Morphological table (Appendix B) revised per comment.

23. Please provide a draft copy of the financial assurance documents.
This has been included in Appendix B.

24. Design Plans:
a. Please explain how you propose to transition JN5 to MC2A.
We plan to relocate the downstream end of JN5 to tie into the restoration of MC2A. A
proposed cross-section and profile is included on Sheet S15.
Sheet E2 is labeled existing conditions. The sheet depicts appears to depict proposed
conditions.
Sheet E2 has been revised to remove proposed conditions information.

Proposal ID Proposal Treatment Proposal
Update ID
Proposal Update
Treatment JD Final ID Final Treatment
JN6-A Preservation JN6-A Preservation JN6 JN6-A Preservation
JN6-B Enhancement II JN6-B Enhancement III JN6 JN6-B Enhancement III
JN6-C Restoration JN6-C Restoration JN6 JN6-C Restoration
N/A N/A N/A N/A JN7 JN7 Realignment of JN6-C
JN4-A Enhancement II JN4-A Enhancement III JN4 JN4-A Enhancement III
JN4-A Enhancement II JN4-B Enhancement I JN4 JN4-B Enhancement I
JN5 Enhancement II JN5 Enhancement I JN5 JN5 Enhancement I
MC3-A Restoration MC3-A Restoration Mill Creek MC2-A Restoration
MC3-B Enhancement II MC3-B Enhancement III Mill Creek MC2-B Enhancement III

Gideon Mitigation Plan i June 2019

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN

Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID SAW-2018-01462

Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101

Prepared by:

Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1052

June 2019

Gideon Mitigation Plan ii June 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Gideon Mitigation Site (“the Project”) is located in Surry County, approximately 10 miles north of
Elkin. Water quality stressors currently affecting the Project include livestock production, agricultural
production, and lack of riparian buffer. The Project presents 4,782 linear feet (LF) of stream restoration,
enhancement, and preservation, generating 2,962.067 Cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) along Mill
Creek and three unnamed tributaries.

The Project is located in the Yadkin River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03040101, T arget Local
Watershed (TLW) 03040101080020, and NCDWR sub-basin 03-04-01. The current State classification
for Mill Creek is Class C, Trout Waters (Tr), and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) (NCDWQ
2011).

Consisting of agricultural fields, cattle pastures and wooded areas, the Project’s total easement area is
approximately 11.23 acres within the overall drainage area of 3,225 acres. The Project is between two
separate portions of the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Little Sebastian Site. While each site
could be developed independently of the other, the combined easements will result in a much larger
contiguous protected corridor and high-quality aquatic habitat. The Little Sebastian Site has a total
easement area that is approximately 25.90 acres and presents 8,068 LF of stream restoration,
enhancement, and preservation. Therefore, a total of 37.13 acres and 12,850 LF of stream will be
protected in perpetuity when combining the totals on Little Sebastian and Gideon. Grazing livestock
have historically had access to most 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 hydrologic function and restoration to 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 into stable conditions by 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 will be utilized for vertical stability and to
improve habitat. Buffer improvements will filter runoff from agricultural fields, thereby reducing
nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Livestock exclusion fence will be installed along the
easement boundary. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas 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 is 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. Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred
to Unique Places to Save (UP2S). 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. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and
deed restrictions will be finalized prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
Gideon Mitigation Plan iii June 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
Project Components................................................................................................................ 1
Project Outcomes.................................................................................................................... 1
2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION ............................................................... 2
Site Selection .......................................................................................................................... 2
3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 4
Watershed Summary Information .......................................................................................... 4
Drainage Area and Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4
Surface Water Classification .......................................................................................................... 4
Landscape Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 5
Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Existing Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 6
Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Soil Survey ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future ............................................................................... 8
Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints ............................................................ 8
Property, Boundary, and Utilities ................................................................................................... 8
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass .................................... 8
Environmental Screening and Documentation ............................................................................... 8
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................. 9
Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................................... 9
Reach Summary Information ............................................................................................... 10
Channel Classification .................................................................................................................. 10
Existing Channel Morphology .................................................................................................... 11
Channel Stability Assessment ...................................................................................................... 12
Site Photographs ................................................................................................................... 14
4 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ....................................................................................... 17
Anticipated Functional Benefits and Improvements ............................................................ 18
Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Hydraulic ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Geomorphology ............................................................................................................................ 18
Physiochemical ............................................................................................................................. 19
Biology ......................................................................................................................................... 19
5 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................ 20
Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................................................................ 21
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ..................................................................................................... 23
Reference Stream.................................................................................................................. 23
Reference Watershed Characterization ........................................................................................ 23
Reference Discharge ..................................................................................................................... 23
Reference Channel Morphology ................................................................................................... 24
Reference Channel Stability Assessment ..................................................................................... 24
Reference Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................... 24
Reference Riparian Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 24
Design Parameters ................................................................................................................ 25
Stream Restoration Approach ....................................................................................................... 25
Design Discharge.......................................................................................................................... 27
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 29
Vegetation and Planting Plan ............................................................................................... 32
Plant Community Restoration ...................................................................................................... 32
Gideon Mitigation Plan iv June 2019

On Site Invasive Species Management ........................................................................................ 33
Soil Restoration ............................................................................................................................ 33
Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................. 33
Determination of Credits ...................................................................................................... 34
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 36
Stream Restoration Success Criteria..................................................................................... 36
Bankfull Events ............................................................................................................................ 36
Cross Sections .............................................................................................................................. 36
Digital Image Stations .................................................................................................................. 36
Surface Flow ................................................................................................................................. 36
Vegetation Success Criteria .................................................................................................. 36
8 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................. 37
As-Built Survey .................................................................................................................... 37
Visual Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 37
Hydrology Events ................................................................................................................. 37
Cross Sections ...................................................................................................................... 37
Vegetation Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 38
Wetland Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 38
Scheduling/Reporting ........................................................................................................... 38
9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................... 40
10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................... 41
11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ............................................................................................... 42
Initial Allocation of Released Credits .................................................................................. 42
Subsequent Credit Releases .................................................................................................. 42
12 MAINTENANCE PLAN ............................................................................................................. 44
13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ...................................................................................................... 45
14 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 46

List of Tables

Table 1. Gideon Project Components Summary .................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information .............................................................................. 3
Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information ................................................................................ 4
Table 4. Gideon Vegetation Plot Summary ............................................................................................ 5
Table 5. Mapped Soil Series ................................................................................................................... 7
Table 6. Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 10
Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ....................................................................... 10
Table 8. Channel Stability Assessment Results.................................................................................... 13
Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements .................................................................................. 22
Table 10. Scaling Factors for Sizing Planform Design Parameters ...................................................... 28
Table 11. Peak Flow Comparison ........................................................................................................ 30
Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses ...................................................... 31
Table 13. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Velocities ............................................................. 31
Table 14. Proposed Plant List ............................................................................................................... 33
Table 15. Mitigation Credits................................................................................................................. 35
Table 16. Monitoring Requirements ..................................................................................................... 39
Table 17. Stream Credit Release Schedule ........................................................................................... 43
Table 18. Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................................. 44
Table 19. Financial Assurances ............................................................................................................ 45

Gideon Mitigation Plan v June 2019

List of Charts

Chart 1. Stream Functions Pyramid ...................................................................................................... 17

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Service Area and Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – USGS Map
Figure 3 – Landowner Map
Figure 4 – Land-use Map
Figure 5 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 6 – National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 7 – Soils Map
Figure 8 – Historical Conditions Map
Figure 9 – FEMA Map
Figure 10 – Concept Design Map
Figure 11 – Monitoring Plan

Appendices

Appendix A - Plan Sheets
Appendix B - Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Information
Appendix C - Site Protection Instrument
Appendix D - DWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix E - USACE District Assessment Forms
Appendix F - Wetland JD Forms and Maps
Appendix G - Invasive Species Plan
Appendix H - Regulatory Agency Scoping Letters

Gideon Mitigation Plan 1 June 2019

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Project Components
The Gideon Mitigation Site (“Project”) is located within a rural watershed in Surry County,
approximately 10 miles north of Elkin and seven miles west of Dobson. The Project lies within the
Yadkin River Basin, North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-04-01
and United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03040101080020
(Figure 1). The Project is being designed to help meet compensatory mitigation requirements for
stream impacts in the HUC 03040101. The Project proposes to restore 2,283 linear feet (LF), enhance
1,991 LF, preserve 508 LF of existing stream, and provide water quality benefits for 3,225 acres of
drainage area. The Project is in the Northern Inner Piedmont Level IV ecoregion.

The Project is comprised of a single easement location along Mill Creek and three unnamed tributaries,
totaling 4,582 existing linear feet, which eventually drain into the Yadkin River. The stream mitigation
components are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 10. The Project is between the 26.14-acre Division
of Mitigation Services (DMS) Little Sebastian Site. The Project is accessible from Ed Nixon Road.
Coordinates for the Project are as follows: 36.39659, -80.85833.
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, enhancement, and preservation, the Project presents 4,782 LF of proposed
stream, generating 2,962.067 Cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) (Table 1).

Table 1. Gideon Project Components Summary
Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Base Cool SMU
Restoration 2,283 1 2,283.000
Enhancement I 493 1.5 328.667
Enhancement III 1,498 5 299.600
Preservation 508 10 50.800
Total 4,782 2,962.067

Gideon Mitigation Plan 2 June 2019

2 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The DMS 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP identified several restoration needs for the entire Yadkin
River Basin, as well as for HUC 03040101. The Project watershed was identified as a Target Local
Watershed (TLW) (HUC 03040101080020, Middle Mitchell River TLW), a watershed that exhibits
both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration. 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 (Natural Heritage Element
Occurrences);

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 DMS, 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, nutrient s, and fecal
coliform to streams from active farming operations.

Site Selection
The Project was identified as a stream and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water quality,
habitat, and hydrology within the Yadkin River Basin, and more specifically, as a TLW within the 2009
Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP. The site lends itself to accomplish multiple RBRP goals along Project
reaches due to an absence of riparian buffers, cattle access to the stream, and the historic land use,
which has led to channelization. Many of the Project design goals and objectives will address major
watershed stressors identified in the 2009 RBRP. 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.

The Project will address three of the six goals outlined in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP. By
establishing a conservation easement, ORW 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 wetland restoration and enhancement projects within the Middle Mitchell River TLW
(03040101080020) (RBRP Goal 4). 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.

Gideon Mitigation Plan 3 June 2019

The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this Project includes one parcel
in Surry 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 Wilmington District Conservation
Easement model template will be utilized to draft the site protection instrument.

Table 2. Project Parcel and Landowner Information
Owner of Record
PIN
Or
Tax Parcel ID#
Stream Reach
Jimmy Edward Nixon &
Vivian J Life Estate 495600381791 All stream reaches

Gideon Mitigation Plan 4 June 2019

3 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Watershed Summary Information
Drainage Area and Land Use
The Project area is comprised of Mill Creek and three tributaries that flow west to east, and eventually
drain into the Yadkin River. The total drainage area for the Project is 3,225 acres (4.99 mi2). Primary
land use within the rural watershed consists of approximately 70 percent forest and 25 percent
agricultural land. Impervious area covers less than one percent of the total watershed (Table 3 & Figure
4). Within the agricultural land use, pastureland accounts for 91 percent of the area, cropland comprises
six percent of the area, and hay land comprises three percent of the area. Although the project watershed
is primarily forested, the majority of the agricultural areas within the watershed are in close proximity
to the Project, and play a significant role in the degradation of the Project streams. Historic and current
land-use within the immediate Project area and west of Mill Creek have allowed cattle direct access to
the streams. These activities have negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability
along the Project streams and their tributaries. The resulting observed stressors include excess nutrient
input, streambank erosion, sedimentation, livestock access to streams, channel modification, and the
loss of riparian buffers.

Table 3. Project Watershed Summary Information
Level IV Ecoregion 45e – Northern Inner Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101080020
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-01
Project Drainage Area (acres) 3,225
Percent Impervious Area <1%

Surface Water Classification
Mill Creek has been classified as Class C, Trout Waters (Tr), and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
(NCDWQ 2011).

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).

Outstanding Resource Waters (OWR) are a subset of High-Quality Waters. This supplemental
classification is intended to protect unique and special waters having excellent water quality and being
of exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. To qualify, waters must be rated
Excellent by NCDWR and have one of the following outstanding resource values: outstanding fish
habitat and fisheries, unusually high level of water based recreation or potential for such kind of
recreation, some special designation such as North Carolina Natural and Scenic River or National
Wildlife Refuge, important component of state or national park or forest, or special ecological or
scientific significance (rare or endangered species habitat, research or educational areas) (NCDWQ
2011).

Gideon Mitigation Plan 5 June 2019

Trout Water (Tr) is a supplemental classification intended to protect freshwaters which have conditions
which shall sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout on a year-round basis
(NCDWQ 2011).
Landscape Characteristics
The Project is located in the Northern Inner Piedmont Level IV ecoregion, which is characterized by
rolling to hilly higher elevations than the Southern Outer Piedmont, more rugged topography, and more
monadnocks or mountain outliers than other areas of the Piedmont. It has colder temperatures, more
snowfall, and a shorter growing season than in Southern Inner, Southern Outer, Northern Outer, and
Carolina Slate Belt Piedmont regions. It has mostly mesic soils rather than the thermic soils that cover
other regions of the Carolina Piedmont. The region contains more Virginia pine and less shortleaf pine
than Southern Outer Piedmont and Carolina Slate Belt, more chestnut oak, and many mountain disjunct
plant species. Streams tend to have higher gradients than in the Outer Piedmont regions and contain
many mountain-type macroinvertebrate species.
Vegetation
Vegetation around the unbuffered reaches of Mill Creek and its tributaries are primarily composed of
herbaceous vegetation and some scattered trees. In general, these riparian zones are disturbed due to
regular land management activities. On April 30, 2018 four 100m2 plots were surveyed along the
floodplain of Mill Creek, and its tributaries, to categorize the existing vegetation communities. Forested
riparian areas along the majority of Mill Creek and its tributaries have been intermittently cattle-grazed
and lack a well-developed understory and shrub strata, while short reaches of enhancemen t and
preservation represent more natural community assemblages. For this reason, representative plots were
surveyed along reach JN6 within the project, and MC1, MC3, and BS1 within the Little Sebastian Site
(Appendix B). Within each vegetation plot, all trees ≥5 inches (12.7cm) diameter at breast height
(DBH) were identified, measured, and used to calculate both basal area and stems per acre. Trees ≥54
inches (137cm) in height were used to quantify tree species diversity. Canopy species data was
calculated to quantify the existing natural community (Schafale 2012) (Table 4). Shrub species and
herbaceous species were also identified and the percent cover was estimated.

Table 4. Gideon Vegetation Plot Summary
Plot Basal Area
(m2/ha) Avg. DBH (cm) Trees per Acre Total Tree Species Natural Community
1* 71.21 40.53 162 5 Disturbed Piedmont Headwater
Stream Forest
2* 66.83 19.40 324 6 Disturbed Piedmont Alluvial
Forest
3 64.80 27.85 405 6 Piedmont Headwater Stream
Forest
4* 0 0 0 0 Pasture
AVG 50.71 21.94 222 4
* Indicates the vegetation survey was performed on the Little Sebastian Site

Dominant canopy species across the Project included tulip-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white oak
(Quercus alba), American holly (Ilex opaca), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
Sub-canopy species included great laurel (Rhododendron maximum), mountain laurel (Kalmia
latifolia), and spicebush (Lindera benzoin). Herbaceous species in the enhancement and preservation
reaches included Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), trout lily (Erythronium americanum), wood anemone
(Anemone quinquefolia), and Solomon’s seal (Polygonatum biflorum).
Gideon Mitigation Plan 6 June 2019

Invasive species were also found within the vegetation survey plots, and in the vicinity of the site: tree
of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Non-native species included wavy bittercress
(Cardamine flexuosa), little leaf buttercup (Ranunculus abortivus), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
repens), common chickweed (Stellaria media), common white clover (Trifolium repens), common
speedwell (Veronica persica), mock strawberry (Duchesnea indica), annual meadow grass (Poa
annua), red fescue (Festuca rubra), and lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula).
Existing Wetlands
A survey of existing wetlands was performed on October 4, 2017. 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 proposed Project, four jurisdictional wetlands are present near Reach JN6 (Appendix
F & Figure 5), and are labeled as WC (Wetland C), WD (Wetland D), WE (Wetland E), and WF
(Wetland F). WC is approximately 0.01 acre in size, WD is approximately 0.04 acre in size, WE is
approximately 0.36 acre in size, and WF is approximately 0.42 acre in size. Large portions of WE and
WF are under active management for cattle. Vegetation within the wetland areas was made up of
tearthumb (Persicaria sagittata), Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica), common rush
(Juncus effuses), tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus), and green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens). Outside of the
easement and wetland areas, cattle are actively managed for, and fescue is the dominant forage. A
preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) request was sent to the USACE on October 27, 2017
and a final PJD was received May 22, 2018 (SAW-2018-01462) (Appendix F).

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) does not depict
any potential wetland areas within the Project, but there is freshwater pond mapped west of the Project
area (Figure 6). Moreover, the soils mapped adjacent to the pond are considered predominantly
nonhydric (ArA, Arkaqua loam), and have the potential to be hydric (Figure 7).
Geology
According to geology data from the North Carolina Geologic Survey, published in 1985, the Project is
within geologic map unit Zabg, occurring in the Blue Ridge Belt. Zabg is associated with sedimentary
and metamorphic type rocks of Alligator Back formation that formed within the Late Proterozoic period
between 500 and 900 million years ago. This formation is finely laminated to thin layered; locally
contains massive gneiss and micaceous granule conglomerate; and includes schist, phyllite, and
amphibolite.
Soil Survey
Existing soil information from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) shows the property
is located within the Woolwine-Fairvew soil association. The association is found on Piedmont uplands.
It is made up of gently sloping to steep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a clayey
subsoil. Woolwine-Fairview soil association is generally characterized by interfluves, ridges, and low
hills scattered throughout the county.

The Surry County Soil Survey shows several mapping units across the project. Map units include four
soil series. The soil series found on the Project are described below and summarized in Table 5.

Project soils are mapped by the NRCS as Arkaqua loam, Colvard and Suches soils, and Woolwine-
Fairview-Westfield complex within the easement (Figure 7). Arkaqua loam is a frequently flooded,
somewhat poorly drained soil that is found on drainageways on valleys. Colvard-Fairview-Westfield
complex is an occasionally flooded, well-drained soil that is found on natural levees on floodplains on
Gideon Mitigation Plan 7 June 2019

close to 50 percent of the Project. Woolwine-Fair-Westfield complex soils are stony, well drained, and
occur on 15-45 percent slopes on ridges.

The surrounding soils are mapped as Arkaqua, Colvard, and Woolwine -Fairview-Westfield complex.
Colvard and Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield Complex soils are considered non-hydric, while Arkaqua
is considered predominantly non-hydric. Arkaqua soils in drained areas have a moderate infiltration
rate, whereas undrained Arkaqua soils have a very slow infiltration rate; these soils occur on zero to
two percent slopes. Colvard soils have a high infiltration rate and occur on zero to three percent slopes.
Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex soils have a slow infiltration rate when saturated and occur on
slopes ranging from 15-45 percent slopes.

Arkaqua loam. This is a moderately deep, somewhat poorly drained soil that occurs on nearly level
floodplains along creeks and rivers in the Appalachian, Blue Ridge, and Great Smokey Mountains.
They formed in loamy alluvial sediments washed largely from soils formed in residuum from granite,
gneiss, schist, phyllite, and other metamorphic and crystalline rocks, and generally occur on slopes less
than two percent. Runoff is slow and permeability is moderate. Major uses are for pasture and crop
land. Arkaqua loam occurs in 10.1 percent of the total easement area.

Colvard and Suches soils. These are very deep, well-drained soils that occur on alluvium on
floodplains in the southern Appalachian Mountains. They formed in loamy alluvial sediments washed
largely from soils formed in residuum from granite, gneiss, schist, phyllite, and other metamorphic and
crystalline rocks, and generally occur on slopes between zero to three percent. Runoff is slow and
permeability is moderate to rapid. Major uses are cultivated crops and pasture land. Colvard and Suches
soils occur in 57.5 percent of the lower elevations along reaches MC-2 and JN4.

Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex. This is a very deep, well-drained soil that occurs on
hillslopes on ridges in the Piedmont upland. They formed in residuum from felsic or intermediate
metamorphic or igneous rock, and generally occur on slopes between 15-45 percent. Runoff is high and
permeability is moderate. Major uses include cultivated crops, pasture, and forest. Woolwine-Fairview-
Westfield occurs in 32.4 percent of sloped segments.

Table 5. Mapped Soil Series
Map
Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Percent
Hydric
Drainage
Class
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Landscape
Setting
ArA Arkaqua loam, 0-2% slopes 8% Somewhat
poor B/D Drainageways on
valleys
CsA Colvard and Suches soils, 0-
3% slopes 0% Well A Natural levees on
floodplains
WoD Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield
complex, 15-25% slopes 0% Well C Hillslopes on
ridges
WoE Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield
complex, 25-45% slopes 0% Well C Hillslopes on
ridges
Gideon Mitigation Plan 8 June 2019

Land Use - Historic, Current, and Future
Historic aerial imagery indicates that the Project and adjacent Little Sebastian Mitigation Site has been
used extensively for agricultural purposes, and that the location of the streams has not significantly
changed in over 50 years (Figure 8). Agricultural expansion occurred along the tributaries beginning
in the mid-1960’s. The northern part of the easement area has remained forested. Several watershed
characteristics, such as groundwater, vegetation, surface drainage, and potentially soil parameters have
been modified. Soil structure and surface texture have been altered from intensive agricultural
operations.

The Project and adjacent Little Sebastian Mitigation Site is currently still in agricultural use and is being
used as pasture for cattle. Livestock have full access to the project reaches, and these reaches remain
heavily impacted. The middle area of the Project has remained cleared since at least 1950, and the
remaining easement areas have remained forested with cattle access. Outside the Project area is also
mostly in agricultural use and where it is not, remains heavily forested.

The future land use for the Project and adjacent Little Sebastian Mitigation Site will include an
established 37.13-acre conservation easement, that will be protected in perpetuity. The combined
conservation easements encompass 12,850 linear feet of high functioning streams, a minimum 30-foot
riparian buffer, and will be protected with fencing. Outside the Project will likely remain in agricultural
use. Much of the forested area in the immediate vicinity of the Project has steep terrain, and if it is
cleared, will likely be used for pasture rather than cropland due to the erosive properties of the soils in
the area.
Regulatory Considerations and Potential Constraints
Property, Boundary, and Utilities
There are three planned crossings within the Project. These crossings will occur at easement breaks and
will allow landowners to continue current land-use and access as needed. One crossing will be a new
culvert and two are existing roads that will be maintained. The bridge at the end of Ed Nixon Road will
be replaced. There are three easement breaks; one between JN4-A and JN4-B, that is an existing road
that will be maintained, and is approximately 73 feet wide; the second easement break is between JN6-
A and JN6-B, that is an existing road that will be maintained, and is approximately 28 feet wide; the
third easement break is between JN6-B and JN6-C, that will be a culvert, and is approximately 31 feet
wide.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)/ Hydrologic Trespass
According to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Information System, the Project includes a
portion of Mill Creek within the FEMA 100-year flood zone (Zone AE, one percent annual chance of
flooding) (Figure 9). No regulated floodway is mapped. Hydraulic modeling will be required to
determine whether restoration activities will have an effect on 100-year flood elevations downstream.
The design and permitting of the mitigation will include coordination with the Surry County Floodplain
Administrator and a No-Rise Certification or CLOMR/LOMR will be secured. No hydrologic trespass
will be permitted to adjacent properties upstream or downstream of the project. The Project can be
found on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 4946 (map number 3710494600J), effective date
August 18, 2009.
Environmental Screening and Documentation
To ensure that a project meets environmental screening, scoping letters were sent to the regulatory
agencies of the IRT (Appendix H).
Gideon Mitigation Plan 9 June 2019

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 lists three Federally listed species that may occur in proximity to the Project: Schweinitz’s
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeolodies), and Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was
observed during preliminary project evaluations. 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 habitat off
site, downstream, and within the vicinity of the Project were also considered.

Informal USFWS consultation for Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) may be required if the proposed
mitigation project will impact trees. A letter from the USFWS dated January 30, 2018 indicated that no
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife are expected as part of the project. Documentation is included in
Appendix H. Incidental take of the NLEB is exempt, but the USFWS encourages to avoid tree cutting
from May 15 – August 15 if possible.

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 au thorized, 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 January 4, 2018 requesting review and comment of
possible issues with respect to fish and wildlife resources on the LSS. A response was received on
January 12, 2018 and NCWRC indicated that there is potential for the brook floater (federal species of
concern; state endangered) to be present on the Project. A NCWRC biologist performed a field
investigation in April 2018 to determine if the species is present. NCWRC did not find any brook floater
in the Project area. Documentation is included in Appendix H.
Cultural Resources
A review of North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) GIS Web Service (accessed
June 27 and December 29, 2017) database did not reveal any listed or potentially eligible historic or
archeological resources on the proposed Project property. There are two documented structures on an
adjacent parcel of land (Kapps Mill and Kapps House). The Mill has been surveyed and is not in a
National Register historical district (Site ID SR0523) and the house is on the survey list (has not been
surveyed) SR0664. There are no anticipated impacts from Project activities to state surveyed properties
as there are none in the proposed project vicinity.

A letter was sent to SHPO on July 7, 2017 with the prospectus. The letter described the Project and
requested a review and comment of potential cultural resources occurring within the vicinity of the
Project. SHPO responded on November 7, 2017 stating that there will be no effect on historic resources.
Another letter was sent on January 4, 2018 and SHPO responded that this was already covered in the
prospectus submittal (Appendix H).

Gideon Mitigation Plan 10 June 2019

Table 6. Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes No Appendix H
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes No Appendix H
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix H
National Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix H
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes No Appendix H
Magnuson-Stevens Act - Essential
Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
Reach Summary Information
The Project area is comprised of a contiguous easement area along Mill Creek. The easement has three
agricultural crossings; one between JN4-A and JN4-B, the second easement break is between JN6-A
and JN6-B, the third easement break is between JN6-B and JN6-C. The stream channels include Mill
Creek and three unnamed tributaries, split into eight reaches based on proposed treatment type (Figure
5). Results of the preliminary data collection are presented in Table 7.

In general, all or portions of JN4-A, JN4-B, JN5, JN6-B, JN6-C, MC2-A, and MC2-B do not function
to their full potential; whereas JN6-A seems to have functionality and is proposed for preservation only.
Current conditions demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts from agriculture,
livestock production, and lack of riparian buffer. Being heavily eroded and incised, some of the streams
do not access their floodplains as frequently as they naturally would have prior to agricultural
operations. In many cases in the lower elevations, the riparian buffer is in poor condition where much
of the riparian buffer is devoid of trees or shrubs and row crops are present up to the edge of the existing
channel. In some of the higher elevation reaches, trees are present, the but understory riparian buffer
has been heavily impacted by cattle. Habitat along the majority of the restoration reaches is poor in that
there is little woody debris or overhanging vegetation for fish cover or protection for other aquatic
species. Morphological parameters are located in Appendix B.

Table 7. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics
Reach
Drainage
Area
(acres)
ABKF 1
(ft2)
Width
(ft)
Mean
Depth
(ft)
W/D
Ratio
Entrenchment
Ratio
Bank
Height
Ratio
Sinuosity Slope
(ft/ft)
MC2-A 3,178 30.6 17.4 1.8 10.0 >2.2 1.0 1.16 0.008
MC2-B 3,225 67.6 31.0 2.2 14.2 1.6 1.7 1.12 0.009
JN4-A 37 2.4 6.4 0.4 17.1 1.6 3.6 1.04 0.044
JN4-B 39 3.3 6.3 0.5 12.2 1.6 2.6 1.70 0.035
JN5 198 10.1 11.7 0.9 13.6 1.2 2.3 1.21 0.010
JN6-A 23 1.8 5.8 0.3 19.1 1.7 1.0 1.25 0.043
JN6-B 38 3.2 5.4 0.6 9.2 1.6 1.0 1.00 0.039
JN6-C 45 5.6 5.9 0.9 6..3 3.3 1.0 1.17 0.024
Channel Classification
All stream reaches have been classified as perennial using the NCDWR Stream Identification Form
version 4.11 and are B-, E-, and F-stream types as classified using the Rosgen stream classification
Gideon Mitigation Plan 11 June 2019

system (Rosgen, 1996). Channel characteristics are summarized in Table 7 and Appendix B. Stream
determinations have been verified by the USACE.
Existing Channel Morphology
JN4
Reach JN4-A is 213 linear feet and is located in the southwest corner of the Project area and flows in
an easterly direction towards JN5. The reach is mostly wooded along the right bank with a mixture of
sparse vegetation and pasture along the left bank. Bed and bank stability are low throughout the reach
due to heavy cattle access. The average channel width is approximately seven feet with an average
depth of around 0.5 feet. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 37 acres.

Reach JN4-B is 249 linear feet and is located in the southwest corner of the Project area and flows in
from JN4-A in an easterly direction towards JN5. The reach is mostly wooded along the right bank with
a mixture of sparse vegetation and pasture along the left bank. Bed and bank stability are low throughout
the reach due to heavy cattle access. The average channel width is approximately seven feet with an
average depth of around 0.5 feet. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 39 acres.
JN5
Reach JN5 is 262 linear feet and located along the southernmost portion of the Project and flows in a
northwesterly direction into reach JN4-B. The reach is mostly wooded along the right bank with a
mixture of sparse vegetation and pasture along the left bank. Bed and bank stability are low throughout
the reach due to heavy cattle access. The average channel width is approximately 11.4 feet with an
average depth of around 0.7 feet. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 198 acres.
JN6
Reach JN6-A is 508 linear feet and located in the northeastern portion of the Project area and flows in
a southerly direction toward JN6-B. This reach eventually flows into Mill Creek. The reach flows
through a fenced, wooded buffer and is fairly stable. The average channel width is approximately five
feet with an average depth of around six inches. The drainage area for this section of the reach is
approximately 23 acres.

JN6-B is 707 linear feet and located in the northeastern portion of the Project area and flows south from
JN6-A towards JN6-C. This reach eventually flows into Mill Creek. The channel continues through a
wooded buffer, but with less bed and bank stability due to regular cattle intrusion. Channel width
through this section is approximately seven feet with an average depth of one foot. The drainage area
for this section is approximately 38 acres.

JN6-C is 956 linear feet and located in the southeastern portion of the Project area and flows in a
southerly direction towards Mill Creek. This reach continues south along the edge of a cattle pasture
with little to no vegetated buffer and has less bank stability due to regular cattle intrusion. Channel
width through this section is approximately eight feet with an average depth of one foot. The drainage
area for this section is approximately 45 acres.

MC2
Reach MC2-A is a 1,109-foot portion of Mill Creek located on the western portion of the project,
directly adjacent to the DMS Little Sebastian Site. This channel flows in a southeastern direction across
the site through active cattle pasture. Channel banks are severely degraded due to the lack of riparian
buffer and cattle access. Active widening and downcutting are present throughout the reach. The
drainage area for the reach is approximately 3,178 acres.

Gideon Mitigation Plan 12 June 2019

Reach MC2-B is a 578-foot portion of Mill Creek in the southeast corner of the Project that connects
directly to the DMS Little Sebastian Site. Existing land use along this reach is mostly wooded, although
cattle have access throughout. The reach is fairly stable with an average width of approximately 30 feet
and depths ranging from three to six feet. The drainage area for the reach is approximately 3,225 acres.
Channel Stability Assessment
A modified version of the channel stability assessment method (“channel assessment”) 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 8. Two of the
eight project stream reaches received “Fair” ratings, while six reaches received “Good” ratings. Most
Project streams were observed to have relatively high bank angles and many were found to be actively
eroding. A majority of 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 also scored poorly for
watershed characteristics since the surrounding land use is dominated by agriculture activities.

Gideon Mitigation Plan 13 June 2019

Table 8. Channel Stability Assessment Results
MC2-A MC2-B JN4-A JN4-B JN5 JN6-A JN6-B JN6-C
1 Watershed
characteristics 12 4 9 6 5 4 6 7
2 Flow habit 6 4 5 5 5 5 7 7
3 Channel pattern 7 1 2 6 3 2 3 7
4 Entrenchment/channel
confinement 3 3 7 6 8 4 7 4
5 Bed material 3 6 5 6 4 4 4 7
6 Bar development 6 6 8 8 4 4 6 5
7 Obstructions/debris
jams 4 5 5 5 4 3 5 4
8 Bank soil texture and
coherence 4 4 10 10 4 3 4 5
9 Average bank angle 6 6 8 8 10 3 5 5
10 Bank
vegetation/protection 10 8 6 9 7 2 4 8
11 Bank cutting 4 4 5 6 7 1 2 4
12 Mass wasting/bank
failure 4 5 4 4 6 2 4 6
13 Upstream distance to
bridge 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Score 70 56 74 79 67 37 57 69
Rating* Good Good Fair Fair Good Good Good Good
*Excellent (0 < Score <= 36), Good (36 < Score <= 72), Fair (72 < Score <= 108), Poor (108 < Score <= 144)

Gideon Mitigation Plan 14 June 2019

Site Photographs

Looking downstream along Reach MC2-A
06/27/2017

Looking upstream along Reach MC2-A
06/27/2017

Looking downstream along Reach MC2 -B
06/27/2017

Looking upstream along Reach MC2-B
06/27/2017

Looking downstream along Reach JN4-A
4/30/2018

Looking upstream along Reach JN4-A
4/30/2018

Gideon Mitigation Plan 15 June 2019

Looking downstream along Reach JN4-B
06/27/2017

Looking upstream along Reach JN4-B
06/27/2017

Looking downstream along Reach JN5
4/30/2018

Looking upstream along Reach JN5
4/30/2018

Looking downstream along Reach JN6-A
06/27/2017

Looking upstream along Reach JN6-A
06/27/2017

Gideon Mitigation Plan 16 June 2019

Looking downstream along Reach JN6-B
06/27/2017
Looking upstream along Reach JN6-B
06/27/2017

Looking downstream along Reach JN6-C
06/27/2017

Looking upstream along Reach JN6-C
06/27/2017

Looking Downstream along Reach JN7
04/26/2018
Looking upstream toward Wetland F from JN7
04/26/2018

Gideon Mitigation Plan 17 June 2019

4 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, physiochemical 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 Pyramid

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 the Project will address the most critical functional objectives that will allow for a
more restored stream and riparian buffer over time.

While traditional mitigation approaches have generally relied on surrogate measures of success (i.e.
linear feet of restoration) for determining SMU credit yields, a function -based approach provides a
Gideon Mitigation Plan 18 June 2019

more objective and flexible approach to quantify the expected ecological benefits of a mitigation
design. Additionally, a functional based approach broadens the reach-scale goals of a restoration project
by contextualizing the functional uplift to the watershed scale. The Project will provide numerous
ecological and water quality benefits within the Yadkin River Basin by applying an ecosystem
restoration approach. The restoration approach at the reach scale of this project will have the greatest
effect on the hydraulic and geomorphology function of the system but will benefit the upper -level
functions (physiochemical and biology) over time, and in combination with other projects within the
watershed. Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the Project area, as based on the
Function-Based Framework are outlined in Table 9.
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. Therefore, this project intends to make significant improvements to
the already functioning hydrology. Much of the improvement will come from altering land use within
these reaches’ catchment areas. By converting land-use for a significant percentage of the catchment
area from pasture to riparian forest, curve numbers will decrease and reach runoff will improve.
Hydraulic
The hydraulic function of the Pyramid is defined as transport of water in the channel, on the floodplain,
and through sediments. Perhaps the greatest potential uplift at the Project will be achieved through
establishing healthy floodplain connectivity. 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 channel that is geometrically stable based on the
Project’s hydrology inputs. Additionally, instream structures will be installed to address the energy and
erosive power of the water so that a stable base flow is achieved post -project. Additionally, it is
anticipated that by reducing bank height ratios and increasing entrenchment ratios, the hydraulics of
the degraded wetlands on site will be improved, due to the connectivity of Reach JN6-C with the
floodplain.
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
currently function-at-risk or not functioning by designing channels that transport sediment until it
reaches an appropriate place to settle like a point bar. Large Woody Debris Transport and Storage will
be improved through the use of woody debris such as log vanes, root wads, log weirs, and log toes for
in-stream structures on restoration and enhancement I reaches. The restoration reaches are also designed
to accumulate woody debris by having defined shallow riffles where cobble catches and holds woody
debris and leaf packs. Riparian vegetation is functioning in some areas but is either functioning at risk
or not functioning on most reaches. Therefore, riparian buffers will be planted out to a minimum of 30
feet to improve the riparian vegetation to functioning levels. Bed form diversity will be improved in
restoration areas by using a natural riffle pool sequence from the reference reach to inform design of
functioning riffle pool sequences in constructed channels based on reference reach conditions. This bed
form diversity will also further improve aquatic habitat. All of these functional parameters are
interconnected and ultimately depend on each other in order to function properly. Therefore, by
focusing improvements on these parameters, the restored channels will achieve dynamic equilibrium
and provide maximum geomorphic functional uplift.
Gideon Mitigation Plan 19 June 2019

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 cattle exclusion and direct removal of fecal inputs, 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 lower
level stream functions (hydraulics and geomorphology), which will reduce sediment and nutrients in
the system through bank stabilization and reforesting. Temperature regulation will also b e 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, through planting the buffer to shade the channel the temperature is decreased and
dissolved oxygen is increased. Second, the log 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 demons trate
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 physiochemical
stream function, it will be difficult to measure the functional uplift of the biological functions at this
site within the monitoring period 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 have a positive effect to 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. Additionally, it is anticipated that by excluding cattle and planting the riparian
buffer, the biological functions of the degraded wetlands near Reach JN6-C will be improved, by
filtering runoff from the adjacent pasture and reducing sediment loads.

Gideon Mitigation Plan 20 June 2019

5 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 1, 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 overbanks flows and
connection to the active floodplain;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation; and
• Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP to improve water quality
and to reduce sediment and nutrient loads.

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 based on modeling, watershed conditions, and
reference reach conditions;
• Permanently exclude livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers;
• Add in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams;
• Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of
varying depths to restored and enhanced streams;
• Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions;
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least 30 feet on both sides of the channel along the
Project reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community;
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project.

Anticipated functional benefits and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function
Based Framework are outlined in Table 9.

Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to the project boundaries.
While we are restoring the habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions that achieve our goals
within the Project parcels, we are unable to influence the effect of poor riparian buffers and livestock
impact in other areas within the watershed. However, through this Project’s connectivity with other
projects in the watershed, especially its close proximity to the DMS Little Sebastian Site, and
responsible stewardship of current restoration projects, overall watershed functionality and health will
improve to meet the RBRP goals.
Gideon Mitigation Plan 21 June 2019

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, livestock watering facilities,
and pipeline, 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, except the preservation 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 water temperature benefits. Moreover, there will be significant
reductions in sedimentation, nutrient input, and fecal coliform input.

Approximately 5,300 linear feet of livestock exclusion fencing will be installed along the easement
boundary; therefore, livestock will no longer have stream access. The type of exclusion fence installed
will be based on landowner preference. The main advantages of exclusion fence are that there will be
significant reductions in sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform. To account for eliminating livestock
water access, landowners will be provided an alternate water source. A total of one well and two
watering facilities will be installed to provide high quality drinking water to livestock.

Gideon Mitigation Plan 22 June 2019

Table 9. Functional Benefits and Improvements
Level Function Goal Functional
Parameter
Existing
Rating/Projected
Rating
(Reach)
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
Channel-Forming
Discharge
Precipitation/Runoff
Relationship
Flow Duration
Flood Frequency
Catchment
Hydrology
Reach Runoff
Baseflow Alteration
F/F
(All Reaches)
Convert land-use of
streams and their
headwaters from
pasture to riparian
forest
Percent Project drainage
area converted to
riparian forest
(indirect measurement)

2
Hydraulic
Transport of water in the
channel, on the floodplain,
and through the sediments
to transport water in a
stable non-erosive
manner
Flood Bank
Connectivity
Flow Dynamics
Groundwater/Surface
water exchange
F/F
(JN6-A)

FAR/F
(JN4-A, JN6-B,
JN6-C, JN7,
MC2-A, MC2-B)

NF/F
(JN4-B, JN5)
Improve flood bank
connectivity by
reducing bank height
ratios and increase
entrenchment ratios
Cross sections

Crest 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
to achieve dynamic
equilibrium
Sediment Transport
Large Woody Debris
(LWD) Transport
and Storage
Channel Evolution
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
Bedform Diversity
Bed Material
Characterization
Sinuosity
F/F
(JN6-A)

FAR/F
(JN4-A, JN6-B,
JN7, MC2-B)

NF/F
(MC2-A, JN6-C,
JN4-B, JN5)
Reduce erosion rates
and channel stability
to reference reach
conditions

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

Increase buffer width
to 30 feet
As-built stream profile

Cross sections

Visual monitoring

Vegetation plots
4
Physiochemical °
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 Phosphorus
Water Quality
Water Temperature
Nutrient Load
Organic Carbon
Bacteria
F/F
(JN6-A)

FAR/F
(JN4-A, JN6-B,
JN7, MC2-B)

NF/F
(MC2-A, JN6-C,
JN4-B, JN5)
Unmeasured
Objectives

Improve stream
temperature
regulation through
introduction of
canopy

Decrease nutrient
loading through
filtration of planted
riparian buffer, and
removing livestock
from the riparian
areas
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
Microbial
Communities
Macrophyte
Communities
Benthic
Macroinvertebrate
Communities
Fish Communities
Landscape
Connectivity
F/F
(JN6-A)

NF/F
(JN4-A, JN4-B,
JN5, JN6-B, JN6-
C, JN7, MC2-A,
MC2-B)
Unmeasured
Objective

Improve aquatic
habitat through the
installation of habitat
features, construction
of pools at varying
depths, and planting
the riparian buffer

Vegetation plots
(indirect measurement)

Not Measured (NM); Not Functioning (NF); Functioning-at-risk (FAR); Functioning (F)
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured
Gideon Mitigation Plan 23 June 2019
6 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
Reference Stream
The restoration portions of the Project are characterized by livestock practices. Portions of the Project
were historically diverted to form poorly-functioning stream channels. 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 watershed size,
• 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.

Obtaining property owner information and owner authorization for access was another factor in locating
suitable reference sites for the Project. There was no predetermined amount of reference sites needed
as long as the site was suitable and met the parameters. Many streams in this watershed are impacted
by cattle and agricultural practices, having a minimal riparian buffer, making it difficult to find an ideal
reference for the Project site. A reference stream site that proves to be ideal in both geomorphology and
habitat is located just upstream of Reach JN3-A on the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site. The reference
reach is located approximately 250 feet north of said project site. This site is the reference for restoration
reach MC2-A. The reference site for JN6-C is taken from a first order stream in Yadkin County, an
unnamed tributary flowing into Hauser Creek.
Reference Watershed Characterization
The first reference stream is an unnamed tributary that flows north to south and drains through the Little
Sebastian Mitigation Site to the Project, JN3 to Mill Creek. The portion of this reference reach that was
surveyed and analyzed is approximately 225 feet long. The drainage area for the reach is 1.44 square
miles (921 acres). The second reference reach, UT to Hauser Creek, is also located within the Yadkin
Pee-Dee River Basin. This reach is 185 feet in length, with a drainage area of 0.05 square miles (29
acres). The land use in both watersheds is characterized by mostly agricultural, with mixed pines and
hardwoods, and a small amount of residential.
Reference Discharge
Several hydrologic models/methods were used to develop a bankfull discharge for each reference reach.
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
the onsite reach was found to be around 113-122 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) and 5-7 ft3/s for UT to
Hauser Creek. See Section 6.2 for a more detailed description of the hydrologic analyses performed for
this project.
Gideon Mitigation Plan 24 June 2019
Reference Channel Morphology
In comparison to the restoration reaches, both the onsite reference reach and the UT to Hauser Creek
reach are smaller 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 area 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. The onsite reference
reach was typically 17.5 feet wide and 1.6 feet deep. The cross-sectional area was typically around 27.7
square feet with a width to depth ratio around 11.1. For 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.
Reference Channel Stability Assessment
The reference reaches were stable and showed no evidence of incision or erosion in the portions that
were surveyed and analyzed. Each stream appeared to maintain its slope and had sufficient amounts of
vegetation to secure its banks. Riparian buffer widths exceeded 30 feet on each side. The Channel
Stability Assessment scores and ratings for the reference reach JN3 is provided in Section 3.5. The
reach received a “Good” rating as the channels demonstrate a stable meandering pattern and a well
vegetated riparian buffer.
Reference Bankfull Verification
Typical indicators of bankfull include vegetation at the bankfull elevation, scour lines, wrack lines,
vegetation lines, benches/inner berm, and point bars. Throughout the entire length of the reference
reaches, bankfull is located at the top of bank elevation. The accuracy of this bankfull stage is verified
by the Piedmont Regional Curves and hydrologic analyses using existing cross sections to calculate
area and discharge. Evidence that can further support the location of bankfull is the lack of any bench
or berm features within the channel, and wrack lines present within the floodplain.
Reference Riparian Vegetation
The reference reach riparian community is characteristic of a Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
community (Schafale, 2012). On March 8, 2018 two 100m2 plots were surveyed along the Smitheys
Creek, to categorize the existing vegetation community. Forested riparian areas along the reference
reach have not been heavily disturbed, and remain relatively intact. Dominant tree species included red
maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (Quercus alba), American holly (Ilex opaca), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), tulip-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and eastern white
pine (Pinus strobus). The average basal area was approximately 52.5m2 per hectare, and the average
stems per-acre was 303 stems/ac. There was a high species diversity in the herbaceous stratum,
including: greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), cranefly
orchid (Tipularia discolor), hill cane (Arundinaria appalachiana), twister sedge (Carex torta),
partridge berry (Mitchella repens), wood anemone (Anemone quinquefolia), down rattlesnake plantain
(Goodyera pubescens), shrub-yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), and southern dewberry (Rubus
trivialis). Some invasive species we present at the reference reach, most notably Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).

It is anticipated that a local seed source for high dispersal species is present upstream at the Project and
will disperse across much of the Project area. These species are often found in early successional
communities and quickly fill disturbance gaps. Because many of these high dispersal species often
become aggressive in these sites, they are not included in the Restoration Planting List (Section 6.3).
Hardwood species typical of the target community were observed in adjacent and nearby communities,
and were judged to be more appropriate for this site.
Gideon Mitigation Plan 25 June 2019
Design Parameters
Stream Restoration Approach
Stream restoration efforts along the tributaries of the Project will be accomplished through analyses of
geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applies a combination of
analytical and reference reach-based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both
ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment activities may range from minor bank
grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For reaches requiring
full restoration, natural design concepts have been applied and verified through rigorous engineering
analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach is to design a geomorphically stable channel that
provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape.

The Project will include priority I stream restoration, enhancement I, enhancement III, and preservation.
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 are also a crucial
element of the project used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design. A conceptual
plan view is provided in Figure 10.

Engineering analyses were performed using various hydrologic and hydraulic models to verify the
reference reach-based design and to estimate bankfull flows, and flows corresponding to other
significant storm events. As part of the design process, a qualitative analysis of sediment supply was
performed by characterizing watershed conditions through a study of existing land use data and
historical aerial photography, followed up by ground truthing. Design parameters developed through
the analyses of reference reach data, watershed characterizations, and hydrologic and hydraulic
modeling were confirmed using HEC-RAS in conjunction with shear stress and velocity analyses.

Geomorphic and habitat studies were performed concurrently with the engineering analyses. While the
stream design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable
habitat features were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. In -stream
structures will be used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by
dissipating and redirecting the stream’s energy. Bank stability may further be enhanced through the
installation of brush mattresses, live stakes and cuttings bundles.

Sections of abandoned stream channel will be backfilled with material excavated from on site to the
elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the new channel, installing channel plugs where
necessary. The floodplain will be planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will
provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks will be stabilized using a
combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare-root plantings, native material revetment
techniques (i.e., bioengineering), structure placement, and sod transplants where possible. The stream
and adjacent riparian areas will be protected by a minimum 30-foot conservation easement which will
be fenced to exclude livestock as needed. In conjunction with the stream restoration, adjacent wetland
hydrology will be enhanced through raising the channel bed. No wetland mitigation credits will be
generated from the enhancement of these wetland areas; however, the enhancement and protection of
these currently degraded wetlands will store excess water during flood events, prevent erosion of stream
banks, and reduce in-stream sedimentation and nutrients.

The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:

Reach JN4-A - This reach begins on the southwest end of the project, flows east to JN4-B, and totals
213 linear feet of Enhancement III. Woodland is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities
Gideon Mitigation Plan 26 June 2019
will include improving habitat through livestock exclusion fencing and light supplemental planting.
The livestock exclusion fencing will provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area and will
remove livestock access to the riparian areas.
Reach JN4-B - This reach begins on the southwest end of the project from JN4-A, flows east to JN5,
and totals 249 linear feet of Enhancement I. Actively managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach.
Enhancement activities will include removing pipe in old channel, fixing current culvert, grading banks,
installing grade control structures, planting the buffer, and cattle exclusion . The livestock exclusion
fencing will provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area and will remove livestock access to
the riparian areas.
Reach JN5 – This reach begins on the southern end of the project, and flows northeast to MC2-B. This
reach totals 244 linear feet of Enhancement I. Actively managed pasture is located adjacent to the reach.
Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and
livestock exclusion fencing. Minimal bank grading and buffer re-establishment is also proposed along
the downstream end, and a grade control structure will be installed at the tie-in with MC2-A. The
restoration of the riparian areas at the downstream end will filter runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce
sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach JN6-A - This reach begins on the northern end of the project, near Wetland G, and flows south
to JN6-B. The reach totals 508 linear feet of Preservation. Dense woodland is located adjacent to the
reach. Preservation activities will include improving habitat through the construction of livestock
exclusion fencing and supplemental planting of the left bank. There will be no impact to Wetland G, as
the reach is Preservation and will not have any ground disturbance.
An easement break is proposed at the break with JN6-A and JN6-B and is an old road. Stabilization
measures on the road will include replacing the currently-undersized culvert, which should address the
erosion at the site. If deemed appropriate in during construction, additional stabilization could include
installing one to two water bars, and possibly some minor grading and stone.
Reach JN6-B - This reach begins on the north end of the project, from JN6-A and flows south to JN6-
C through Wetland D. This reach totals 707 linear feet of Enhancement III. Dense woodland is located
adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat through livestock
exclusion fencing, and removing the livestock crossing. The livestock exclusion fencing will provide
wildlife corridors throughout the Project area and will remove livestock access to the riparian areas.
There might be temporary impacts in Wetland D, due to the removal of the livestock crossing at the
end of Reach JN6-B. However, Wetland D will ultimately have a functional uplift, increasing hydraulic
function in the wetland due to the crossing removal. All wetland impacts will be accounted for in the
Pre-Construction Notification form.
Reach JN6-C - This reach begins on the southern end of the project, from JN6-B, and flows southeast
to MC2-B through Wetland E. This reach will be 1,239 linear feet of Restoration and the southern
portion of JN6-C will be realigned through Wetland F back to its historic location, to what is labeled
as JN7 in the JD. Sparse woodland and actively managed pasture are located adjacent to the reach.
Restoration activities will include constructing a new channel with appropriate dimensions and pattern
and backfilling the abandoned channel. In-stream structures such as log sills, log toes, and log vanes
will be installed for stability and to improve habitat. Habitat will further be improved through buffer
plantings and livestock exclusion. Proposed buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter
runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel.
Gideon Mitigation Plan 27 June 2019
There will be temporary impacts in Wetland E and Wetland F, due to the construction activities of JN6-
C. Cattle currently have access to these wetland areas and will be fenced out post construction. The
reach and wetlands are degraded from cattle access and pasture-use. While this project is not claiming
any wetland credit, the raised channel bed should enhance the wetlands’ hydrology by reconnecting the
floodplain wetlands to the stream. Three gauges will be installed along this reach to monitor the wetland
hydrology and will be reported in the yearly monitoring reports. All wetland impacts will be accounted
for in the Pre-Construction Notification form.
An easement break is proposed near the upper end of the reach to improve a crossing. The existing
culvert will be removed and replaced with 24 linear feet of 30” RCP. Additionally, the two small
buildings located adjacent to the easement break will be removed.
Reach MC2-A - This reach begins at the west end break of the DMS Little Sebastian Site, and flows
southeast to MC2-B. This reach totals 1,044 linear feet of restoration. Actively managed pasture is
present on both sides of the reach. Restoration activities will include constructing a new channel within
the natural valley with appropriate dimensions pattern and backfilling the abandoned channel. Native
bed material will be harvested when possible. In-stream structures such as log sills, brush toes, and log
vanes will be installed for stability and to improve habitat. Habitat will further be improved through
buffer plantings and livestock exclusion. A crossing with a culvert will be installed along this reach.
Proposed buffer activities will improve riparian areas that will filter runoff from adjacent pastures,
thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. The Little Sebastian Site will be
constructed in tandem with the project.
Reach MC-2B -This reach begins on the east end of the project, from MC2-C, and flows east to MC3-
A on the Little Sebastian Mitigation Site. This reach totals 578 linear feet of Enhancement III.
Woodland is located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities will include improving habitat
through livestock exclusion fencing and planting the buffer on the left bank. The livestock exclusion
fencing will provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area and will remove livestock access to
the riparian areas. The Little Sebastian Site will be constructed in tandem with the project.
Design Discharge

Based upon the hydrologic analyses described below, design discharges were selected that fall between
model results for the 1.1-year and 1.5-year flood frequency analysis for each reach. The selected flows
for the restoration reaches are 250 ft3/s for MC2-A and 13 ft3/s for JN6-C. These discharges will provide
frequent inundation of the adjacent floodplain.

The design discharges were selected based on the following rationale:
• The calculated bankfull discharge for the analog/reference reach and existing reaches fall
between the results of the 1.1-year and 1.5-year flood frequency analysis,
• The results of the 1.1-year flood frequency analysis are slightly higher than the NC regional
curve (Doll et al., 2002), and
• Selecting design discharges slightly higher than the 1.1-year storm events allows frequent
inundation of the adjacent floodplain.
Design Methods
There are three primary methods that have demonstrated success in stream restoration: analog,
empirical, and analytical. All three methods have advantages and limitations, and it is often best to
utilize more than one method to address site-specific conditions or to verify the applicability of design
elements. This is particularly true in developed watersheds where existing conditions do not always
reflect current inputs and events, and sediment and hydrologic inputs may remain unstable for some
Gideon Mitigation Plan 28 June 2019
time. Combinations of analytical and analog methods were used to develop the stream designs for the
Project.
Analytical Approach
Analytical design is based on principles and processes considered universal to all streams, and can
entail many traditional engineering techniques. The analytical approach utilizes continuity, roughness
equations, hydrologic and hydraulic models, and sediment transport functions to derive equilibrium
conditions. Since the project is located within a rural watershed, restoration designs are based on
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, including rainfall-runoff models to determine design discharges
coupled with reference reach techniques.
Analog Approach
The analog method of natural channel design involves the use of a “template” or reference stream
located near the design reach, and is particularly useful when watershed and boundary conditions are
similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). In an analog approach, the
planform pattern, cross sectional shape, longitudinal profile, and frequency and locations of woody
debris along the analog reaches are mimicked when developing the design parameters for the subject
stream.

1. The appropriate bankfull cross sectional area (CSA) of each design reach was calculated using
an in-house spreadsheet based on Manning’s Equation. The input parameters included the
design discharge as determined by the hydrologic analysis described above, and proposed slope
based on site conditions and the sinuosity measured for the analog reach.

2. The cross-sectional shape was adjusted within the spreadsheet to replicate the width-depth
ratios and side slopes surveyed along the analog reach, while also maintaining the CSA
necessary to convey the design discharge.

3. The scaling factor is determined from the ratio of the design topwidth to the analog topwidth
(Table 10). For this project, several cross sections and planform geometry were measured at
the analog site, resulting in an average width of 14.5 feet for JN6-C and 5.2 feet for MC2-A.

4. Pool cross sectional areas were calculated using both typical reference reach techniques and
the analog approach. Design CSAs were determined using the measured analog ratios of
shallow/riffle CSA to pool CSA as applied to the design CSAs. The pool cross sectional shape
was adjusted within the in-house spreadsheet as described above in step 2.

Table 10. Scaling Factors for Sizing Planform Design Parameters
Reach Drainage
Area (ac)
Proposed Bankfull
CSA (ft2)
Design
Topwidth (ft)
Analog Reach
Topwidth (ft)
Scaling
Factor

JN6-C 45 4.7 6.2 5.2 1.19
MC2-A 3178 54.4 23 14.5 1.59

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.
Gideon Mitigation Plan 29 June 2019
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
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 JN6-C and
MC2-A to provide increased stability and habitat. Typical rock structures that will protect the channel
bed and/or banks will include riffle grade controls and cross-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 muc h 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 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,
• NC and VA Regional Curves for the Rural Piedmont, and
• USGS regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Blue Ridge-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
Gideon Mitigation Plan 30 June 2019
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.

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 comparable to flows predicted by
the 1.5-year flood frequency equation. 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).

USGS Regional Regression Equations
USGS regression equations estimate the magnitude and frequency of flood-peak discharges. The
regression equations were developed from gauge data in different physiographic regions of the
Southeastern United States and are appropriate for drainage areas between one and 9000 mi2. For this
analysis, there was only concern for the 2-year return interval. The equation for the rural
Piedmont/Foothills (Hydrologic Region 1) (4) is:

(4) Q2=158*(DA)0.649 (Weaver et al, 2009)

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)
Regional
Regression
Eqns. Q2 (4)
Design/
Calculated
Q
JN6-C 45 19 29 13 14 4 28 13
MC2-A 3,178 203 337 287 286 200 447 250
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 (Fochenich, 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.
Gideon Mitigation Plan 31 June 2019
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. Shear stress is the force
exerted on a boundary during the resistance of motion as calculated using the following formula:
(1)  = RS
 = shear stress (lb/ft2)
 = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)

Table 12. Comparison of Allowable and Proposed Shear Stresses
Reach Proposed Shear Stress at
Bankfull Stage (lbs/ft2)
Critical Shear Stress
(lbs/ft2)
Allowable Shear Stress1
Coarse Gravel
(lbs/ft2)
Cobble
(lbs/ft2)
Vegetation
(lbs/ft2)
JN6-C 0.52 >0.54 0.33 to 0.67 0.67 to 2.0 0.7 to 0.1.7
MC2-A 1.08-1.17 >0.54 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 shear stresses for the Gideon design reaches fall
between the critical shear stress (shear stress required to initiate motion) and the allowable limits.
Therefore, the proposed channel should remain stable.

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 Allowable and Proposed Velocities
Reach Manning’s “n”
Value
Design Velocity
(ft/s) Bed Material Permissible Velocity1
(ft/sec)
JN6-C 0.05 2.6-2.8 Coarse gravel to cobble 2.5 - 7.5
MC2-A 0.05 4.4-4.7 Coarse gravel to cobble 2.5 - 7.5
1(Fischenich, 2001)

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 1950.
Much of the project area has been used primarily for agricultural purposes over the past 60 years. Much
of the forested areas are located either within the headwater portions of the watersheds or along existing
stream channels to the north and to the east. Land use has remained relatively constant within this rural
watershed, and significant land disturbing activities are not anticipated for the future.
Gideon Mitigation Plan 32 June 2019
Observations and assessments of these reaches upstream and/or in the preservation reaches show little
signs of aggradation (deposition) or degradation, and that the streams appear physically stable. This
indicates the reaches are able to effectively transport the sediment supplied by their respective
watersheds. There are several localized areas of instability and erosion along the channels, which appear
to be a result of 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 flow from existing agricultural
ditches will be diffused before entering the proposed channel.

Since little deposition or degradation (scour) was observed along the restoration reaches, it appears that
the channels are able to effectively move the sediment supplied from the surroun ding watershed.
Because observed areas of degradation can be attributed to farming practices adjacent to the channel
and not watershed activities, a threshold channel design approach was used. This approach assumes
minimal movement (vertical or lateral migration) of the channel boundary during design flow
conditions, and that the channel is not sensitive to sediment supply. Additionally, grade controls have
been integrated throughout the design to provide vertical stability in the event scour should occur.
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 t he forest
surrounding the restoration site, 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 an intact Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest community. Dominant tree species
included red maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (Quercus alba), American holly (Ilex opaca), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), tulip-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and
eastern white pine (Pinus strobus). 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 Stream Headwater Forest will be the target community type for the tributaries flowing
south into Mill Creek (JN6-A/B/C); and a Piedmont Alluvial Forest will be the target community along
Mill Creek and tributaries flowing north into Mill Creek (MC2-A/B, JN4-A/B, and JN5), will be
established to include a diverse mix of species. These target communities 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. Although there is one planting zone, certain targeted species will be planted in the
appropriate target community location (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, tulip poplar, 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.

Gideon Mitigation Plan 33 June 2019
Table 14. Proposed Plant List
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Species Common Name
Target
Community Spacing
(ft) Unit Type
% of Total
Species
Composition
Quercus nigra Water Oak PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 15
Quercus phellos Willow Oak PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 15
Betula nigra River birch PAF 9X6 Bare Root 15
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore PAF 9X6 Bare Root 10
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 10
Liriodendron tulipifera Yellow Poplar PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 10
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 5
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 5
Nyssa biflora Black Gum PAF/PHSF 9X6 Bare Root 5
PAF, Piedmont Alluvial Forest; PHSF, Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest

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 G). 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 t o be
Gideon Mitigation Plan 34 June 2019
appropriate for this project because the watershed is rural, the causes of disturbance are known and
have been abated, 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 cobble/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, restoring a portion of the hydrology for the existing wetlands.

A large portion of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the restoration
channel. However, many 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 thirty feet on both sides of the channel will be established along the
project reach. An appropriate riparian plant community (Piedmont Stream Headwater Forest along JN6-
A/B/C; Piedmont Alluvial Forest along MC2-A/B, JN4-A/B, and JN5) will be established to include a
diverse mix of species. within the Project. 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.

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 and wetland 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). If upon
Project completion, there is a large discrepancy between design and as-built conditions an updated plan
will be submitted to the District for approval as a project modification. The plan will include revised
credit totals and justification for the large discrepancies.

Gideon Mitigation Plan 35 June 2019
Table 15. Mitigation Credits
The Gideon Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Cool Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland
Totals 2962.067 NA NA

Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Stationing
Existing
Length
(LF)
Proposed
Length
(LF)
Mitigation
Ratio SMUs
JN4-A Enhancement III 0+0 to 2+13 213 213 1: 5 42.600
JN4-B Enhancement I 3+01 to 5+55 249 249 1: 1.5 166.000
JN5 Enhancement I 0+0 to 2+44 262 244 1: 1.5 162.667
JN6-A Preservation 0+0 to 5+08 508 508 1: 10 50.800
JN6-B Enhancement III 5+38 to 12+45 707 707 1: 5 141.400
JN6-C* Restoration 12+45 to 13+09 64 64 1: 1 64.000
Restoration 13+42 to 20+78 649 736 1:1 736.000
Restoration 20+78 to 25+17 243 439 1: 1 439.000
MC2-A Restoration 21+23 to 31+67 1,109 1,044 1: 1 1044.000
MC2-B Enhancement III 31+67 to 35+23 356 356 1: 5 71.200
Enhancement III 38+20 to 40+42 222 222 1: 5 44.400
Totals 4,582 4,782 2,962.067
*Realignment of JN6-C will include the jurisdictional length of JN7 in its entirety.

Gideon Mitigation Plan 36 June 2019
7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The success criteria for the Project will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in 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 JN4-B, JN5, MC2-
A, and JN6-C.
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. For C/E channels,
bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within
restored reaches. For B channels, bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio
shall be no less than 1.4 within restored reaches. 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 stream gauge transducers with data
loggers. Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow. One flow gauge will
be installed on JN6-C.
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
six feet in height at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative succe ss criteria will be 210 trees per
acre with an average height of eight 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.
Gideon Mitigation Plan 37 June 2019
8 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the NCIRT 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 the USACE. 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 goals, 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. All cross-section measurements
will include bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio. Cross sections will be monitored in Years 1, 2,
3, 5, and 7. There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should
be evaluated to determine if they represent 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).
Gideon Mitigation Plan 38 June 2019
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acre in size, and cover a minimum of two
percent of the planted area. There will be four fixed plots within the planted area (4.26 acres). 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.
Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document wetland conditions along Reach JN6-C. This will
be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in three locations along
Reach JN6-C (Stations 15+75 stream right, 19+75 stream left, and 22+25 stream right) (Appendix A,
Monitoring Sheet). The gauges will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be
calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation will follow current IRT guidance. Visual
observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during
quarterly project visits. This information will be reported in the yearly monitoring reports.
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 IRT 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 USACE guidelines.

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 the IRT.
The monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by USACE.

Gideon Mitigation Plan June 2019
39
Table 16. Monitoring Requirements
Level Goal Treatment Outcome Monitoring Metric Performance Standard
1 Hydrology To transport
water from the
watershed to
the channel in a
non-erosive
manner
Convert land-use of
Project reaches from
pasture to riparian
forest

Improve the
transport of water
from the watershed
to the Project
reaches in a non-
erosive way
NA NA
2 Hydraulic To transport
water in a
stable non-
erosive manner
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 for B channels and no less than
2.2 for C/E channels
Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2
3 Geomorphology To create a
diverse
bedform

To achieve
dynamic
equilibrium
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 30 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 for B channels and no less than
2.2 for C/E channels
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 (6 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (8 ft. tall)
4 Physiochemical ° To achieve
appropriate
levels for water
temperature,
dissolved
oxygen
concentration,
and other
important
nutrients
including but
not limited to
Nitrogen and
Phosphorus
Exclude livestock
from riparian areas
with exclusion fence,
and plant a riparian
buffer
Improve stream
temperature
regulation through
introduction of
canopy

Decrease nutrient
loading through
filtration of planted
riparian buffer, and
removing livestock
from the riparian
areas
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
(indirect measurement)
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (6 ft. tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (8 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
5 Biology * To achieve
functionality in
levels 1-4 to
support the life
histories of
aquatic and
riparian plants
and animals
Plant a riparian
buffer, install habitat
features, and
construct pools of
varying depths
Improve aquatic
habitat through the
installation of
habitat features,
construction of
pools at varying
depths, and
planting the
riparian buffer
Visual monitoring of in-
stream habitat features:
Performed at least
semiannually
(indirect measurement)
Identify and document significant
stream problem areas; i.e.
degradation, aggradation,
stressed or failed structures, etc.
° These categories are measured indirectly; *These categories are not quantifiably measured
Gideon Mitigation Plan June 2019
40
9 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of Project construction, RES will implement the post-construction monitoring
protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described
previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is determined that the
Project’s ability to achieve performance standards are jeopardized, RES will notify the USACE of the
need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
RES will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Prepare Corrective Action Plan for review and approval by IRT.
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
Provide the IRT a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent and
nature of the work performed.
Gideon Mitigation Plan June 2019
41
10 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval of the Project by the IRT, the Project will be transferred to Unique Places to Save
(UP2S):

Unique Places to Save
[phone]
PO Box 1183
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
[e-mail]

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. Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of
stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. UP2S
will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements will be stewarded in
general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Alliance. Specific
responsibilities include:

• Monitoring of site is conducted on an annual basis.
• An on-site inspection is conducted once per year.
• Visits to the site are coordinated with landowner when possible.
• Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
• Signage for the easement boundary is maintained and replaced as necessary.
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are promptly
communicated to the landowner.

A model conservation easement and engagement letter from UP2S are included in Appendix C. The
engagement letter includes itemized annual cost accounting of long-term management, total amount of
funding, and the manner in which the funding will be provided.

UP2S will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as needed. Any
livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility of the landowner to
maintain.

Gideon Mitigation Plan June 2019
42
11 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved mitigation
plan of the site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary 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 restart or be extended, depending
on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of Project
credits will be subject to the criteria described in Table 17.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the IRT
with written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a) Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
b) Approval of the final mitigation plan;
c) Mitigation site must be secured;
d) Delivery of financial assurances;
e) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
f) Issuance of the 404-permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
Subsequent Credit Releases
The second credit release will occur after the completion of implementation of the Mitigation Plan and
IRT approval of the Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey. 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. As projects approach milestones associated with credit
release, the Sponsor will submit a request for credit release to the DE along wit h documentation
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included
with the annual monitoring report.

Gideon Mitigation Plan June 2019
43
Table 17. Stream Credit Release Schedule
Release
Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released

1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated above) 15% 15%

2 Baseline Monitoring Report and As-built Survey 15% 30%

3 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 10% 40%

4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 10% 50%

5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 10% 60%
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 5% 65%
(75%**)

7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 10% 75%
(85%**)
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met. 5% 80%
(90%**)

9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards are being met, and project has received close-out
approval.
10% 90%
(100%**)
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.

Gideon Mitigation Plan June 2019
44
12 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Project 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:

Table 18. 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.
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
control 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.
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.

Gideon Mitigation Plan June 2019
45
13 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
CONFIDENTIAL

The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in the form of a $349,000 Construction Performance
Bond to the USACE to assure completion of mitigation construction and planting. Construction and
planting costs are estimated to be at or below $349,000 based on the Engineer's construction materials
estimate and recent bid tabulation unit costs for construction materials. Following completion of
construction and planting the Construction Performance Bond will be retired and a $113,046
Monitoring Performance Bond will be provided to assure completion of seven years of monitoring and
reporting, and any remedial work required during the monitoring period. The $113,046 amount includes
contingency and estimated monitoring costs from the Engineer. The Monitoring Performance Bond
will be reduced by $16,149 following approval of each annual monitoring report. The Monitoring
Performance Bond will be retired in total following official notice of site close -out from the IRT.
Financial assurances shall be payable to a standby trust or other designee at the direction of the obligee.
Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Bank
Sponsor are not acceptable. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the USACE
receives notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation. The Performanc e
Bonds will be provided by a surety listed with the U.S. Treasury and has an A.M. Best Rating of B or
above. All Performance Bonds will be submitted to the USACE in draft form for approval prior to
execution. In the event of Sponsor default, UP2S has agreed to receive the funds and ensure the work
is successfully completed.

Table 19. Financial Assurances
Construction Costs
General (e.g. mobilization, erosion control, etc.) $35,000
Sitework $73,000
Structures (e.g. ditch plugs, logs, rocks, coir, etc.) $94,000
Crossings $26,000
Vegetation $30,000
Miscellaneous Construction/Admin Fees $91,000
Total $349,000
Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Set-Up & As-Built $12,000.00
Monitoring Year 1 and Report $9,000.00
Monitoring Year 2 and Report $9,000.00
Monitoring Year 3 and Report $9,000.00
Monitoring Year 4 and Report $7,500.00
Monitoring Year 5 and Report $10,500.00
Monitoring Year 6 and Report $7,500.00
Monitoring Year 7 and Report $15,000.00
Equipment (e.g. gauges, markers, etc.) $12,350.00
Maintenance $21,196.00

Total $113,046.00
Gideon Mitigation Plan June 2019
46
14 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)

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.
Gideon Mitigation Plan June 2019
47

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.

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 (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55.

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

USDANRCS. 2007. Soil Survey of Surry County, North Carolina.

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.

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

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 – Service Area and Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – USGS Map
Figure 3 – Landowner Map
Figure 4 – Landuse Map
Figure 5 – Existing Conditions Map
Figure 6 – National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 7 – Soils Map
Figure 8 – Historical Aerial Photography Map
Figure 9 – FEMA Map
Figure 10 – Concept Design Map
Figure 11 – Monitoring Plan
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Service Area and Vicinity Map
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/31/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 1 - Vicinity Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Service Area - 03040101
TLW - 03040101080020
Checked by: BPB
Gideon Mitigation Site
1 inch = 1,000 feet
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 2 - USGS Map Bottom (1973)
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/31/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 2 - USGS Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
Checked by: BPB
MC23191 ac
JN438 ac
JN650 acJN5198 ac
1 inch = 2,000 feet
NIXON JIMMY EDWARD &VIVIAN JLIFE ESTATE495600381791
0 400200
Feet
Figure 3 - Landowner Map
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/31/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 3 - Landownwer Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Parcel of Intrest
Checked by: BPB
1 inch = 400 feet
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 4 - Landuse Map
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/31/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 4 - Landuse Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Drainage Area
Landuse
Forest 89.6%
Agriculture 10.4%
Water 0.007%
Urban 0.004%
Checked by: BPB
1 inch = 2,000 feet
WA
WB
WE
WD
WF
WC
WG
JN7MC2
-AJN6-CJ N 4 -A
MC2-B
JN4-B J N 5 JN6-AJN6-B0 300150
Feet
Figure 5 - Existing Conditions Map
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/31/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 5 - Existing Conditions.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Existing Wetland
Parcel of Intrest
Existing Stream
Checked by: BPB
Existing FarmRoad Crossing
Limited BufferOn Left Bank
Right Bank BelowFloodplain Elevation
1 inch = 300 feet
PUBHh
0 300150
Feet
Figure 6 - National Wetland Inventory Map
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/31/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 6 - NWI Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
NWI Wetlands (None)
Checked by: BPB
1 inch = 300 feet
WfC2
Wo D
DeF
WoE
WfC2
WoD
WfC2
WfC2
WfC2
WoE
CsA
Wo D
WfB2
WoE
WfC2
ArA
WoD
ArA
WoD
Wo D
BdC
WfB2
ArA
WoE
Wo D
0 300150
Feet
Figure 7 - Soils Map
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/31/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 7 - Soils Map.mxdChecked by: BPB
Legend
Proposed Easement
Hydric (100%)
Predominantly Hydric (66-99%)
Partially Hydric (33-65%)
Predominantly Nonhydric (1-32%)
Nonhydric (0%)
Ma p Unit Symbol Ma p Unit Na me
ArA Ark aqua loam, 0-2% slopes
Cs A Colvard and Suc hes soils, 0-3% slopes
W oD W oolwine-Fairview-W estfield c omplex, 15-25% slopes
W oE W oolwine-Fairview-W estfield c omplex, 25-45% slopes
1 inch = 300 feet
0 600300
Feet
Figure 8 - Historical Aerial Photography
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/31/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: BPB Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 8 - Historical Imagery map.mxd1950
1993 1998
1966
Legend
Proposed EasementSource: NC OneM ap Source: NC OneMap
Source: USGS Earth Explorer Source: USGS Earth Explorer
1 inch = 600 feet
0 300150
Feet
Figure 9 - FEMA MapPanel: 4946 Map No: 3710494600J Effective Date: Aug.18.2009
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/31/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 9 - FEMA Map.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
FEMA Zone AE
Checked by: BPB
1 inch = 300 feet
JN4-A
JN5JN4-B
MC2-B JN6-AJN6-BMC2-A
J
N
6-C
0 300150
Feet
Figure 10 - Concept Design Map
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/31/2019
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 10 - Conceptual-.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement III (5:1)
Preservation
Checked by: KAW
Re a ch Tre a tme nt Le ngth Ra tio SMUsJN4-A Enhancement III 213 5:1 42.600JN4-B Enhancement I 249 1.5:1 166.000JN5Enhancement I 244 1.5:1 162.667JN6-A Preservation 508 10:1 50.800JN6-B Enhancement III 707 5:1 141.400JN6-C Restoration 1,239 1:1 1,239.000MC2-A Restoration 1,044 1:1 1,044.000MC2-B Enhancement III 578 5:1 115.6004,782 2,962.0672,962.067Total SMUsTotal
1 inch = 300 feet
!R!>!U!U!U!>WE
WD
WF
WC
WG
JN4-AJN5
JN4-BMC2-BJN6-A
JN6-B
MC2-AJN6-C©0 200100
Feet
Date: 5/16/2019 Drawn by: MDE
Checked by: JRM
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\Figure 11 - Monitoring Plan.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Existing Wetland
Planted Area (4.26 ac)
Vegetation Plots
!>Stage Recorder
!R Flow Guage
!U Wetland Gauge
Cross Section
Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Enhancement II (5:1)
Preservation
Figure 11 - Monitoring Plan
Gideon Mitigation Project
Yadkin County, North Carolina
1 in = 200 feet
Note:There will be a total of 4 fixed vegetation plots
Stage recorder, flow gauge, wetland gauge, cross section, and vegetation plot locations are all proposed locations.

Appendix A - Plan Sheets

© 2017 HERE © 2017 Microsoft Corporation OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOH
E
WOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDROCKROCKROCKROCKOHE OHE
OH
E
XXXX
X XX
X
X
X XXXXXXXXXX
XX X
X XXX
XX XXXXXXXX
X300600300PROJECT LOCATIONSITE MAPNTSS
1
5
S
1
5
S16
S17S20S14S13S18S19FILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_COVER.dwg SAVED BY: Tswartzfager
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 MAPNTS0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEJUNE 2019YADKIN RIVER BASIN: HUC 03040101080020SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITEDPITRSAFMCSC0405-PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 05/24/2019REACH JN6REACH MC2REACH JN4REACH JN5Sheet List TableSheet NumberSheet Title-COVERA1OVERALL AERIAL VIEWE1GENERAL NOTES & LEGENDE2EXISTING CONDITIONSS14REACH JN4S15REACH JN5S16REACH JN6S17REACH JN6S18REACH JN6S19REACH MC2S20REACH MC2S21REACH MC2F1FENCING PLANP1PLANTING PLAND1DETAILSD2DETAILSD3DETAILSD4DETAILSD5DETAILSD6DETAILSD7DETAILS
X XXXXXX
XXXXXX
X X XXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
X
X
XXXXXXX X X X X XXX XXXXXXX
X
X XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXLCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LC
E
LC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
L
C
E
L
C
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCE
L
C
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCE LCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCE
LCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCEL
C
E
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCE
LCELCE LCELCELCELCE1503001500FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_COVER.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.usSURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
OVERALL AERIAL VIEW
GIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
BRCTRSAFMBPB0405A1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 05/28/2019 REACH JN2REACH MC1REACH JN3REACH MC3REACH BS1REACH MC2REACH JN6REACH JN4REACH JN5LCELIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT(LITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAM MITIGATION SITE)LCELIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT(GIDEON MITIGATION SITE)LEGENDReachMitigation TypeProposedLength (LF)MitigationRatioSMUsJN4-AEnhancement III2131 : 5.043JN4-BEnhancement I2491 : 1.5166JN5Enhancement I2441 : 1.5163JN6-APreservation5081 : 10.051JN6-BEnhancement III7071 : 5.0141JN6-CRestoration641 : 1.064Restoration7361 : 1.0736Restoration4391 : 1.0439MC2-ARestoration1,0441 : 1.01,044MC2-BEnhancement III3561 : 5.071Enhancement III2221 : 5.044Total4,7822,962
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_SITE.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.us5/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONE10405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
GENERAL NOTES & LEGEND
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA STREAM CONSTRUCTION NOTES:1.ALL PROPOSED CHANNELS AND TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT CROSSINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED INA DRY CONDITION VIA OFFLINE CONSTRUCTION WHERE POSSIBLE. PUMP AROUND OPERATIONSSHOULD BE LIMITED TO AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED CHANNEL ALIGNMENTS OVERLAP.2.ALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PUMPING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM AT THE ENDOF EACH DAY TO RESTORE NORMAL FLOW BACK TO THE CHANNEL UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BYTHE ENGINEER. WITH APPROVAL, A PUMP AROUND MAY BE ALLOWED TO RUN CONTINUOUSLY IF THEREIS NO FORECAST FOR RAIN OVERNIGHT, AND/OR THE PUMP APPARATUS IS MAINTAINED ANDMONITORED CONTINUOUSLY.3.CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE CHANNEL FIRST, WORKING IN AN UPSTREAM TODOWNSTREAM DIRECTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.4.REMOVE AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL WITHIN AREAS THAT ARE TO BE CUT 9" OR MORE BELOW EXISTINGGRADE. STOCKPILED TOPSOIL IS TO BE PLACED ALONG THE FLOODPLAIN BENCHES.5.STRUCTURES ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN SHEETS (AS INDICATED ON THESTRUCTURE TABLES) USING METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE DETAIL SHEETS. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING,OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER ON INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURES.6.NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL SHALL BE TAKEN FROM THE EXISTING CHANNEL AND INSTALLED ON THEPROPOSED BED OF SHALLOW/RIFFLE CHANNEL SECTIONS. IN AREAS WHERE THERE IS NOT ENOUGHNATIVE SUBSTRATE TO PLACE A MINIMUM 6" LAYER ALONG PROPOSED SHALLOW/RIFFLE SECTIONS,SUPPLEMENT THE NATIVE SUBSTRATE WITH A 5050 MIX OF #3 AND SURGE, OR RIVER ROCK WITH AD50=2.0".7.IN-STREAM STRUCTURES PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS (BRUSH TOES, LOGVANES, AND LOG TOES) MAY BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT PER APPROVALFROM DESIGNER.8.UPON COMPLETION OF FINE GRADING, INSTALL STREAM BANK STABILIZATION INCLUDING, EROSIONCONTROL MATTING OR SOD MATS ALONG CHANNEL BANKS.9.FILL AND STABILIZE ABANDONED SEGMENTS OF THE EXISTING CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF THEENGINEER.LEGENDTBBBOHEEXISTING 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 D3)LOG SILL(SEE DETAIL D5)LOG STRUCTURE(PROFILE)LOG CROSS VANE(SEE DETAIL D5)PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED CENTERLINE OF CHANNELEXISTING TREEEXISTING STREAMTBTBBBBBROCK CROSS VANE(SEE DETAIL D6)ROCK STRUCTURE(PROFILE)BRUSH TOE PROTECTION(SEE DETAIL D3)LOG VANE(SEE DETAIL D4)CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE(SEE DETAIL D7)ROCK SILL(SEE DETAIL D6)STEP POOL(SEE DETAIL D6)LOG TOE PROTECTION(SEE DETAIL D3)RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL(SEE DETAIL D5)DIFFUSE FLOW STRUCTURE(SEE DETAIL D6)
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDROCKROCKROCKROCKOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBB BBBBBB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBT
B TBTB TBTB TB TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBB
BBB
B
BB
BBB
BBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTB
TB
TB
TBTB
TBT
B TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBT
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
B
B
BB BB
BB
BB BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBB BBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB
BB
BBBBBB
BB BBBB BBBB BB BBBB
BB
BB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTB
T
B TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TB
TB TBTB TBTB
TB TBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTB TBTB TB TB TBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTB TBTBTBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB
T
B TB
T
B
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBT
B
TB
TB TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBBB
BB BB BB
BB
B
B
BBBB BB
BB
BB
B
B
BB BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBB
BBBB
BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBLC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
L
C
E
L
C
E
LCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCE
LCE
1503001500FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_SITE.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.usSURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
GIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
BRCTRSAFMBPB0405E2PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 05/24/2019REACH MC2REACH JN4REACH JN5REACH JN6
GRAVEL ROADGRAVEL ROAD12" CPP(NOT IN USE)12" CPP(NOT IN USE)15" CMPBURIED15" CMP1143.37'24" CMPINV. IN = 1172.24'INV. OUT = 1169.72'48" CMPINV. IN = 1151.87'INV. OUT = 1149.72'BB
BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB
BB
BBBB
BBBB
BB
BB
BB BBBB
TB
T
B
TB TBTB
TBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTB BBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBB
B
BBBBBB
BBBB
BB
BB
BB BBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBXXXX
X
X
X XXXXXXXXXXXX5+550+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505
+
0
0
5+50S33S37S38LCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELC
E
LCELCELCELCE LCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=6'11401150116011701180114011501160117011800+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+00S37S38EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINE(STA 2+13)
(STA 3+01)CONSERVATIONEASEMENTBREAKEXIST. 24 LFOF 48" CMP3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN4.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.us05/28/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS140405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN4
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH JN4ENHANCEMENT IIISTA 0+00 TO 2+13EXISTING CHANNEL CROSSING ANDACCESS ROAD TO REMAINREACH JN4ENHANCEMENT ISTA 3+01 TO 5+50REACH JN5REACH MC2BENCH LEFT BANK ALONGENHANCEMENT REACHPER TYPICAL DETAILSEE SHEET D3REMOVING EXISTINGPIPES & DISPOSEOF OFF SITE
12" CPP(NOT IN USE)12" CPP(NOT IN USE)15" CMPBURIED15" CMP1143.37'BBBBBBBB BBBBBB
BBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
BB
B
B
BB
BB
BB
TBTBTBTBTBT
B
TB
T
B
TBTB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
T
BTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
B
BBBB
BB
BB BB
BB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TB TBTB
TB TBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBX
X X
XXXXXX2+590+000+501+001+502+002+50LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCE LCE LCE
LCELCELCELC
E
LCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'11301135114011451150113011351140114511500+000+501+001+502+002+503+00EXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSEDCHANNEL BED3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN5.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.us05/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS150405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN5
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA LAY BACK LEFT BANK, INSTALLCOIR MATTING & LIVE STAKESSTA 0+30 TO 0+70REACH JN4REACH MC2REACH JN5ENHANCEMENT ISTA 0+00 TO 2+44BENCH LEFT BANKPER TYPICAL DETAILSTA 1+19 TO 1+82SEE SHEET D3
SOI
L
ROAD15" CPPINV. IN = 1186.37'INV. OUT = 1185.72'BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBXXXLCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCELCE0+000+501+001+502+002+50
3+003+504+004+505+005+506+006+5015" CPPINV. IN = 1186.37'INV. OUT = 1185.72'BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBT
B
TBTBXXLCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE5+005+506+006+507+007+508+008+509+009+5010+0010+5011+0011+5012+0012+50S12S133060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN6.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.us05/28/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS160405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN6
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH JN6PRESERVATIONSTA 0+00 TO 5+08REACH JN6ENHANCEMENT IIISTA 5+38 TO 12+45REACH JN6ENHANCEMENT IIISTA 5+38 TO 12+45MATCH LINE 6+00
MATC
H
LI
N
E
1
2
+
0
0
S17
MATCH LINE 6+0
0 EXISTING ACCESSROAD TO REMAIN
GRAVEL ROAD12" CPPINV. IN = 1154.95'INV. OUT = 1154.89'WOODBUILDINGWOODBUILDINGBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBXXXXXX LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCELCELCE11+5012+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015+5016+001
6
+
5
0
17+0017+5018+0018+50
1
9
+
0
0S12S13S14S15S16S17S18S19S20S21PROP 24 LFOF 30" RCPSCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'114511501155116011651145115011551160116512+0012+5013+0013+5014+0014+5015+0015+5016+0016+5017+0017+5018+0018+50S15S12S18S17S19S20S13S14S16-3.00%-1.30%-5.48%-4.10%-3.54%-4.28%PROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDEXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSED TOPOF BANK(STA 13+09)(STA 13+42)CONSERVATIONEASEMENTBREAK
3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN6.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.us05/28/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS170405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN6
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH JN6RESTORATIONSTA 13+42 TO 20+78TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.5'1.6'6.2'1.0'3.8'1.7'6.7'1.5'1.5'1.7'3.8'6.7'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH JN6 STA 13+42 TO STA 20+78S16MATCH LINE 12+00
MATCH L
I
N
E

1
8
+
5
0
S18PROPOSED 24 LFOF 30" RCPEXISTING PIPE TO BEREMOVED AND DISPOSEDOF OFF SITEREACH JN6RESTORATIONSTA 12+45 TO 13+09
BB BB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBLCELCEL
C
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
L
C
E
LCELCELCE18+0018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+502
5
+
0
0
25+38S20S21S22S23S53SCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'113011351140114511501130113511401145115018+5019+0019+5020+0020+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+5025+00S21S22S23S53PROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDEXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSED TOPOF BANK3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_JN6.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.us05/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS180405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH JN6
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH JN6RESTORATIONSTA 13+42 TO 20+78TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION1.5'1.6'6.2'1.0'3.8'1.7'6.7'1.5'1.5'1.7'3.8'6.7'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH JN6 STA 13+42 TO STA 20+78REACH MC2S17MATCH LINE 18+50
REACH JN6RESTORATIONSTA 20+78 TO 25+17TIE RESTORATION INTORELIC CHANNEL FEATUREAT STA 20+78BEGIN TRANSITION FROMJN6 TO MILL CREEK ATDROP STRUCTURE
GRAVEL ROADED NIXON ROAD50' RIGHT OF WAY
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBB
B
BBBB
BB BBBBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB TBTBTB TB TBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBB
BBBB
BB BBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTB TBTB TBTBTBTB TB TBTB TBTBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBXXXX XXXXXXXX X X X19+50 20+0020+50 21+00 21+50 22+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+5025+00
25+5026+002
6
+
5
0
2
7
+
0
0
27+5028+00S19S27S28S29S30S31S28.5S30.5LCE LCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'113511401145115011551135114011451150115520+5021+0021+5022+0022+5023+0023+5024+0024+5025+0025+5026+0026+5027+00S28S29S30S31-0.85%-0.85%S28(STA 20+72)(STA 21+23)CONSERVATIONEASEMENTBREAKPROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDEXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSED TOPOF BANK3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_MC2.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.us05/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS190405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH MC2
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH MC2RESTORATIONSTA 21+23 TO STA 31+67LITTLE SEBASTIANSTREAM MITIGATION SITETYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.2'7.3'23.0'2.6'10.8'7.9'23.0'4.7'4.7'7.9'10.8'23.0'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH MC2 STA 20+72 TO STA 31+673.1'
MATCH LIN
E

2
7
+
0
0
S20 PROPOSED BRIDGE
BBBB
BBBBBBBBBB
B
B
B
B
B
B
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB
BB BBBB
BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB
T
B
TBTB
TB
TB
TBTBTBT
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
TB TBTBB
B
B
B
BB
BBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBX
XXXXXXXXXX26+50 27+00 27+5028+0028+5029+00 29+5030+0030+50
31+0031+5032+0032+5033
+
0
0
3
3
+
5
0
3
4
+
0
0
34+
5
0
35+0035+503
6
+
0
0S31S32S33LCELCELCELCELCELCELCEL
C
E
L
C
E
L
C
E LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCELCELCELCESCALE: HOR 1"=30'; VERT 1"=3'113011351140114511501130113511401145115027+0027+5028+0028+5029+0029+5030+0030+5031+0031+5032+0032+5033+00S32S33-0.85%PROPOSEDCHANNEL BEDEXISTING GRADEALONG STREAMCENTERLINEPROPOSED TOPOF BANK3060300FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_MC2.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.us05/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS200405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH MC2
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA REACH MC2RESTORATIONSTA 21+23 TO 31+67S19MATCH LINE 27+00
S21MATCH LINE 34+00TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER CROSS SECTION℄℄TYPICAL SHALLOW CROSS SECTION℄TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER CROSS SECTION4.2'7.3'23.0'2.6'10.8'7.9'23.0'4.7'4.7'7.9'10.8'23.0'BANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEBANKFULL STAGEREACH MC2 STA 20+72 TO STA 31+673.1'REACH MC2ENHANCEMENT IIISTA 31+67 TO 35+24
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB BB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB TBTBTBTBTB TBTBTB TBTB
BBBBBBBBBBXXXXXXX33+0033+5034+0034+5035+0035+5036+0036+5037+0037+503
8
+
0
0
38+5039+0039+5040+0040+5041+00S53LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE######0FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_MC2.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.us05/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONS210405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
REACH MC2
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA MC2ENHANCEMENT IIISTA 38+20 TO 40+42LITTLE SEBASTIAN STREAMMITIGATION SITES20MATCH LINE 34+00 MC2ENHANCEMENT IIISTA 31+67 TO 35+23REACH JN6
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDROCKROCKROCKROCKOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBB BBBBBB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBT
B TBTB TBTB TB TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBB
BBB
B
BB
BBB
BBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTB
TB
TB
TBTB
TBT
B TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBT
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
B
B
BB BB
BB
BB BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBB BBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB
BB
BBBBBB
BB BBBB BBBB BB BBBB
BB
BB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTB
T
B TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TB
TB TBTB TBTB
TB TBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTB TBTB TB TB TBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTB TBTBTBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB
T
B TB
T
B
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TB
TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BBBBBBBBBB
BB BB BB
BB
B
B
BBBB BB
BB
BB
B
B
BB BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
BB
BB BBBB
BB
BB
BBBB
BBBB
BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBLC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
L
C
E
L
C
E
LCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE LCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE LCE
LCE
1503001500FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_SITE.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.usSURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FENCING PLAN
GIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
BRCTRSAFMBPB0405F1PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 05/24/2019REACH MC2REACH JN4REACH JN5REACH JN6FENCING LEGENDLIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENTLCEEXISTING FENCELINEPROPOSED FENCELINEFENCING NOTES:1.CONTRACTOR TO TIE PROPOSED FENCEINTO EXISTING FENCE WHERE APPLICABLETO MAINTAIN CATTLE EXCLUSION.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL FENCINGLOCATED WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSERVATIONEASEMENT.INSTALL 1700 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCESEE DETAIL SHT D3INSTALL 4600 LF OFWOVEN WIRE FENCESEE DETAIL SHT D3
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDWOODBUILDINGWOODSHEDROCKROCKROCKROCKOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEBB BBBBBB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TB
TBTBTBT
B TBTB TB
TB TB TBTB
TB
TBTBTBTBTB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B
B
BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBB
BBB
B
BB
BBB
BBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBT
B
TBTB
TB
TB
TBTB
TBT
B TBTBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TBT
B
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB BB BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BB
B
B
BB BB
BB
BB BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB BBBB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BBBB BBBBBB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBB
BB
BBBBBB
BB BBBB BBBB BB BBBB
BB
BB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB TBTBTBTB
TB
TBTB
TB
TB TBTB TBTBTBTBTB TBTB
T
B TBTB
TB
TB
TB
TBTBTB
TB
TB TBTB TBTB
TB TBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTB TBTB TB TB TBTB TB TB TB TB TB TB TBTBTB TBTBTBTB TB TB TB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TBTBTBTB
TB
TB
T
B
TB
TB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TB
TB
TB
T
B TB
T
B
T
B
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTBTBT
B
TB
TB TB
TB
TB TB
TB
TB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BBBBBBBBBB
BB BB BB
BB
B
B
BBBB BB
BB
BB
B
B
BB BB
BB
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
BB
BB BBBB
BB
BB
BBBB
BBBB
BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB
TBTB
TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB TBTBTBTBTBTBLC
E
LC
E
LCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
L
C
E
L
C
E
LCELCELCELCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
LCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCELCE
LCE
LCE
LCE
1503001500FULL SCALE: 1"= 2" = FULL SCALE1" = HALF SCALEFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_SITE.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.us5/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONP10405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
PLANTING PLAN
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAPLANTING 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 (IN SUPPLEMENTALPLANTING AREAS 400 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 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTLCEREACH JN6REACH JN5REACH JN4REACH MC2Bare Root Planting Tree SpeciesCommon NameScientific NamePercentCompositionWater OakQuercus nigra15%Willow OakQuercus phellos15%River BirchBetula nigra15%American SycamorePlatanas occidentalis10%Northern Red OakQuercus rubra10%Green AshFraxinus pennsylvanica10%Yellow PoplarLiriodendron tulipifera10%PersimmonDiospyros virginiana5%ElderberrySambucus canadensis5%Black GumNyssa biflora5%EXISTING TREELINERIPARIAN PLANTING(TOTAL AREA: 4.3 AC)
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 FENCENTSSEE 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 DIKENTSEROSION 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 FABRICCOMPACTEDEARTHRUNOFFFILTERFABRICBBAA3:
1
2:12'5' MIN.W (SPILLWAY)MIN. 23 STREAM WIDTH6" MIN.MIDDLE LAYERBOTTOM LAYERTOP LAYEREARTH SURFACETRENCH 0.25' DEEPONLY WHENPLACED ON EARTHSURFACEENDS OF BAGS INADJACENT ROWSBUTTED SLIGHTLYTOGETHERSEE NOTELOWEST POINTGROUND LEVELEARTH SURFACE2'2' MIN. BELOWLOWEST BANKLEVELSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.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.us5/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND10405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINACOIR 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 1:1FLOW18"FLOWSTEP 1STEP 2FLOWSTEP 1STEP 2FLOW1 ROW OFBIODEGRADABLESTAPLES OR STAKES,MIN. OF 24" O.C1 ROW OFBIODEGRADABLESTAPLES OR STAKES,MIN. OF 24" O.C1 ROW OFBIODEGRADABLESTAPLES OR STAKES,MIN. OF 24" O.CFIGURE 1FIGURE 2SOIL PILEFROM TRENCHTRENCH APPROX.8" WIDE X 8" DEEP1 ROW OFBIODEGRADABLESTAPLES OR STAKES,MIN. OF 24" O.CTRENCH APPROX.8" WIDE x 8" DEEPSOIL PILEFROM TRENCHSOIL FILLEDFROM SOIL PILE,COMPACT WITH FOOTSOIL FILLEDFROM SOIL PILE,COMPACT WITH FOOT1
.
0
'MI
N
.KEY-IN MATTING PERFIG. 1 OR FIG. 2STAKE MATTING JUSTABOVE CHANNEL TOEAND BACKFILL W/RIFFLE MATERIAL2.0'MIN.6" RIFFLEMATERIAL
NOTES:1.LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, 6-9 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 PLUGNTSNOTES1.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 BANKFULL 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 LOGDIAMETER BEDDED BELOWEXISTING CHANNEL INVERT12" MINIMUM LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)INSTALL CABLE ANCHOR AS SHOWN. DRILL (ORSAW CUT) PILOT HOLE THROUGH LOG 1/3 TO1/4 OF THE WAY DOWN SO THAT ANCHORCABLE IS NOT EXPOSED.BANKFULL ELEVATION1/4 TO 1/3 OF LOGDIAMETER CAN BE EXPOSEDPRIOR TO FINAL GRADINGPROPOSED BEDMINIMUM OF 1/2 TO 2/3 OFLOG DIAMETER BEDDEDBELOW CHANNEL INVERT12" LOG DIAMETER (TYP.)CHANNEL PLUG30' MIN.BANKFULL ELEVATIONNEW CHANNEL BANK SHALLBE TREATED AS SPECIFIEDIN PLANSPROPOSEDCHANNEL INVERTLOG TOE OR COIR LOGEXISTINGCHANNELBOTTOMTOP OF BANKCOMPACTED BACKFILL(12" TO 18" LIFTS)COIR FIBERMATTINGFLAT TOP ENDLATERAL BUDSIDE BRANCHREMOVED ATSLIGHT ANGLE45 DEGREETAPERED BUTTEND0.5' TO 1.5'18" MIN.0.75" TO 2"3' MIN.COIR FIBERMATTING2"PLAN VIEWSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.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.us5/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND20405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA XBCATZWZOUTLET ELEV: EPOOL ELEV: DPLAN VIEW6" #57 STONE ONGEOTEXTILE FABRICEVEN MIX OF NCDOT CLASS 1AND CLASS 2 RIPRAP 30" DEEPUNDISTURBED SOILSECTION A-A' YTYPICAL DRY DISSIPATER BASINNTSNOTE:BASINS WILL BE SIZED BASED ONCONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREATO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE.AA'FLOW
LOG VANENTSFOOTER LOGLEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARM BANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTBALLAST BOULDEROR DUCKBILL ANCHORSPOOLHEADER LOGBANKFULLVARIES
0' TO 0.8'3% TO 6%BANKFULLHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGSTREAM BEDIN POOLVARIES0' TO 12 WIDTHFLOWSTREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBALLAST BOULDEROR DUCK BILL ANCHORSFLOWLOG VANENON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)STREAM BANKTOE OF BANKBANKFULL1/2 WIDTHFLOWCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")MIN 4.0'LEFT OR RIGHT VANEARM BANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINT1.LOG VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE OR MORE LOGS HELD IN PLACE BY EITHER BALLAST BOULDERS, DUCKBILLANCHORS, OR REBAR. LOGS SHALL BE A MIN. LENGTH OF 30' AND DIAMETER OF 12" AND BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD,RECENTLY HARVESTED. THE LENGTH SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE LOG IS BURIED INTO THE SOIL OF THE STREAM BANK (ON ONEEND) AND STREAM BED (ON THE OTHER END) A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 4.0'. FLAT-SIDED BALLAST BOULDERS SHALL BE OF SIZE2' 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°NOTES:1.TREES NOT INDICATED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BEPROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION INACCORDANCE WITH PLANS.2.SEED AND MULCH ALL BANKS PRIOR TO INSTALLINGCOIR MATTING.INSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DETAIL D1EXCAVATE / GRADE UPPER BANKINSTALL LIVE STAKES (SEE PLANTING PLAN)EXISTING CHANNEL BANKTIE TO EXISTING GRADEMIN SLOPE 2.5H:1VEXISTINGCHANNEL BEDTYPICAL BANK GRADINGNTSVARIES(DESIGNER TO MARK IN FIELDPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION)10' TO 15'BENCHNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC (NCDOT TYPE II)3' MAXIMUMBANK HEIGHTSTREAM CHANNELSURFACE FLOWDIVERSIONNOTES:1.CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.2.HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.3.MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATECHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.4.INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.5.GRADE SLOPES TO A MINIMUM OF 2:1 SLOPE, MAXIMUM6.MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOTENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.7.A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL CLASS A STONE, 6 TO 9 INCHES THICK, LINED WITHFILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.8.FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.9.WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (8' MIN.) TO ACCOMMODATE THELARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TOEQUIPMENT UTILIZED.11.TEMPORARY CROSSINGS ARE TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE.CLASS A STONE OVERFILTER FABRICSTONE APPROACHSECTION: 2:1 MIN., 5:1MAX. SLOPE ON ROADSURFACE FLOWDIVERSIONFORD CROSSINGNTSCLASS A STONEEXISTING STREAMBANKFILTER FABRICAASCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.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.us5/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND30405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINATYPICAL PLAN VIEWCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKCOIR MATTINGF
LOWBRUSH TOENTS1.OVER EXCAVATE THE OUTSIDE BEND OF THE CHANNEL. PLACE LARGERBRANCHES AND LOGS IN A CRISS-CROSS PATTERN. LOCK IN PLACE WITHFILL COVERING 6 IN TO 12 IN OF THE LARGER BRANCHES/SMALL LOGS.2.PLACE SMALLER BRANCHES AND BRUSH OVER THE LARGERBRANCHES/SMALL LOGS (HARDWOOD SPECIES ONLY) AND COMPACTLIGHTLY TOGETHER. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO LOCK IN PLACE.3.PLACE LIVE CUTTINGS OVER THE SMALL BRANCHES AND BRUSH.ACCEPTABLE LIVE CUTTINGS SPECIES INCLUDE BLACK WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA)AND SILKY WILLOW (SALIX SERICEA). WILLOW CUTTINGS SHOULD BE RINSEDAT CUTTING POINT TO ALLOW BETTER ROOTING.4.INSTALL EROSION CONTROL (COIR) MATTING OVER COMPACTED SOIL PERDIRECTION OF ENGINEER. COIR MATTING SHOULD BE KEYED INTO TOP OFBANK.5.INSTALL 1 TO 3 ROWS OF LIVE STAKES ABOVE THE LIVE CUTTINGS LAYERPER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.6.LIVE CUTTINGS SHOULD NOT EXTEND PAST 13 OF CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH.AASECTION A-ASMALL LOGS AND/ORLARGE BRANCHES WITH AMIN DIAMETER OF 4"SMALL BRANCHESAND BRUSHCOMPACTED SOIL LIFTTOP OF BANKLIVE STAKES1/4 MAX POOL DEPTH1/4 MAX POOL DEPTHLIVE CUTTINGSINSTALL COIR MATTING PER DETAILSEE DWG D1MIN 2.0'6"TOE PROTECTION(LARGER CHANNELS)KEY COIR MATTINGINTO BANK
A'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.FLOODPLAIN SILLNTSDIFFUSE 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 INVERTLOG SILL(SEE DETAIL)PROPOSED GRADEEXISTING GRADETIE-IN TOEXISTINGFLOODPLAINELEVATIONFILL DITCH ANDINSTALL COIRMATTINGSECTION B-BEXISTINGGROUND3:1 MAX SLOPE3:1 MAXSLOPEFILL DITCHCUTBBCONSTRUCTPOOLINSTALL COIR MATTING PERMANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONSMINIMUMDIAMETER12"6'REBARLOGS5'LENGTH VARIESDOWNVALLEY5/8" REBARPROPOSEDFLOODPLAINSURFACE5'6" (TYP.)BANKFULL LIMITS OFPROPOSED CHANNELSCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.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.us5/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND40405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINANTSLOG SILLSECTION A-A (OPT 1)SECTION B-BFLOWTYPICAL PLAN VIEWAABBFLOWMIN. 5.0'5.0'MINHIGHLOWHIGHLOWNOTES:1.LOGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOODAND RECENTLY HARVESTED2.HIGH SIDE OF LOG SHALL BE APPROX. 0.2' HIGHERTHAN LOW END3.LOG DIMENSIONS:MIN DIAM. = 12", MIN LENGTH = 18'NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" 10D GALVANIZEDCOMMON NAIL EVERY 1.5' ALONG THE LOG4.DUCKBILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF REBARMIN. 4.0'CHANNEL TOPOF BANKCOARSE BACKFILLCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKREBAR OR DUCKBILLANCHORREBAR (5/8" MIN. DIAMETER, 4' MIN. LENGTH) ORDUCKBILL ANCHORS INSTALLED PERMANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)COIR MATTINGPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDTACK FABRICTO LOGHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (1" TO 5" DIA.)POOLBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (1" TO 5" DIA.)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)TOE PROTECTIONSECTION A-A (OPT 2)FLOWMIN. 5.0'REBAR OR DUCKBILLANCHORPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDTACK FABRICTO LOGBACKFILL WITH COARSEAGGREGATE (1" TO 5" DIA.)SEE PROFILE FORPOOL DEPTHSCOUR POOLNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(NCDOT TYPE II)SEE PROFILE FORPOOL DEPTH
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 DETAILTIMBER MAT CROSSINGTIMBER MAT APPROACHTOP OF BANKCLASS B RIP RAPTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPERPENDICULARTIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPARALLELTIMBER MAT(TYP)CARRIAGE BOLTFLOWTOE OF BANK(TYP)TIMBER MAT INSTALLEDPERPENDICULARTOP OF BANKCLASS B RIP RAPCARRIAGE BOLT(TYP)FILTER 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 WHEN FLOW ISLOW. THERE SHALL BE MINIMAL TO NO DISTURBANCE OF THECHANNEL BED AND BANKS AS A RESULT OF INSTALLING THEAPPROACHES 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.STREAM CROSSING APPROACHES FROM DRY AREAS SHALLBE CONSTRUCTED USING CLASS B RIP RAP PLACED OVERFILTER FABRIC.6.ALL TIMBER MATS, FILTER FABRIC, AND RIP RAP SHALL BECOMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHEN THE CROSSINGIS REMOVED.NOTES:1.CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.2.INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW.3.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE APPROPRIATE BEDDING MATERIAL WITH MANUFACTURER.4.FILTER FABRIC USED SHALL BE NCDOT TYPE 2 ENGINEERING FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT.5.WIDTH OF TYPICAL FARM CROSSINGS SHALL BE PER PLAN OR A MINIMUM OF 12'.6.WHEN REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE PIPE MATERIAL AND COVER MEET H-20 LOADINGREQUIREMENTS.PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSINGNTSSTREAM CHANNELFLOW MIN 3'MIN 3'PLAN VIEWSECTION VIEW2" - 3"LINE POSTWOVEN WIREBARBED ORELECTRIC WIRELINE POST16' MAX.BARBED ORELECTRICWIREWOVEN WIREGROUND LINE4" TO 6"LINE POST3" MIN.32" TO 42"6"6' MIN.2' MIN.MIN. 18"FILTER FABRICCOARSE AGGREGATE(#5 WASHED STONE) 6"DEEPEARTH FILL COVERED BYLARGE ANGULAR ROCKPIPE SIZE PER PLANINVERT PER PLAN BURYCULVERT 0.6' UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE BYENGINEERINSTALL CLAY PLUG 2FEET BELOW CULVERTINVERTCOARSE AGGREGATEEARTH FILL COVEREDBY LARGE ANGULARROCKLOG OR ROCK SILL SET TOPOF LOG 1FOOT ABOVECULVERT INVERTTOP OF BANKLOG OR ROCK SILL;SET TOP A MINIMUM OF0.6' ABOVE CULVERTINVERT10' MIN.10' MIN.SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.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.us5/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND50405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINALOG OR ROCK SILLPOOLFLOWA'ASTREAM BED13 W13 W20°-30
°13 WPLAN VIEWLOG CROSS VANENTSNOTES:1.LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF 12' IN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER AND RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD,RECENTLY HARVESTED.2.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(S) AND THE STREAM BED, UNDER THE COARSEBACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLE IN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED,TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS NEEDED.3.COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO A THICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THE LOGS AND SHALL EXTEND OUTFROM THE VANE ARMS TO THE STREAM BANK AND UPSTREAM.4.AS AN OPTION, FLAT-SIDED BOULDERS MAY BE PLACED AS BALLAST ON TOP OF THE STREAM BANK SIDE OF THEEMBEDDED VANE ARMS. REBAR OR DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.5.REBAR OR DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAY BE USED TO SECURE LOGS INTO THESTREAM BED AND/OR BANKS. FLAT SIDED BOULDERS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHORSYSTEM.4'FILTER FABRICSTREAM BANKS,TYPICALPOINT REFERENCEDIN PROFILECROSS LOGBANKFULLTOE OF BANK, TYPICALCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")VANE ARM HEADER LOGOPTIONAL BALLAST BOULDERREBAR AND/ORCABLING, TYP.SEE NOTECUT LOGS TO MAKE FLUSHCONNECTION. REBAR END OFLOGS TOGETHER. OVERLAPWITH FILTER FABRICKEY STRUCTURE INTO BANK.ELEVATION VARIES BASEDON ARM SLOPE3% TO 8%SECTION B-B'COARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1.5" TO 5")INVERT LOGVANE ARM LOGFLOW4'0.8' MAX.FILTER FABRICBB'PROFILE VIEWBANKFULLBANKFULLSTREAM BANKCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")CROSS LOGVANE ARMHEADER LOGREBAR AND/ORCABLING, TYP.SEE NOTEEXCAVATED POOL. SEETYPICAL CROSS SECTIONSFOR DEPTHNAIL ALL UPSTREAMFACES OF LOGSWITH FILTER FABRICPOINT REFERENCEDIN PROFILEMIN4'4'SECTION A-A'BANKFULLVANE ARMHEADER LOGVANE ARMFOOTER LOGSTREAM BED IN POOLFILTER FABRICSTREAM BANKCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (2" TO 6")VANE ARMFOOTER LOGVANE ARM FOOTER LOG
PLAN VIEWPROFILECROSS SECTION A-A'FLOWVARIESEND RIFFLE CONTROL POINTPROPOSED TOPOF BANKBEGIN RIFFLECONTROL POINTVARIES CHANNELBOTTOM WIDTHBEGIN RIFFLEEND RIFFLERIFFLE MATERIALFLOWTOP OF BANKTOE OF BANK4' MIN 4' MIN4'MIN4'MINRIFFLERUNGLIDESMALL POOLLARGE COBBLE/SMALL BOULDERSLOGS/WOODYDEBRISLOGS/WOODYDEBRISTOP OF BANK4.0' (TYP)RIFFLE MATERIAL1.25' MIN0.75' MINTOP OF BANKPROPOSED TOE OF BANKGRADE CONTROL ROCK50/50 MIX OF CLASS A ANDB RIPRAPLOGS/WOODY DEBRISSMALL POOL, TYP4.0'TYPLARGE COBBLE/SMALLBOULDERS, TYPRIFFLE MATERIAL;EQUAL MIX OF SURGESTONE AND NATIVESUBSTRATE MATERIALFLOWTHALWEGTHALWEGCHANNELBOTTOM WIDTH4.0' (TYP)4.0'TYPNOTES:1.CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEWLY GRADED CHANNEL SECTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.2.ELEVATION CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE DESIGNATED AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF RIFFLE POINTS TO ESTABLISH PART OF THE PROFILE OF THE CHANNEL. SURVEY OF CONTROL POINTS SHALL BEREQUIRED TO 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. GRADE CONTROL 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 WOOD. THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF AN EQUAL MIX OF SURGE STONE AND NATIVE SUBSTRATE MATERIAL. RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BEEXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS. OTHERWISE ROCK RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, “RIVER-TYPE” ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCKCHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHANNEL. IN ADDITION, LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE INCLUDED WITH THE ROCK MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER.5.THE PLACEMENT OF GRADE CONTROL ROCK AND/OR RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER TO CREATE A SMOOTH PROFILE, WITH NO ABRUPT “JUMP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE UPSTREAMPOOL-GLIDE AND THE RIFFLE, AND LIKEWISE NO ABRUPT “DROP” (TRANSITION) BETWEEN THE RIFFLE AND THE DOWNSTREAM RUN-POOL. THE FINISHED CROSS SECTION OF THE RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALLGENERALLY MATCH THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION WITH SOME VARIABILITY OF THE THALWEG LOCATION 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 OR J-HOOK).7.THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SHALL BE KEYED IN TO THE STREAM BANKS AND/OR BED AS DESIGNATED BY THE DESIGNER. THE "KEY" SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP OF BANK AT THE BEGINNING (CREST) OFTHE RIFFLE. WHERE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING STREAM BANK VEGETATION IS A PRIORITY A "KEY" MAY NOT BE USED (OR THE DIMENSIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED) TO LIMIT DISTURBANCE.RIFFLE MATERIAL;EQUAL MIX OF SURGESTONE AND NATIVESUBSTRATE MATERIALGRADE CONTROL ROCK50/50 MIX OF CLASS A ANDB RIPRAPRIFFLE GRADE CONTROLNTSAASCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.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.us5/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND60405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA POOLPOOLFLOWTOP OF BANKSTEP ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTPOOLPOOLPOOLBALLAST BOULDERPOOL ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTTIE-IN TO STREAMBANK (TYP.)FLOWHEADER LOGTIE-IN TO STREAMBED (TYP.)A'ASTREAM BANKPROTECTIONANGLED LOG STEP POOLNTSTOP OF BANKBALLAST BOULDERFOOTER LOGHEADER LOGSTEP ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTUPSTREAM POOL ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 5")STEP ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTPOOL ELEVATIONCONTROL POINTBANKFULLHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGFILTER FABRICNOTES:1.LOGS SHALL BE OF A MINIMUM OF 15' IN LENGTH AND 10" IN DIAMETER AND RELATIVELYSTRAIGHT HARDWOOD, RECENTLY HARVESTED.2.A SINGLE LOG MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF A HEADER/FOOTER LOG COMBINATION, PERDIRECTION OF DESIGNER.3.FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE USED TO SEAL THE GAPS BETWEEN THE LOG(S) AND THE STREAMBED, UNDER THE COARSE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THERE SHALL BE NO FILTER FABRIC VISIBLEIN THE FINISHED WORK; EDGES SHALL BE FOLDED, TUCKED, OR TRIMMED AS NEEDED.4.COARSE BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED TO A THICKNESS EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THEHEADER (AND ANY FOOTER) LOGS AND SHALL EXTEND OUT FROM THE VANE ARMS TO THESTREAM BANK AND UPSTREAM.5.AS AN OPTION, FLAT-SIDED BOULDERS MAY BE PLACED AS BALLAST ON TOP OF THESTREAM BANK SIDE OF THE EMBEDDED VANE ARMS. DUCK BILL ANCHORS MAY BE USED INLIEU OF BALLAST BOULDERS.6.DUCKBILL ANCHORS WITH GALVANIZED CABLE ATTACHED MAY BE USED TO SECURE LOGSINTO THE STREAM BED AND/OR BANKS. FLAT SIDED BOULDERS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OFTHE LOG INVERT/DUCKBILL ANCHOR SYSTEM.PLAN VIEWPROFILESECTION VIEW
SCALE: AS SHOWNFILE NAME:S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Little Sebastian\CAD\DWG\675700_SHT_DETAILS.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.us5/24/2019PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOND70405BPBAFMTRSBRCGIDEON STREAM MITIGATION SITE
DETAILS
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA HEADER 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 CHANNELWIDTHVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTSECTION B-B'BBAAROCK CROSS VANENTSHEADER AND FOOTERBOULDERSPOOLFLOWCROSS VANE INVERTCONTROL POINTFILTER FABRICSTREAM BANK, TYPICALTOE OF BANK, TYPICALBANKFULL, TYPICALFOOTER ROCKSLEFT OR RIGHT VANE ARMBANK INTERCEPTCONTROL POINTPOOLHEADER ROCKSBANKFULLVARIES0' TO 0.8'2% 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 CHANNELWIDTHVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTVANE ARM BANKINTERCEPT CONTROLPOINTSECTION B-B'BBAAROCK A-VANENTSPOOLFILTER FABRICPOOLSTEP INVERTCONTROL POINTSTEP POOLNTSFLOWPROFILE VIEW STREAM INVERTCONTROL POINTBANKFULLBACKFILL EXISTINGCHANNEL WITH NATIVEMATERIAL AS NEEDEDFOOTER ROCKHEADER ROCKWOODYDEBRISSECTION A-A'FOOTER ROCKWELL GRADED MIX OF#57 STONE, CLASS AAND B RIPRAPFILTER FABRICSTREAM BED0.8' MAX (TYP.)1.5x RIFFLEDEPTH (TYP.)HEADER ROCKBANKFULLNTSROCK SILLSECTION A-ASECTION B-BFLOWCOARSE BACKFILLCHANNEL TOPOF BANKCHANNEL BOTTOMOF BANKTYPICAL PLAN VIEWAABBFLOWPROPOSEDSTREAM BEDMIN. 5.0'5.0'MINNOTES:1.BOULDERS DIMENSIONS SHALL BE AT LEAST:REACH TC1-A: 3.0' X 2.0' X 2.0'REACH TC2, TC3, & TC6: 2.0' X 2.0' X 1.5'2.COARSE AGGREGATE BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF A MIX OF GRAVEL, BALLAST STONE,AND CLASS A RIPRAP.3.THE BOULDER SILL IS GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS:A.PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS. A LAYER OF BEDDING MATERIAL UNDER THE FOOTERBOULDERS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. THERE SHALL BE NO GAPSBETWEEN BOULDERS.B.INSTALL FILTER FABRIC.C.PLACE COURSE BACKFILL BEHIND THE FOOTER BOULDERS.D.INSTALL HEADER BOULDERS ON TOP OF AND SET SLIGHTLY BACK FROM THE FOOTERBOULDERS (SUCH THAT PART OF THE HEADER BOULDER IS RESTING ON THE COARSEBACKFILL). HEADER BOULDERS SHALL SPAN THE SEAMS OF THE FOOTERBOULDERS. THERE SHALL NOT BE A SEAM IN THE CENTER OF THE STREAM BED (ATTHE THALWEG). THERE SHALL BE NO GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.E.PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND HEADER BOULDERS ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDSBETWEEN THE BOULDERS ARE FILLED.4.BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED IN 12" LIFTS.PROPOSED STREAMBANKSTREAM BEDFOOTER BOULDER, TYPICALSILL CONTROL POINT ELEVATIONHEADER BOULDERFOOTER BOULDERSILL CONTROL POINTELEVATIONTOP OF BANKHEADER BOULDER, TYPICALCOARSE AGGREGATEBACKFILL (1" TO 4")FILTER FABRIC(804.2.11 CLASS 2)BANKFULL
BANKFULL
STREAM INVERTCONTROL POINTFLOWAANOTES:1.SEE STRUCTURE BOULDER SIZE TABLE FOR APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS OFBOULDERS. THE UPPER LIMIT FOR BOULDERS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THEENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE STRUCTURE.2.CROSS VANES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO THAT ADJOINING BOULDERS TAPER INAN UPSTREAM DIRECTION, FROM THE BANKFULL ELEVATION TO THE STREAMINVERT. THE UPSTREAM END OF THE CROSS VANE IS SET AT AN ANGLE OF 20 TO30 DEGREES TANGENT TO THE PROJECTED STREAM BANK DIRECTION. THE TOPELEVATION OF BOTH VANES WILL DECREASE TOWARD THE CENTER OF THECHANNEL.3.THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE CROSS VANE SHALL BE KEYED INTO THESTREAMBANK AT THE BANKFULL ELEVATION. THE CROSS VANE SHALL BE KEYED AMINIMUM OF FIVE FEET INTO THE STREAMBANK. THE UPSTREAM END OF CROSSVANE SHALL BE KEYED INTO THE STREAMBANK AT THE DESIGNED STREAMBEDINVERT ELEVATION.4.VANE BOULDERS SHALL BE PLACED IN A LINEAR FASHION SO AS TO PRODUCE THESLOPING CROSS VANE, AND SHALL BE PLACED WITH TIGHT, CONTINUOUS SURFACECONTACT BETWEEN ADJOINING BOULDER. BOULDER SHALL BE PLACE SO AS TOHAVE NO SIGNIFICANT GAPS BETWEEN ADJOINING BOULDER.5.VANE BOULDERS SHALL BE PLACED SO AS TO HAVE A FINAL SMOOTH SURFACEALONG THE TOP PLANE OF THE CROSS VANE. NO VANE BOULDER SHALL PROTRUDEHIGHER THAN THE OTHER BOULDER IN THE BOULDER VANE. A COMPLETED CROSSVANE HAS A SMOOTH, CONTINUOUS FINISH GRADE FROM THE BANKFULLELEVATION TO THE STREAMBED.6.AS THE CROSS VANE IS CONSTRUCTED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHINK ALL VOIDSBETWEEN THE FOOTER BOULDERS, AND BETWEEN THE FOOTER BOULDERS ANDVANE BOULDERS. VOIDS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH SMALLER ROCK SUCH THAT NOVOIDS GREATER THAN FOUR INCHES IN SIZE WILL BE PRESENT.XZY3 PRIMARY ROCK DIMENSIONS:X.LONGEST DIMENSIONY.SHORTEST DIMENSIONZ.INTERMEDIATE DIMENSIONNOTES: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 A TYPE, SIZE, AND GRADATION ASSPECIFIED BY THE DESIGNER. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS OF STEP-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 THE CONDITIONS IN THE CHANNEL WARRANT (I.E. –CLEAN-WATER DISCHARGE ENVIRONMENT, HIGH BEDLOAD SYSTEM, ETC.) BED MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED, STOCKPILED, AND RE-USED FROM ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS WHEREVERPRACTICAL. OTHERWISE BED MATERIAL SHALL BE SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, “RIVER-TYPE” ROCK, UNLESS OTHER ROCK CHARACTERISTICS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHANNEL. LOGS AND OTHERWOODY DEBRIS MAY BE INCORPORATED 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 INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER OF 14" TO 18". INVERTS SHALLBE SET AT A DROP/RISE FROM THE ADJACENT UPSTREAM/DOWNSTREAM INVERT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PASSAGE OF FISH. THE INVERTS SHALL FORM THE THALWEG OF THE STEP POOLSTRUCTURE. POOLS SHALL BE FORMED BETWEEN THE INVERTS TO THE DIMENSIONS 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 BE FORMED OF STEP-POOLMATERIALS 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 OF THE HEADER ROCK.8.FILTER FABRIC SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS FOR NCDOT WOVEN FILTER FABRIC.

Appendix B –
Data/Analysis/Supplementary Information

Vegetation Survey

""""""""VP-1
VP-2
VP-3
VP-4
0 600300
Feet
Vegetation Survey
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 5/14/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES Projects\North Carolina\Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank\0405 - Gideon\Regulatory Documents\Mitigation Plan\Appendices\B - Data_Analysis_Supplementary Info and Maps\VegSurvey.mxdLegend
Gideon Mitigation Bank
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
""Vegetation Survey Plots
Viola hastataPhytolacca americanaCardamine flexuosaRanunculus repensMockingbirdRanunculus abortivusAsteraceae FamilyBasal=71.21m^2/haStems=162 per acre
opacaHammamelis virginianaAllium vinealeErythronium americanumCardamine flexuosaPodophyllum peltatumStellaria mediaRanunculus repensAsteraceae familyVeronica persicaTrifolium repensDuchesnea indicaAnemone quinquefoliaLindera benzoinPolygonatum biflorumBasal=66.83m^2/haStems= 324 per acreUnknown grass #1: red fescue (festuca rubra)
Asteraceae familyBasal=64.8m^2/haStems=405 per acreEragrostis curvula
Stellaria mediaTrifolium repensPlantago majorRanunculus repensVeronica persicaBasal=0m^2/haStems=0 per acre
Canopy Basal Area= 51m^2/ha
Midstory Basal= 5.4m^2/ha
Canopy stems/acre= 324
Midstory stems/acre = 486E
Smitheys Creek: Reference Reach
Canopy Basal= 54m^2/ha
Midstory Basal= 3.9m^2/ha
Canopy Stems/acre= 283
Midstory Stems/acre= 769
Smitheys Creek: Reference Reach

Morphological Parameters

Gideon Morphological ParametersFeatureRiffle Pool Riffle PoolRiffle Pool 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)1DimensionBKF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)27.7 34.7 3.0 4.25.6 5.0 30.6 31.3 54.4 72.6 4.7 6.3BKF Width (ft) 17.5 18.6 5.2 5.65.9 6.2 17.4 18.1 23 23 6.2 6.7BKF Mean Depth (ft) 1.6 1.9 0.6 1.20.9 0.8 1.8 1.7 2.4 3.2 0.8 0.9BKF Max Depth (ft) 2.5 3.4 0.8 2.11.8 1.6 2.9 3.0 3.2 4.7 1.0 1.5Wetted Perimeter (ft) 19.3 21.1 5.6 11.07.4 7.5 19.4 19.8 24.6 26.0 6.8 7.7Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.4 1.7 0.5 1.00.7 0.7 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.8 0.7 0.8Width/Depth Ratio 11.1 10.6 8.9 7.56.3 7.7 10.0 10.4 9.7 7.3 8.2 7.1Floodprone Width (ft) 72.5 - >30 -19.6 --- 50.0 --- >50 >50Entrenchment Ratio 4.3 - >4 -3.3 --- 2.9 --- >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.01.0 2.0 1.0 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 Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxChannel Beltwidth (ft) 35.0 85.0 15.0 35.0 - - - - - - 20 36 11 22 - - 48 100 54 102 56 135 18 42Radius of Curvature (ft) 13.0 54.0 6.0 17.0 - - - - - - 9 43 11 37 - - 18 32 18 83 21 86 7 20Radius of Curvature Ratio 0.9 3.7 1.2 3.3 - - - - - - 2 7 2 7 - - 1 2 0.6 2.7 0.9 3.7 1.1 3.0Meander Wavelength (ft) 67.0 105.0 23.0 43.0 - - - - - - 28 37 26 45 - - 53 95 80 123 106 167 27 51Meander Width Ratio 2.4 5.9 4.4 8.3 - - - - - - 5 6 5 7 - - 3 5 2.6 4.0 2.4 5.9 4.4 7.6ProfileMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxRiffle Length (ft) 5.6 17.0 3.5 17.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 41 4 21Run Length (ft) 6.0 17.0 2.9 8.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 27 3 10Pool Length (ft) 4.0 16.0 3.0 10.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 25 3 11Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft) 26.0 68.0 12.0 35.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41 108 14 42Additional 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 data 2 NC Piedmont Regional Curve equations source: Harman et al. (1999) 3 NC Piedmont Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2002)100200118213231.120.0090.009B3cExisting--6457381.14MC2BRiffle32255.04289.9288.830567.631.02.22.533.52.014.250.01.61.7Cobble130.0190.012E3/4MC2A31784.96286.8DesignJN6450.0712.813.912Gravel/Cobble-240285.8E35421.13--478Reference ReachJN3 US UT to Hauser Creek921 29Riffle RiffleRiffle Pool RiffleJN6C MC2AJN4A JN4B JN5 JN6A4537 39 198 2331780.07 4.960.06 0.06 0.31 0.04 0.06JN6B118.6 10.2 12.2286.811.2 11.5 37.9 7.7 11.3 12.8116.1 9.31.44 0.0538285.81805 12 11-13113-122 5-712.5 39.9 8.5 12.3 13.82.4 3.3 10.1 1.83.20.4 0.5 0.95.46.4 6.3 11.7 5.86.71.3 0.50.70.8 0.80.30.60.4 0.56.8 12.9 6.16.012.2 13.6 19.19.20.8 0.30.51.614.5 10.0 8.610.2 10.217.11.6 1.2 1.7 1.62.3 1.0 1.03.6 2.6Gravel/Cobble12 1.1Sand/Gravel Gravel/CobbleGravel Gravel Gravel Sand CobbleGravel/Cobble Gravel-142.7 2.7 14 0.062 1.4 -120 25 26 26567.9 28 2.4 27 -54 3.7 7.9230 185 260202 14612063 7.4 120 -1109250 260 95 401 785 7911.27 1.04 1.701288443 115 499 782 9221.4 1.691.161.21 1.25 1.00 1.17E3 E4b B4a0.0080.044 0.035 0.010 0.043 0.039 0.0241.2 1.3E3B4 F4 B5a1.14B3 E4b0.0090.0100.019 0.0070.042 0.047 0.043 0.045 0.045

Channel Stability Assessment

MC2-A MC2-B JN4-A JN4-B JN5 JN6-A JN6-B JN6-C1Watershed characteristics1249654672Flow habit645555773Channel pattern712632374Entrenchment/channel confinement337684745Bed material365644476Bar development668844657Obstructions/debris jams455543548Bank soil texture and coherence44101043459Average bank angle66881035510Bank vegetation/protection10869724811Bank cutting4456712412Mass wasting/bank failure4544624613Upstream distance to bridge1 NANANANANANANAScore 70 56 74 79 67 37 57 69RatingGoodGood Fair FairGoodGood GoodGoodChannel Stability Assessment Summary Table
sbmm: M C_A ZC�
neem'
Weatbr:
Lapepon:
�WMV IIMkaw Esea M.nl
Obnrven: ��-V
PoenG let.
Orainapa Ma:
Sbeam TYpe: /}PY.
a.wmaabeane ac1WIY
.roreeroe.uMbka0e4
mkeraaasbaea Elle
aklMnMa
F ua4 ' Fib
Cd'OiYW abbbrow Elbe
rtl Wxl«dus
vaWde]
welrxhM.InclutiB UWe Muh
w'a1asM0. M1Mwi9 cetlle MNilY.
walraMt. 4paMatuMe Mldy,
f9nMBeMV accwe roarean),
bMaeea. KerYA aerea9rrvY
i.eaen.dwar care o-awa
c«ebrobn. bppkB.«abr mkv
mFkg. roppke. ianbg.a
mkym.kg0aq.mm«g,wanmcllon
Mlo-«Wbn lmileE aprouB.a
wnWec6 MNbin9a. mtla,w
of dNO'vOs. reMe.o-dln
/�
adNtlb6
dM1er lrbaehWwe UMeWYbnww
hdrahw:lwa. HlpHywbnvetl«
agdked pwpanawmwabe
repayumenakewala.lm
2. FYe bW
P-- aveamwnbro MM
PbaeW abeam «aaema,i nM-
PerawW«Marmibasbeam xnB
Esbamay Matry. MOflmleawiaa
Wbv'e'
� s�m� nagmY F06ase1
nmwY babevbr
mob aem;brp.: ephemera eVeani
abrlienBsluewamm
a cbwM wK«nlmrkeal
Mowmr. acKw.enMad�.
nigwsml va«wbay ban
nppeweromn«mW*N
gcpaad lD boa plw;abNp9a„
M1wNwFc. dep. cKaeM«
charYdVee. cream brMt6*
clws , Slmam roaaivaN
eM1.sVzms mreacuMy
O'N" emPpod eyem, romaw
ebaa.CMMln acme m«ren
adjuamplmnwbmv): bcepae
aelMkv (41auMantll«a.manrl wXn
' aky).amH9a...1.
aempayla. a..el earyslm.d.
ar�alimWq.ar«.wbn
yn baMa s
- aalpm,wei.da nam.
amw brow. Bllapblaee.ablae
aenia.
a. ErtranclnaNaeaM mraremM
Iim+e boa ar,eabaMropa
MHva Btoe aaFabaewee. Wb
MoeaaecodYenerKFvaMy«
KdcknMevbMilaewmabem;
baa: roagnawiae�«npl
w„«prmwf„p: m.ymawwN
a.,,M xeas:aam sDoaw.d
e.Dus.a weer �FwwaWr
YkMFcasa: roloreea
mr «t: NraaVucva ml
Mras�rmnae:lmacea rbt: nob
Wraauxra:avmweu>nroDd-
eiNeaM:4venenloxeM Mv.0
DlamabreweJ: bvwnmetl«de
M86 talion amM: DeplY conbev:ro
beck FwnlM w«
FaW aN bYemFMa edback M1wn
MYue lbM yleF lmeapnlypa we
ee my
aksB tle clwma Npa
n. Btl mal«Y
Fe•appro®elap«lb OWWhlb
RsswleEa fthlN PckeJ.
wabppkW aMD
MtlaraldYDeckeEMm etnro
Laoiaase«Iner4wMroeWarn
Vary leve aaawlm«Y wnKropxMbg
bee
y
VbnbrbanE. evMeepYq. Varyanenanp S&
waeD. Smenbmal4n amourlad
Lapeanrow4a of melrW <I mm. Fs
Moat mMaW>4 mm. Fa<2pgk
mdaW <4mm. 20<Fa<S0y
nnlaW <4mm. W IFa<rm5
>i0•b
J[
n. BaeeMo«na4
F«S<00T Y>12. Men
FwS<FW WIY>12, bad
F[rs<00TaNwrya lT. barvMb
Ba ektlenpe�erdY preFa Ilan
maNe, aanmwrealnma�em
meYbnvepdatimaW«ba
ftww w aaMwm Wof
1unesbeemwblbMbwnow. Bae
wema lovnvw. we&vapaWal.
aaawaaeaaede «evdb
nMr aepoaneeavase saebamall
npanp«eeaa¢aerreeepowsa
mc1m2e,brocw«En.nDF«aeSa aa
mFFW scan 9mMKd
robdasar.ebnr maymbgayW
suprobco. aHxonre
1'\
Mg
Hy. <mmWba,W
oaMr
S >oo
Wk.. WS <
e"AO.
bdftW. Fws>OOT
Mwfy<12
00aM.O,12
l�lr
aslw/y <1T. ro Wra n evYWa
i. ObWwlps. Fckek4 bMock
Wna Mgesed
O«xeiory,caeky «nanwrads
WlndeN heaeM aM «zrbrely
FrapunYeM menaWabb. ceuµge
eawan. wwerierer. �woMma.
preen cwlra CrilpebM Pa+bp.
.ae mF«b.nk eae bdrom aoabn
uwndeaWmdww, case
mal:e.laM aamknanam nP«.
rmeaaan. ann awes. rl«ap
rotlwetle aeNmdtlw WmM.
rreDanaaa%Mee, cauaM cbmel
cwebaredeaenimMacmnwlan
bane abvuewis
roi�rele eiM�arweea

S bft Inab r E Iwnt1J A (4-6) Fair -B P MO 13
8. eoY (same ptl cdwpce
CYy mtl airy clay;wKaNenWpYl
Iwmro»tayaeybem; mYwr
SaMydrybw bnm:
ow
lwmy axtlbapW: ramvMaNa
ellbafladmcdtllwp
udoremmlM mNluN dglncWp
mNMW; pCpntlMprGU mulVNd
pr:padtlalaE mkY/N:Ixrye may
ONp malpaln; vnal laypawtl
gbCW pOVamaMb%; Yawata
I 1
L
NHG pq as xM1NN. ma.MY
IpgN dlwrdmaaew
Ia.N M.,NM„. mrddNO aa„a
t
ur4oNd10a91 mIX4a9a
wH ppvdS
9. Avpape bat sYN dgblwb6e
Bnyt alaeea<91;1V (18•Ibr
&"$'q NWro M:1V10T1Y
Bmk
BP Yevpli»I baht)
mctlea0 wumnwdYMe]
pMMnaNe
,d4arye 6:1:1Vu
UIIW»tlYdell mafirW pr N
maaWaro<1.11a5')Yaara on
$1 fw)ml6YE
mtl6wnb08:115Tlndara On
W)MCW&I
me1�ro0�:tIXBp•)MCY»
1sYs cpnm»m6n Goan milts
I
mm sane
one IXo6.aadtery bah lass
m Denman
^
L(J
10. V. Ww6anBawea wa
was mM aaumrvNdaM16,.an
M.ea,m mtamwmr anB.taloa
smr mm a" WY wBaalYn dm
w pavve9eldYn mte marvmY
aOtwlm
aga&sonap.Yrwam
Mh To-BM.ae aatMwma.
Sarox aflVamt6iYaNc.'
a4JmtlitRmNa
Ppn6ar hnrtl xavl.KM'. aeGMn
A malpflYalhvaxwa, YaN.
nalIXflYW aM vacU. PaeY. mnldac
W kyMffiNMhINa
eta tlamaYaM cmp.
heN wM maora.IwlNy. ptl
MciW6tabNewMmeNYg.
b6eswN pug6otl repaYGon
arty
Rhnarlyeoll wppy. pypy. c6yfppn
oast»Nadamn Yarea6t ma
aNs» v»aaanrocdea onma
YdtinanaNpnirwYa0a6»p
o-aaa.vYlwry wro. as ataaMte.
b»b,ly,ln e6ddgnarYKea
met Woos vebeMlM arYaaa B6
Be mPdmd. WMay veOelaNm
eY
aemcery, mampceda.grawn
�or�ymm lmrnmfla wanmawna mn
mmaaaa T680%Xam lwvYoaal,
odit WNyvNml6aea
onao-. mil. wooarvpaamn
bah mea adibwa6medy
eapw6e. Pmtla rgIXmm6r0
Open MM»qea rad NNaure. NO
6iedeam YNMwt)al6 hairs
BfmIXBa
dpIaIX M111mNJ
INYptlmM1.e. d11a6ae YnKKYq
MroMy&YM aYlMaiae and Bry]aVe.
mrymmPNcempp bmk
NOWYg6annobptlbMa
11 B Curve
u5a6m. mind lar»ueM raw
Same memmmlNeYro cM1w.r
6gdre+d ens M1eoNam bdn mraa.
Hm»t c6a:.aus Ideon mm mils,
mils, wgalraa PmceaaB.a
baw anadpamredcpno-aat..
naw b.racpnnrae i6Be wnYna
acme aaemiro prermoatmme
lase ma
naw mran rIXnwYa man Pomona
mat inwxlYa aredm. nod nm
maze. wapanaa w5coa.0a
and YaIXBcaarN6pt
0valYpn
mpmra.
11. RYeawNlig6h6at YRue
No 61pYNitededpY6lalp
EviapmeavJremwYatWp mrt
EvtlerceaM1egtmY6W6 cYJaMaa
FMN atlavmpNem sa t".
v6r amM enwmpdmN .Wq.
mesa waclig. MNtlym Np
aecurN4N dmew amayro xW ran
Tm yMetaM krMMYiae,N
UiNIXmdumaxCMovplm Mm
Mhva MM ndamarm
ma9Bta»b]by NgWflps,x
avtlwaMEymYMn S,MMa
reach
cmmaw Na mYNa.Y %
mnYwaw pg6a+aaq aM mNe
uMamLOe. atab rinWg4
amaze
wemroap.Nae man. awns
cd.apabY cmmd wHh Yliglfy
wam6ae YeBd6. waaweoP:ga
neadp. ma mat: are uaoaea
man Yeagpa
13 UpSbwmaret6CaYmOpe h6n
M6e ManYm;bNBeYwal-N:{S
m; brYgeWaq»l wM Sw
14'dl m:oMpe YaFN4EYflw,v
la9e tlan 10 m:bkpe YParly L'gtea
nre6m bn»dedN amdg6nma
Mgree win mpnma
nwygmYn Yompwiae mt
wBn now
cpapm mNan IrY»
I
Total Seon

OMEN
Ewis]EL1-
oeaelven: n LP
onl aea:
Sinam Tvn:
1.W ab GVaiaadyH
—__. _.... _
wew e•v
Fair - 91
PW(10-IZ
Scan
W WaclwbRe
.bMW.ulglluEBE
'�eleaae
MY JYMW FM
welwceeq Wd-*V!catlkaaw2y
Fe .Y
welereM1eO, YaaML utllaacmly,
IEIWpwrastitle
waiwaetl.
(srmy wlw ecneamatrum),
-k cFYna w0nuel
SgNkam *Ay,
brbe ro rna
ftb Wn,YwN.wmM m:v
Belwaetwbn doles! aOnmMd
mYIm.4002q. YImYa.w
ft, ft.
1l 9n
mYiv.Iw0Y0. IsmYu.wmnmcMn
kv.cr
Pweo-ucmiddaurgs.row.«
tlOPllYge. roaae,waMr
emNrYs
«Iw Maemseia. uM ww
bllri NbM«Mmnaw
WdiYem OemondraweMa ,w
wbwwbanl
ndmy YYg wdenMO
3. FIoe MEi
Perenli e4am xtllno MaM
kaMrl}
Peraniel skean wagemwm M1Y-
Pereniel«NwmXYa aYem HIM1
Etllemtl M
Y mM:MMMON peralwY
rm gleam MNmDiMb/Y«N6Yl
mm meows
MaIHbWvn
moaaaabd®se; nMaera.tlnm
Petr wn rmauaw wim
s. Cl®n01 Pli«n(IBVYetlI
Noevela�w aeMnVve4n.
ObwlewYB. aeaEYdemmw
RPOe+mblwe Pe'rYUWYEwI
ilnwam Osve PwYuN'Oeen
RPMae%m lwe paHaaly Gaul
stra191J 1amDwaswYm.narox
cOwvgnO. strep krdalHay
eleda. flurodlY6 Mae mnNwe
eeenlelYeO. Sbum kadyery
+4uabn(meaMe4e):ixyma
UatiBIYf]. SVan Y actively
v+M). a+ae dYmM.
bwmpemlm denim MiWlmBm.
wMa dwftalWw
adhabW iWw« rsww vwk.*V)wx
te.ewea. StrapM. «ubpia rew,m.
`
emM beros. Slnbinn . WOb
eiuwel.
L. EiOwtlmpUCMmm rnNbmwr
apiryaMyplYnmpymm0a
mr.:
MAarypp iAaYalpvbe]. [aY
M,ffiamcyayemM mvWyv
WYNPangryga ymreyym:
,nawwmnYp
YWadulue;roYrne
wnwMmWi6le: mtYmamYwr
waliemM;ekWntNeM
dw.r «w:awne mmd«ea
mOnOPmlie:lwreceaeWceooa
ucaaaElalw mes«o0®
114ry daa:d®ny.MmMpggq.
vVmeeO: Yren arebww ew xal
M4 kap
qem eOwlaOnetl: beennmwnb
buFi �aOm emalk eeaPlvear0.ee:ro
Mamw
YNn wtlluve mlmblMbamt kwn
eaNeMM Wb: 4veeswaiYiaaN
tln Mw
alw9 tle cYivg wlpe
5. BeO mawr
Fa=eOPro*Imam OwtYn aeaN min
Aae«I«I etratl Uplly ncMtl.
OVPAnOinB.aM Ynd14eE.
Mtlweiely POPMti'MOewro
LOnane«minewMro
PneIMY
!Mrt W>amm. Fes20%
avwieppYp. VW amaA amwvYsa
mvlw 1<4O M<F,
n P. 3millo me04m amoeba
lrge snub dmelwlYMtls CPmemcl'A p
%
nylw(yeamm. W.FeeM%
>m
I -
B' Ow EerebPnem
F«Sv0.02 eM wty>12, Mrewa
msOn.rm«vrMNamaVesm
Fw3<OMwbw/y>, Owe
FwS-002wtlwn>12, twvblib
BwwblM wa penyalypemwman
\i/'/
wbma bw ear. eaYmeeelabtl,
m%ImrevnetaY nwNw Da
umpveMtlaowu Bmvab
MNbEewba wtl wmMeela
reey 0epveee0 cane uromamr
112 tlY ehum M00i1 bx Mx. 3w6
ero FumOn
wOOlee, ba mYmli r%'we0lvWOa
m00Ysana«mryMennay
ncanPonadnwbYe WpnMd
Mremunwmmwaawa+a.wn
S"WuOmNm
aYOles. Fws>DO2 wtleyy nr
t2.mOwa weevtlws
bwevbn Oyb dWeaabn
u0ey1e0. gw Mhvi s>0A2
mwrav adbn. min Se
j
li'n
mww�eam.Ow. F«S>O.M
OWWY<12
0.02wb Wy>12
«b ey el2, roOnnWleerl
OM�mKe,mdmegOMmF
iia, LWDNma.
Ma«M Pnwil
OccWwel.uW9 woe artwYs
Mbwilayfinunwtl w.caeFVMY
FMeaiMOMn uvlatle. reuee9a
peEe corYm. dtlpe be]Iwiq.
wtlmmrOw&wtl GMMn wOCFn
unlade cOWlclbn. Egos
cwYM4Y aMdawlMaM lb'.
IeuenaR, tlyn «vwee. rbrap
Mkaeda wmpnaln cMrol.
T v0delml
/
DwnEwebe aeOYetlaewmuWmn
OeNtl mbOuurJl;rle
bm¢aa wW«vifm
J/,

mG2-8
8. wllcrlva «4 cdaaA.
YaM mW:tdiesrva meMY
geYbam maaMYb ;nMa
Fair 9 - 91
$a .Iwv to .,,Y, bed:
Poor 110-12
>kM
aiwwasa nY
ux«sdaeae mmM«daaaa«
LnmYrWbwl:mmlbeNp
macer: uc«cdmdeu mYao-wd
Mn :
uwrotlaelae mkNec:lelays- mer
amwmearea: emY brans «n
BadaaoaarmaaW:af.rea
I
..w, ra w.wn..m.�m«sae
w.0 drvorcmm®r..o-
bn.esmd bwmrvwcaHw. was
lly
ue«.daaee mueo-u
ra prarea
em a. vara�Mra �b(alra
Ems mwe 1119•la
rorcd.weorwuWaee
Ead�awuwbRH:1V (RT')1n
e.rA ebpen lH:1V (u•Ib
m.AaopeoYSMi'amtmneramw
maaaab�l:1 (u'f AMIhboayam
mtwneeNew«mwvae9de
mwrWe ma.9:i (5a°)a CMwon
nwwnnNa«wcw.d'aam
m. .b:f(60°ludrye
ucomdaeae maatbwawao•a
oava *n.oroanmda
rmnaee
we omabnrhbcm patkA
tO11oi..1ddIMwB «ndnpv'A9
I
1o. vnpMepYaw ma:wae eaa
«deotl°"
was e.roamaaY Yyrwydwm
MsOYan eo-a aeooMYwai.mn
Smea maa»mhewe�+brvwn
wooer weodetion baa may
«ba e090 eeroayem mY«.
PmwmY tare woe. M.N. mcau.
wnTOao%Ywm EoneFYda cdw.
A melwar of tare woe. say.
dd.PadirYaal ren. A
mpancYy an+Beaa reeMnwtn kea
dMaMa lleocaaeWM.
Ew'amusedamaanimbcmalmddo
mao-hdwawee.drey. oowavue
ItxrnmtJMnm wldna vmepMam
men vex dw+eeroh ma cover.
vwhneadX tl
meMms
,a%rae
bark Woody,
me
mYaweVv
.p.aM.ecmMeMNmam.
hPelu
o
YvladtY. Ina.ak.avpNab�
p
8o%hwn Mrmvaa ahnmYinM and
eatwaOaN. wooeywaemo
«adeeM lo&Ix rNm Mawtdl.
rwo- mwwa«ie vepaalbibwlM
wedd.exiee«i..ap
eof,doormaamma wamoew
many &Watroct «e. ea
Matle W. wowy Yaadaoo
wadeaaw. m.nTax amm
Yawd[arlods.wooa..mwpy
fumra.pn eaa.rve ma erFwre.
/�,
mryban.paN
NoadpwainarYpmbaas
\`6/
11. Bank wtle0
bmewroroarvaed. IrhwTuei(re.
Sane YYennaedty ebM dtanY
SiOdf ad ra h�«iaa en Eam nenFe.
A1nmcMlnub wlaan bdn Mae.
berta. e.Vdpoara P-drtw a
malaaa,
Hasa maaw«nvM caaettlan.
Fee oad�e comae ape w�m�a
«v moNaa6
ww mdu cwn«ba mYv wdlwtd
taAa.o-nut aea'4n am mw
ai4aardMYp
am scares
wwinaaoamaoton
oer"s
e
12 Mese waelegwbfA faWa
Now Nhma«andpgwWw
Eva«waYkepuMaW«mYv
E7—_
vtlaae«.M ertWwnyKbd
Frapwe «a ea«aNe menral "B
Yw mtt anwbdmdywma g.
Udbm clOrrM vhMnaw lM MYe
mnseaeong MaW n..tmonr
wnvyaaan. RNBm'aY
oa a.rosam...
ne waelpgmN Cn
Tne MdealMNNtIWe. ae
re«:n
cw.bd
MfdllaM mYilal a'ebWV
eaPaaWErrpM a«w.Mmn
mwf6wB«aYCWLyaa mess
end..L* .. Wd W. stan,F, M
Vawpoioe. as WdtyullyYga
ofhim
of him.
wwy awellwar—a.crodr
COnaweMe. Q.ndtwm.aYaddy
�ada� ..a euaroY9a
wrodw.aa mriu we crmottm
19. UpetrpmotcanCeb«ay awn
m..eeer tmwdpwem agrmo-s
Mweamn ya m. rapes W-
espn.e veno bo-a«e
pas m:baaOa MpMwYnaw
10-91 m: «apObsFew Jm M.. «
Ie4men lom;paae apWlyagroe
awwroar+aomawenw
aaaoe
caY«ee E«6Mry rape
H=Mrlmdel.V=vwtiftl. Fa.hedb�avM.
•stwB. wlY'aalnloaaanraa
iota soon

Reach:
Dab: f» �-.L7 ZAP
WeaMer.
LONMn:
S Elft bEbebr
Obeervem: Qi`
Prgect � /a9 {1
Dmi Mea:
Stream TY
1. aarahepeM Mm aghay
.Iw,y,C.mNaMbeO
OcceaipW men phhaWvnm
'
Frpuea p'mtrrWmes lnW
YOD] 10-12
CaaWW dapaWroes ntM
y,are
eM hera«wbrks
wal,mhatl
x,l«LieE. xdWeY �aexp'YY
w,laeME. YCWtlI^9 adtle,«M'.
w«satw0. 518aY acNmaalNM.
(Pednp aWpraw«arodrewnl.
bibsxNs.cMrnel seMwBnvel
plmeNpm.CMma aenp «prava
CwKbeCllm, x98x9.wdlw mxn
meY®.�WPe9.WmMw
mxieB. bi0e9.WmlrB.wcwma,Tm
amreamr n. um�ma,wiw+ur
wmeuchmawuerea.r�ea.«
ad+uva. m,a.«arn
x+ti•Mea
an«exrun�aw,. umeaaibcw«
xx�asewh.,. Hbrry weacm«
ayWmrn papxwdnabraMl
repay vpwynM nawanaa
2. Fkw luM
P«eiviY atrean�Wmm MaFY
PmeniN atraam aegnnwel hal-
PaanWwlM«mXbiY,Veam HhExhnnay
MaWf. MCN «NaIM
bawW
axWay xrre.e.a
MkypaavW
nWe.aahgnp.: egamwa mwm
C
.0fi..ft
aM nanhaam drew,
J
a dwW wllernpeahse)
Ro«mrc<acnwnmo-anwx
Mreweminve p,.mNeaen
Trews Wlaw omrawNmen
Mo,wamhare«exdslreaen
MeaaWpy. Waecbma«
damawm. strewnrsreletivep
aMneua,0. slraem le wilasly
aawft(Mr.Hy MNely
eowasyslam. wrow
abet. Cha«wl Ilse a«re memeva
ffiryallro lmeaMennol: mCalizstl
aPpreleip iblwallya Yn vaNAy)wM
i a
aaMyl. abbbaamel.
vamy).
pmro«eamschenW agmlmwn.
wmsairomFeralwweraron
bwpmm. Strayrt umbae ream.
L
aoub baMa. StragM1lNab, aabm
ewnal.
,. EarerclnieM CMw'el cOnfiienna
name M,nemampd
Tlhe naop ganaWMwetl
MWwae mrammem Wvebyw
Wicxpdna vpda powmpeem:
m+a:mywdwbw«amp
cwrwuv,ewmed,:mmra chaeta
cm
gmmWwans; aaro exrewrea
awm,p wawhw«aM
Mraemave',robvs0s
maremed; afmabichae rca
WmdKwe: lenxmmhl: MOE
theelKlua: claMMwidnwlwa-
almaea:IeaesaaaYw'eM as xw
gabebwdwap: nixes we nweemm
peau reMn amen: sassy Cmhea: ru
1
IT/
bwk M1anlN rNer
W&v antl M1ew mlwmalsapxx kwn
6aNe Mop qan: yr,yarelppantl
bnrNw
axaq tlecMaitl Alpe
Fs-,Nroaxna, MMndaeM Wtle
TBmlep bgtfly CrhaO,
^"ar1aG0Yq.wa Naadyhntrmalep.
Mmwaay PCxep WMs«M
Lone asewbrea wM no,M,rwn
VwY1W60 nBMmwtaaNhroref.Fry.
bep
Moa mawW>amm. Fe<2pg5
,vepappnq. Vwy smVemauaed
weNp. SmellbnwNum amaumaq
lupe anpwaa anutablcemm. Fe
mawW camm. 20<Fa<50X
m -4mm. W<F,M
>m
7
8. Bw Nwt«naa
Fwsce02 am Mya l2, wa
F«s<002aq mY>12, bwa
Fas<0.02aMxvY>p2 Mwmlhe
Ber wWOn»panahpreabrpw
mwve.mwrrehpnmaheem
mey hevevepMMMnwWwpe
brEroba WpeeN mmreaepd
a/20earmn aWhabwW Bwa
wbma 4aMw. weavepelaep,
awnpoeepaca,naprmab
rcaY peOoeilep mem, sam Wemeu
wewmpwm den..lw pposnd
.m mmo06a orcowesw,wm
mpa... hxmwm.lmttae^reaha
CopplN,w«mw p, apweav
M.wmJe.,pm Ge6m.pnael.nn
Capdea. Fars,00zaM vryare<
eitlwy wmnxav
Bwabrmirq rw s>ooz
hMaW v 1M pways<
az.robam are evbw
m
mrenwaame M. F«s p.pz
S>O.n
OWe <.
emwry<(z
>12
oo2am wry>a2
wgwly <az. m bas we eaiM
OpeUwibe.xWdxq pabwk
Rwev MPeewe
OccaeMal. wce0«m Eur«b
MWwa*M1ew+re wq acwvieAY
Free+a aM aRenumbple. cwoepe
«a«ore.wm«Myw. LWD(wm,
pram m6a. bN8e bap Peax9,
eM mlrorbank wq pabm awbn
usmdeabalructlae. cane
mnhual ahNdegmem ab bx.
17.
rw.am,as.mreew Y.rea. pvro
mliraadeerwwndtls cFrrW.
TmOs we„eMRlep. cauaN tlmmel
con.bardae aeabrea xaanaeron
behrq WapVaWru
rom4mmaw«Hetet
JJ
I

S bl tV lMkabf Eaeallent/t ll
e. ew aw b,wa as wlaero
rwalMwr. cIXmna muxwl
cbrlwmmxMr qaY F.n: nwnr
SW*wrroxmv mm:
lmmyxMroeaM:�uv.Mwsbw
amwvasdmnwlwrrve«
urpaditlaM mMux aBlaclal«
NNW;uk«cedtl nnlnvxa
mew Imnw mlxmBa; yypa nuy
dlw mBlgda:amy bygaBM
BbcW o-dlarmaly�N;lxwad
eaian 0aarewwsne mampb
lera66dwrear,axaIX
lmCAlw rewdeaivexMs
urwdtlelaE mhvx
arbne
Egra9rartle
_<J
B. Nv«apa MriabpaanBle (Mda
Evia sbaw�3H:1V118't lIX
SWW' VW2H:W(]]•)F
Bnkabpx W IH -W(Wd In
BeM abpesarer CS•Fmcdnerva«
80'ea vaNwl Wn,)
miwleeeive «urwedHelatl
mrcdpgNe IXwwOreOltldad
mxr:dwveIX o-co-wdHeW
wewadLLay malwylao-m«l0•hl
Nivea to l:l (a0°)i In tlaya m
gNIII ro 08:1(00•).days m
NmNIII ro 0.6:1(W) in
dxa wmmmwareIX wm wrMa
�J
mnadx
«owxxdarmmmma
mww«w«IWm maw
J
10. Vedamfivaa mpFened bank
WFamw awaWyvaOabtBn wYm
Blef mmndawowyvaBnawn
Smatl mnllavaadyvepeletimxEn
Wordy va0nn'dn bamt may vay
atlans0t6aq.xramwva.
Min]o-emw pan ea.lry and veru.
WM pant daxny em wv«. n
0apariaanwpe am neem wan lxa
acitlum�a
.a mapNYamrdvnni
mapeyaaoR wom.peiowrNrgm
mmsowpanxrcpywwvs.
NnIyerdwaa6mfy.
mx wlm mxn,ImBnr.aw
Oaciduous hex wan mamiry,
haeawBnrom9 «ddvxemM
Primmer eafl vWOd. Wwr. wMnws
dor«x lanOW IN
W* vpanb�bretadw Xw
wmrev
IaaYgauft.
trex Mmvaryycug. ddmd dylry.
mK.. WCMY'mBataH«i «Iwa¢d
I,,
mNt. WCM vaBBtalFn«wtle]31
MBiW amM. W«Urvpyatamn
..*
awb ndreIc.
nnbei
vwtkYr. In amameavq&awn.
60%h«nn«trpadw6n meimg den
OrbMpJq]p.pOY F«nlvVMd.
cflaMa mM.tNn7Ml nitron
W
Wnmrke aallxdIXl9Bviy
mwavB PbiIN llnaalIXmno-ap
dNdwn Hnarwlxwwa. No
«Ma1&kxiwn ]OX hpn
moored
gore «boM mdu
wvgdmMa.Msame rnvtq
rvlmray rynsdawwa rad ayxsma.
maYm Fpxew«n nxYi
No1Hry IXanvakggmNu
11. warkmpNB
LBBaIX N9 eMna. IdrepeM raw
$OIIM trrnmalaabalmg cM1arawl
FgrvTasm and hamlantwbomwqu.
Nnget aaaxna advmwmmma.
mNa.liypNf reP«tedaBed
mMs atlapmiieM c«ubklbn.
Raw parka c«npW WBa Patknd
awls WnnNYq w«mwldtlM
lar wm
Hew wrks wm«m mF«wroona
mrk Fv«o-aldredbn rtod and
mmn. umxcutrve meaw.on
r
mb FaadFp prawn
aanwnBa
mmdwrya
12 AbswMug«mrk labra
tba Mro evdn[agpmatld«
EvdnpaNrxwa .NIX mllpf
Evpar dhepmauWa eprLCWa
Frednre rtl ..sive maxwaaYp.
.ayammamaabamaxwx,,.
mxawudnB. MnijI,xladxn
Omarewacamaevaa IN,N,xn
maPowald mrmMtwe,w
U1dIX�n cwmal wdlnovar Bw arae
wBnvxdaom.".1vVpYCIXwdd
magpravned by NBtg Baia. wbcn
evdnimtl MlereFn«adw, maxrva
rewn
cmnetwtlmandmwnd wsoptrg
may:vena w .lftg and max
wdwan:ga. and INM.1mBFB q,
a e.wa
mBM�wma. cnm.r
xNiWatili CI,a.,n wwnla NBny
vmmmneFwwn.mdaubpigd
'memBn.aw wdmare eraaoaed
mrwstxldwt
13. UBanunidismeewbrkIi
Weatwn35m;bd2a lsw6
AaS m: trl0pa4agnad wnBox
11}20m:trWBa HakewedroK ',«
wxdw l0 m; trdpa la OoodY ayOnW
mxmnlmred padard arBmM
aaBaadwYmrrvm Box
mdBpamnlse rM
wan Bax
NUNI
wrbW nnwln btlpa
H=1pla«bI V-vMkd .M1ayTJnd
a said. ^eFPa, w/y'wIdIHTUapM1ralb
Tobl Seen
-�=1-
NIA

Stream: JN4
Observers: M. Engel , E.
Teitsworth
Reach: JN4-A Project: Gideon
Date: Apr 30, 2018 Drainage Area:
Weather: Sunny; 60 Stream Type : Perennial
Location: 36.3951300736856, -80.8588088025161
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and
flood plain activity
and characteristics
Stable, forested, undisturbed
watershed
Occasional minor
disturbances in the
watershed, including cattle
activity (grazing and/or
access to stream),
construction, logging, or
other minor deforestation.
Limited agricultural
activities
Frequent disturbances in the
watershed, including cattle
activity, landslides, channel
sand or gravel mining,
logging, farming, or
construction of buildings,
roads, or other
infrastructure. Urbanization
over significant portion of
watershed
Continual disturbances in the
watershed. Significant cattle
activity, landslides, channel
sand or gravel mining,
logging, farming, or
construction of buildings,
roads, or other infrastructure.
Highly urbanized or rapidly
urbanizing watershed
9
2. Flow habit Perennial stream with no flashy
behavior
Perennial stream or
ephemeral first-order
stream with slightly
increased rate of flooding
Perennial or intermittent
stream with flashy behavior
Extremely flashy; flash floods
prevalent mode of discharge;
ephemeral stream other than
first-order stream 5
3. Channel pattern Straight to meandering with low radius
of curvature; primarily suspended load
Meandering, moderate
radius of curvature; mix of
suspended and bed loads;
well-maintained engineered
channel
Meandering with some
braiding; tortuous
meandering; primarily bed
load; poorly maintained
engineered channel
Braided; primarily bed load;
engineered channel that is
maintained NA
3. Channel pattern
(revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Meandering, stable channel or straight
(step-pool system, narrow valley),
stable channel.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream
is relatively stable. Channel
has some meanders due to
previous channel
adjustment.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream
is actively adjusting
(meandering); localized
areas of instability and/or
erosion around bends.
Straightened, stable
channel.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream is
actively adjusting (laterally
and/or vertically) with few
bends. Straight, unstable
reach. 2
4. Entrenchment/
channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
banks; no sign of undercutting
infrastructure; no levees
Active flood plain
abandoned, but is currently
rebuilding; minimal channel
confinement; infrastructure
not exposed; levees are
low and set well back from
the river
Moderate confinement in
valley or channel walls;
some exposure of
infrastructure; terraces exist;
flood plain abandoned;
levees are moderate in size
and have minimal setback
from the river
Knickpoints visible
downstream; exposed water
lines or other infrastructure;
channel-width-to-top-of-
banks ration small; deeply
confined; no active flood
plain; levees are high and
along the channel edge
7
5. Bed material
Fs = approximate
portion of sand in the
bed
Assorted sized tightly packed,
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
Moderately packed with
some overlapping. Very
small amounts of material
< 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
Loose assortment with no
apparent overlap. Small to
medium amounts of material
< 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
Very loose assortment with
no packing. Large amounts
of material < 4 mm. Fs >
70% 5
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
6. Bar development For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
mature, narrow relative to stream
width at low flow, well-vegetated,
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
12, no bars are evident
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12,
bars may have vegetation
and/or be composed of
coarse gravel to cobbles,
but minimal recent growth
of bar evident by lack of
vegetation on portions of
the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y <12, no bars are
evident
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12,
bar widths tend to be wide
and composed of newly
deposited coarse sand to
small cobbles and/or may be
sparsely vegetated. Bars
forming for S > 0.02 and
w/y < 12
Bar widths are generally
greater than 1/2 the stream
width at low flow. Bars are
composed of extensive
deposits of fine particles up
to coarse gravel with little to
no vegetation. No bars for S
< 0.02 and w/y > 12
8
7. Obstructions,
including bedrock
outcrops, armor
layer, LWD jams,
grade control, bridge
bed paving,
revetments, dikes or
vanes, riprap
Rare or not present Occasional, causing cross
currents and minor bank
and bottom erosion
Moderately frequent and
occasionally unstable
obstructions, cause
noticeable erosion of the
channel. Considerable
sediment accumulation
behind obstructions
Frequent and often unstable,
causing a continual shift of
sediment and flow. Traps
are easily filled, causing
channel to migrate and/or
widen 5
8. Bank soil texture
and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material Clay loam to sandy clay
loam; minor amounts of
noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures;
layers may exist, but are
cohesive materials
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
unconsolidated mixtures of
glacial or other materials;
small layers and lenses of
noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures
Loamy sand to sand;
noncohesive material;
unconsolidated mixtures of
glacial or other materials;
layers of lenses that include
noncohesive sands and
gravels
10
9. Average bank
slope angle (where
90° is a vertical
bank)
Bank slopes < 3H:1V (18°) for
noncohesive or unconsolidated
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
both sides
Bank slopes up to 2H:1V
(27°) in noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials to
0.8:1 (50°) in clays on one
or occasionally both banks
Bank slopes to 1H:1V (45°)
in noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials to
0.6:1 (60°) in clays common
on one or both banks
Bank slopes over 45° in
noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials or
over 60° in clays common on
one or both banks 8
10. Vegetative or
engineered bank
protection
Wide band of woody vegetation with at
least 90% density and cover. Primarily
hard wood, leafy, deciduous trees with
mature, healthy, and diverse
vegetation located on the bank.
Woody vegetation oriented vertically.
In absence of vegetation, both banks
are lined or heavily armored
Medium band of woody
vegetation with 70-90%
plant density and cover. A
majority of hard wood,
leafy, deciduous trees with
maturing, diverse
vegetation located on the
bank. Wood vegetation
oriented 80-90% from
horizontal with minimal root
exposure. Partial lining or
armoring of one or both
banks
Small band of woody
vegetation with 50-70%
plant density and cover. A
majority of soft wood, piney,
coniferous trees with young
or old vegetation lacking in
diversity located on or near
the top of bank. Woody
vegetation oriented at 70-
80% from horizontal, often
with evident root exposure.
No lining of banks, but some
armoring may be in place on
one bank
Woody vegetation band may
vary depending on age and
health with less than 50%
plant density and cover.
Primarily soft wood, piney,
coniferous trees with very
young, old and dying, and/or
monostand vegetation
located off of the bank.
Woody vegetation oriented at
less than 70% from
horizontal with extensive root
exposure. No lining or
armoring of banks
6
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
11. Bank cutting Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bank
Some intermittently along
channel bends and at
prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise minor
portion of bank in vertical
direction
Significant and frequent on
both banks. Raw banks
comprise large portion of
bank in vertical direction.
Root mat overhangs
Almost continuous cuts on
both banks, some extending
over most of the banks.
Undercutting and sod-root
overhangs 5
12. Mass wasting or
bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
very small amounts of mass wasting.
Uniform channel width over the entire
reach
Evidence of infrequent
and/or minor mass wasting.
Mostly healed over with
vegetation. Relatively
constant channel width and
minimal scalloping of banks
Evidence of frequent and/or
significant occurrences of
mass wasting that can be
aggravated by higher flows,
which may cause
undercutting and mass
wasting of unstable banks.
Channel width quite
irregular, and scalloping of
banks is evident
Frequent and extensive
mass wasting. The potential
for bank failure, as evidenced
by tension cracks, massive
undercuttings, and bank
slumping is considerable.
Channel width is highly
irregular, and banks are
scalloped
4
13. Upstream
distance to bridge
from meander
impact point and
alignment
More than 35 m; bridge is well-aligned
with river flow
20-35 m; bridge is aligned
with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to
flow, or flow alignment is
otherwise not centered
beneath bridge
Less than 10 m; bridge is
poorly aligned with flow
NA
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width-to-depth ratio
Total Score
74

Stream: JN4
Observers: M. Engel , E.
Teitsworth
Reach: JN4-B Project: Gideon
Date: Apr 30, 2018 Drainage Area:
Weather: Sunny; 60 Stream Type : Perennial
Location: 36.3947641197931, -80.8580196463325
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and
flood plain activity
and characteristics
Stable, forested, undisturbed
watershed
Occasional minor
disturbances in the
watershed, including cattle
activity (grazing and/or
access to stream),
construction, logging, or
other minor deforestation.
Limited agricultural
activities
Frequent disturbances in the
watershed, including cattle
activity, landslides, channel
sand or gravel mining,
logging, farming, or
construction of buildings,
roads, or other
infrastructure. Urbanization
over significant portion of
watershed
Continual disturbances in the
watershed. Significant cattle
activity, landslides, channel
sand or gravel mining,
logging, farming, or
construction of buildings,
roads, or other infrastructure.
Highly urbanized or rapidly
urbanizing watershed
6
2. Flow habit Perennial stream with no flashy
behavior
Perennial stream or
ephemeral first-order
stream with slightly
increased rate of flooding
Perennial or intermittent
stream with flashy behavior
Extremely flashy; flash floods
prevalent mode of discharge;
ephemeral stream other than
first-order stream 5
3. Channel pattern Straight to meandering with low radius
of curvature; primarily suspended load
Meandering, moderate
radius of curvature; mix of
suspended and bed loads;
well-maintained engineered
channel
Meandering with some
braiding; tortuous
meandering; primarily bed
load; poorly maintained
engineered channel
Braided; primarily bed load;
engineered channel that is
maintained NA
3. Channel pattern
(revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Meandering, stable channel or straight
(step-pool system, narrow valley),
stable channel.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream
is relatively stable. Channel
has some meanders due to
previous channel
adjustment.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream
is actively adjusting
(meandering); localized
areas of instability and/or
erosion around bends.
Straightened, stable
channel.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream is
actively adjusting (laterally
and/or vertically) with few
bends. Straight, unstable
reach. 6
4. Entrenchment/
channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
banks; no sign of undercutting
infrastructure; no levees
Active flood plain
abandoned, but is currently
rebuilding; minimal channel
confinement; infrastructure
not exposed; levees are
low and set well back from
the river
Moderate confinement in
valley or channel walls;
some exposure of
infrastructure; terraces exist;
flood plain abandoned;
levees are moderate in size
and have minimal setback
from the river
Knickpoints visible
downstream; exposed water
lines or other infrastructure;
channel-width-to-top-of-
banks ration small; deeply
confined; no active flood
plain; levees are high and
along the channel edge
6
5. Bed material
Fs = approximate
portion of sand in the
bed
Assorted sized tightly packed,
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
Moderately packed with
some overlapping. Very
small amounts of material
< 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
Loose assortment with no
apparent overlap. Small to
medium amounts of material
< 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
Very loose assortment with
no packing. Large amounts
of material < 4 mm. Fs >
70% 6
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
6. Bar development For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
mature, narrow relative to stream
width at low flow, well-vegetated,
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
12, no bars are evident
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12,
bars may have vegetation
and/or be composed of
coarse gravel to cobbles,
but minimal recent growth
of bar evident by lack of
vegetation on portions of
the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y <12, no bars are
evident
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12,
bar widths tend to be wide
and composed of newly
deposited coarse sand to
small cobbles and/or may be
sparsely vegetated. Bars
forming for S > 0.02 and
w/y < 12
Bar widths are generally
greater than 1/2 the stream
width at low flow. Bars are
composed of extensive
deposits of fine particles up
to coarse gravel with little to
no vegetation. No bars for S
< 0.02 and w/y > 12
8
7. Obstructions,
including bedrock
outcrops, armor
layer, LWD jams,
grade control, bridge
bed paving,
revetments, dikes or
vanes, riprap
Rare or not present Occasional, causing cross
currents and minor bank
and bottom erosion
Moderately frequent and
occasionally unstable
obstructions, cause
noticeable erosion of the
channel. Considerable
sediment accumulation
behind obstructions
Frequent and often unstable,
causing a continual shift of
sediment and flow. Traps
are easily filled, causing
channel to migrate and/or
widen 5
8. Bank soil texture
and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material Clay loam to sandy clay
loam; minor amounts of
noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures;
layers may exist, but are
cohesive materials
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
unconsolidated mixtures of
glacial or other materials;
small layers and lenses of
noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures
Loamy sand to sand;
noncohesive material;
unconsolidated mixtures of
glacial or other materials;
layers of lenses that include
noncohesive sands and
gravels
10
9. Average bank
slope angle (where
90° is a vertical
bank)
Bank slopes < 3H:1V (18°) for
noncohesive or unconsolidated
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
both sides
Bank slopes up to 2H:1V
(27°) in noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials to
0.8:1 (50°) in clays on one
or occasionally both banks
Bank slopes to 1H:1V (45°)
in noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials to
0.6:1 (60°) in clays common
on one or both banks
Bank slopes over 45° in
noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials or
over 60° in clays common on
one or both banks 8
10. Vegetative or
engineered bank
protection
Wide band of woody vegetation with at
least 90% density and cover. Primarily
hard wood, leafy, deciduous trees with
mature, healthy, and diverse
vegetation located on the bank.
Woody vegetation oriented vertically.
In absence of vegetation, both banks
are lined or heavily armored
Medium band of woody
vegetation with 70-90%
plant density and cover. A
majority of hard wood,
leafy, deciduous trees with
maturing, diverse
vegetation located on the
bank. Wood vegetation
oriented 80-90% from
horizontal with minimal root
exposure. Partial lining or
armoring of one or both
banks
Small band of woody
vegetation with 50-70%
plant density and cover. A
majority of soft wood, piney,
coniferous trees with young
or old vegetation lacking in
diversity located on or near
the top of bank. Woody
vegetation oriented at 70-
80% from horizontal, often
with evident root exposure.
No lining of banks, but some
armoring may be in place on
one bank
Woody vegetation band may
vary depending on age and
health with less than 50%
plant density and cover.
Primarily soft wood, piney,
coniferous trees with very
young, old and dying, and/or
monostand vegetation
located off of the bank.
Woody vegetation oriented at
less than 70% from
horizontal with extensive root
exposure. No lining or
armoring of banks
9
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
11. Bank cutting Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bank
Some intermittently along
channel bends and at
prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise minor
portion of bank in vertical
direction
Significant and frequent on
both banks. Raw banks
comprise large portion of
bank in vertical direction.
Root mat overhangs
Almost continuous cuts on
both banks, some extending
over most of the banks.
Undercutting and sod-root
overhangs 6
12. Mass wasting or
bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
very small amounts of mass wasting.
Uniform channel width over the entire
reach
Evidence of infrequent
and/or minor mass wasting.
Mostly healed over with
vegetation. Relatively
constant channel width and
minimal scalloping of banks
Evidence of frequent and/or
significant occurrences of
mass wasting that can be
aggravated by higher flows,
which may cause
undercutting and mass
wasting of unstable banks.
Channel width quite
irregular, and scalloping of
banks is evident
Frequent and extensive
mass wasting. The potential
for bank failure, as evidenced
by tension cracks, massive
undercuttings, and bank
slumping is considerable.
Channel width is highly
irregular, and banks are
scalloped
4
13. Upstream
distance to bridge
from meander
impact point and
alignment
More than 35 m; bridge is well-aligned
with river flow
20-35 m; bridge is aligned
with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to
flow, or flow alignment is
otherwise not centered
beneath bridge
Less than 10 m; bridge is
poorly aligned with flow
NA
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width-to-depth ratio
79
Total Score

Stream: JN5
Observers: M. Engel , E.
Teitsworth
Reach: JN5 Project: Gideon
Date: Apr 30, 2018 Drainage Area:
Weather: Sunny; 60 Stream Type : Perennial
Location: 36.3947194861587, -80.8575468231746
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
1. Watershed and
flood plain activity
and characteristics
Stable, forested, undisturbed
watershed
Occasional minor
disturbances in the
watershed, including cattle
activity (grazing and/or
access to stream),
construction, logging, or
other minor deforestation.
Limited agricultural
activities
Frequent disturbances in the
watershed, including cattle
activity, landslides, channel
sand or gravel mining,
logging, farming, or
construction of buildings,
roads, or other
infrastructure. Urbanization
over significant portion of
watershed
Continual disturbances in the
watershed. Significant cattle
activity, landslides, channel
sand or gravel mining,
logging, farming, or
construction of buildings,
roads, or other infrastructure.
Highly urbanized or rapidly
urbanizing watershed
5
2. Flow habit Perennial stream with no flashy
behavior
Perennial stream or
ephemeral first-order
stream with slightly
increased rate of flooding
Perennial or intermittent
stream with flashy behavior
Extremely flashy; flash floods
prevalent mode of discharge;
ephemeral stream other than
first-order stream 5
3. Channel pattern Straight to meandering with low radius
of curvature; primarily suspended load
Meandering, moderate
radius of curvature; mix of
suspended and bed loads;
well-maintained engineered
channel
Meandering with some
braiding; tortuous
meandering; primarily bed
load; poorly maintained
engineered channel
Braided; primarily bed load;
engineered channel that is
maintained NA
3. Channel pattern
(revised)
No evidence of channelization.
Meandering, stable channel or straight
(step-pool system, narrow valley),
stable channel.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream
is relatively stable. Channel
has some meanders due to
previous channel
adjustment.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream
is actively adjusting
(meandering); localized
areas of instability and/or
erosion around bends.
Straightened, stable
channel.
Appears to have previously
been channelized. Stream is
actively adjusting (laterally
and/or vertically) with few
bends. Straight, unstable
reach. 3
4. Entrenchment/
channel confinement
Active flood plain exists at top of
banks; no sign of undercutting
infrastructure; no levees
Active flood plain
abandoned, but is currently
rebuilding; minimal channel
confinement; infrastructure
not exposed; levees are
low and set well back from
the river
Moderate confinement in
valley or channel walls;
some exposure of
infrastructure; terraces exist;
flood plain abandoned;
levees are moderate in size
and have minimal setback
from the river
Knickpoints visible
downstream; exposed water
lines or other infrastructure;
channel-width-to-top-of-
banks ration small; deeply
confined; no active flood
plain; levees are high and
along the channel edge
8
5. Bed material
Fs = approximate
portion of sand in the
bed
Assorted sized tightly packed,
overlapping, and possibly imbricated.
Most material > 4 mm. Fs < 20%
Moderately packed with
some overlapping. Very
small amounts of material
< 4 mm. 20 < Fs < 50%
Loose assortment with no
apparent overlap. Small to
medium amounts of material
< 4 mm. 50 < Fs < 70%
Very loose assortment with
no packing. Large amounts
of material < 4 mm. Fs >
70% 4
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
6. Bar development For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12, bars are
mature, narrow relative to stream
width at low flow, well-vegetated,
and composed of coarse gravel to
cobbles. For S > 0.02 and w/y are <
12, no bars are evident
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12,
bars may have vegetation
and/or be composed of
coarse gravel to cobbles,
but minimal recent growth
of bar evident by lack of
vegetation on portions of
the bar. For S > 0.02 and
w/y <12, no bars are
evident
For S < 0.02 and w/y > 12,
bar widths tend to be wide
and composed of newly
deposited coarse sand to
small cobbles and/or may be
sparsely vegetated. Bars
forming for S > 0.02 and
w/y < 12
Bar widths are generally
greater than 1/2 the stream
width at low flow. Bars are
composed of extensive
deposits of fine particles up
to coarse gravel with little to
no vegetation. No bars for S
< 0.02 and w/y > 12
4
7. Obstructions,
including bedrock
outcrops, armor
layer, LWD jams,
grade control, bridge
bed paving,
revetments, dikes or
vanes, riprap
Rare or not present Occasional, causing cross
currents and minor bank
and bottom erosion
Moderately frequent and
occasionally unstable
obstructions, cause
noticeable erosion of the
channel. Considerable
sediment accumulation
behind obstructions
Frequent and often unstable,
causing a continual shift of
sediment and flow. Traps
are easily filled, causing
channel to migrate and/or
widen 4
8. Bank soil texture
and coherence
Clay and silty clay; cohesive material Clay loam to sandy clay
loam; minor amounts of
noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures;
layers may exist, but are
cohesive materials
Sandy clay to sandy loam;
unconsolidated mixtures of
glacial or other materials;
small layers and lenses of
noncohesive or
unconsolidated mixtures
Loamy sand to sand;
noncohesive material;
unconsolidated mixtures of
glacial or other materials;
layers of lenses that include
noncohesive sands and
gravels
4
9. Average bank
slope angle (where
90° is a vertical
bank)
Bank slopes < 3H:1V (18°) for
noncohesive or unconsolidated
materials to < 1:1 (45°) in clays on
both sides
Bank slopes up to 2H:1V
(27°) in noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials to
0.8:1 (50°) in clays on one
or occasionally both banks
Bank slopes to 1H:1V (45°)
in noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials to
0.6:1 (60°) in clays common
on one or both banks
Bank slopes over 45° in
noncohesive or
unconsolidated materials or
over 60° in clays common on
one or both banks 10
10. Vegetative or
engineered bank
protection
Wide band of woody vegetation with at
least 90% density and cover. Primarily
hard wood, leafy, deciduous trees with
mature, healthy, and diverse
vegetation located on the bank.
Woody vegetation oriented vertically.
In absence of vegetation, both banks
are lined or heavily armored
Medium band of woody
vegetation with 70-90%
plant density and cover. A
majority of hard wood,
leafy, deciduous trees with
maturing, diverse
vegetation located on the
bank. Wood vegetation
oriented 80-90% from
horizontal with minimal root
exposure. Partial lining or
armoring of one or both
banks
Small band of woody
vegetation with 50-70%
plant density and cover. A
majority of soft wood, piney,
coniferous trees with young
or old vegetation lacking in
diversity located on or near
the top of bank. Woody
vegetation oriented at 70-
80% from horizontal, often
with evident root exposure.
No lining of banks, but some
armoring may be in place on
one bank
Woody vegetation band may
vary depending on age and
health with less than 50%
plant density and cover.
Primarily soft wood, piney,
coniferous trees with very
young, old and dying, and/or
monostand vegetation
located off of the bank.
Woody vegetation oriented at
less than 70% from
horizontal with extensive root
exposure. No lining or
armoring of banks
7
Stability Indicator Excellent (1 -3 ) Good (4 - 6) Fair (7 - 9) Poor (10 - 12) Score
11. Bank cutting Little or none evident. Infrequent raw
banks, insignificant percentage of total
bank
Some intermittently along
channel bends and at
prominent constrictions.
Raw banks comprise minor
portion of bank in vertical
direction
Significant and frequent on
both banks. Raw banks
comprise large portion of
bank in vertical direction.
Root mat overhangs
Almost continuous cuts on
both banks, some extending
over most of the banks.
Undercutting and sod-root
overhangs 7
12. Mass wasting or
bank failure
No or little evidence of potential or
very small amounts of mass wasting.
Uniform channel width over the entire
reach
Evidence of infrequent
and/or minor mass wasting.
Mostly healed over with
vegetation. Relatively
constant channel width and
minimal scalloping of banks
Evidence of frequent and/or
significant occurrences of
mass wasting that can be
aggravated by higher flows,
which may cause
undercutting and mass
wasting of unstable banks.
Channel width quite
irregular, and scalloping of
banks is evident
Frequent and extensive
mass wasting. The potential
for bank failure, as evidenced
by tension cracks, massive
undercuttings, and bank
slumping is considerable.
Channel width is highly
irregular, and banks are
scalloped
6
13. Upstream
distance to bridge
from meander
impact point and
alignment
More than 35 m; bridge is well-aligned
with river flow
20-35 m; bridge is aligned
with flow
10-20 m; bridge is skewed to
flow, or flow alignment is
otherwise not centered
beneath bridge
Less than 10 m; bridge is
poorly aligned with flow
NA
H = horizontal, V = vertical, Fs = fraction of sand, S = slope, w/y = width-to-depth ratio
Total Score
67

swem:v NlQ - 3 ;F -N+4
Iteacn:
IH O2-0 oe
Weamer
Location:
ftwi v lmw.w Ea ti a t
Observes: i 3
Drama Aroa:
Stream Tvae:
1. Wat«eMtl aroaoae VdnxWXY
-""
Slatle. .WYnvnaE
ca9bRl mkrx�lwneronmtlq
Fre01M mG4
CODE lV � l
CMYueI ObIVIEOReabmB
$Fpry
atl alWedwldke
waknM]
weMXMn.ImAaiq raXbeaMilY
wa«aeE. mM1>E9 ca11b aairvM.
walvrsleE . syM ri wryk edlvNy.
IPedrearWw ecwsa to Vram).
WbdNea. clemd mM«pave
drodl.cMVel eentl«6avM
wuvuclac bppuy.«amr m:w
meVg.lfgpkq. Mnlp.«
mWp. bpglnp. r«mrg.ww�ewdkm
al«ealabn. asses a«wwal
cwmeabna naaroa. rbaa.w
adage•. mea.«alar
acwpiea
at1«lgrbbwnxa, we.lo-amww
knaebecn.e. dgdvwadzae«
egrared PmbaawamaXwa
malmr«ba^lme wq«anaa
3.Fmxnab6
PerwaXel apeam xiM ro lledry
P«enul stream «eprgm«elflreF
P«eM1®Iw YYmnXlM elmnix#n
EabmMyllWry:llaM gwEaw«a«a
bdlavier
warebeam w§n sngletykcrmeM
nada Bawl«
moa dadawsa: eplwm«a V`eem
mbgkearo
aMr man NataareVum
3. CIunW 00Mem lreiee0)
No evNwce dclumel®nm.
MDaara 0 leVewaVbadr Dem
gWaarableva«evmudrE
77P mMw wwbudY nem
AMero«ke. xtan aewla«
nernelYel ywmi¢mewey
gwnwna. Stream dealVdy
Iwe ,Smarr wmmW
wa4M (del>roa entero. wrow
dada. Clams Ma wme mxrms
aA." (mmanrke): be
WJ-Okv WAY .w r«o-zllr)wpl
VWWa Veda galea.
euamwcnax d..r aYiatrrinX.
Bm da bnrmywmb
wwb bwda. Sbapd«eE, danb
taxn«ba So ",uwdamxn
wema.
I.EmwcdnwlVgre«W mfirem«X
PelnefloW WdeabrealoPq
futlwlboO MdnaMitlweU. W I
MOE«alee«ikenwrl In vaReYw
KNCFWkaa vwd.awmo-wn:
neas;roaendwa«runke
am•Mmd+ae: mXXmYdamW
cannel wen:wm. maawad
aeoweawaer Ikea«d1w
klhaemGwe: mlaNea
ccakenwe; kiadruclwa Ml
HraamCnaa: t«Rca6 affiI:IbW
iaraabmNe:demYwkXFroicpal-
awame:lereesambwraWwa
aan anara«etl:ww «e moti«ae
broke rdbnVNX; o'eeVYcwFVea:m
lack nen tram«
na®,m l..e mlkma aamd, Own
adrxmm gakr lWen as npn«a
wmw
dem lledwmaeeRe
5 BM mewW
F6=y«mknaeebmmdvMft
Fawtetl aFeE HBnMOackW.
oved rob kepF,eled
dcamtaY Pxketl Mm amore
teweamwlm«X xis roaOL «a
V«Y brse86aoMlea wMro Pxft
naE
meaidr
pylalgkq. V«ymrel mwueBq
wWy Sm01mm«Wnr wnewYaq
lypeam«aeagmd«W <d mm. Fs
Abel md«W>a mm. Fs<}
Ma <amm. MIFe<5
maa11<6mm. W<F,7M
-7O
B. E«avda«IwX
F«S<0n2ae1a wry>t2, b«sare
F«sea.o3Wwly>lt, bee
Fw 5<00z ab Wy>1R,bV wgla
BrwNm am V«wdtygearman
moue. remove radmabdrem
mer trees wyxama�u�wm
rero romwme «a cwlwaaed
uzmaweem wamalwaaw.. a«s
nand w.nm., aeX-wnem.a,
cawwam amre.ymaro
reNYeMaeRN co«aeuMbameX
en rwnwaee aeel«erw aomaa
I
mob c«nwa.adWrse ymwm
amNa. as mkXm
tdblewumarbaeWs
reP.liLmewrocearwgrara xAn
\/j
mltlea. Fess>aM«q wlyam<
dveyrvNnd
pr eygmX Iftc
VeS>D
Eam lamuq fro s>op2
r n. Ib berg bs<
f
tz.mb«eMarYaY
,
awfy
aWa <"
aM wly<tz
O,M Wly>12
aozaY w/y>tz
M2,ebar.F«s>ROL
amwy <az.robem «. «amX
i. Onehucnre. kckNk6 neSak
K«e«M«ned
0.esamd. aV�ekB erwa curMa
AXeaVadY neiurX era ows y
Fm WedaMOMnwrednb.cuYge
oaaop. «mwdw.LwDama,
Ya]awmtrtl. dkna beE WVAV.
mnmw nenx «d mmm «elm
uoredeabemclare, we
c«Xkea mon asearem moa mw.
maam«Xe. axrwamw.apmP
roll da «wbndlM cleniel.
TraW emaeeXYlWee. cauaL9cM1a
r ea«meamdedaca.wXemn
mnkamemcncm
rominrare «w«roam

J N c, —3
StaMliW 1"kn6or Eacemnt 1I.31 r..�..f u.m
e. BarN eollaaMaaN wveeea
clry a wY leama nal«W
bam maamydaybam: m'em
EeMydwmesMybam:
I ni, ininill to amtl:,vxrdasiva
am«wol i ivapr
«mrom .W.agmador
nW®W: ucmmnihow and n
u `ddw m..; myoma bin,
~ mabrbls: nines ialwsa,tl
gbgela Wv mge,Nla:layxaol
earet. d4 am wlmlvamatrWs
le.dmedga.or
IaKaa UW uvnW mrcugecirewNs
aamaawb]mM.
am grn
8 AvaagsmMampau Wil
tlrk dopea<3H:1V Or)to,
Bildt doWaWro2N:IV 12i°lin
mMabpwWIMIV(W)N
Bat dapn orer a5•mtvtwMNaa
80°oaverlmlmMl
a«miaeme auroanedbatetl
�weIXRN�aa uuoWClttetM
naWoaNe apnmtagNatet
urantlgae0 malaWc nova tq°b
pn
mdaam loo.e:t l6e°l in Nays on
mdamnnn.1(fio'lin ww
wyc canmnnnnwoabdM1 bvl:a
both wam<1:11a6')mwya
IwN aqm
«arasburybom LV Ms
monmore «6W mMe
IB. VepNNNw «aplroaeE b«t
Wile middaamrv.gdmatwan
I.baum bink dwmtlY vapammn
SmaF bintldwaoEy vapNNbiwM
WmEy vpNNm bink mar vay
PomaUc^
NbWgM6Ea iinilwvv.
Nn 70-MMit U.My ,G saver.
50-i0%WMU«maYaM covx. A
0.gpvAgma2eatlmWtwiM iroa
Paaaly M1rC wont maH.a«dwsnmalwibdtwpwvatl,
teats.
mNaaydeanwom, paw, mrvl.«d
Bdn bow pwt aa.eyam roves.
Yeses weM1 mala. M1aaiBN, antl
dxetnalrewawaM1 and«Yp,
treeawXM1 yaugatlE vegddbn
RtnaM'aMwVoO. eery, corireraa
UN« mmwMmlM
dvwae vepetalbnbulM on He
ift mwa, l..,ly
tinvorm pypury.eparY
bink. waoUyvgaMbnawaep
wetly
bark W«C vegNamnoreaW 6a
..n
tln mpdbink. WomYvegNatbn
Im
a NadvegNatbnbCNeO
mala
lvKadalwiB mntnaimd
aeae0nia6096 M1an lvlzaaN.
diftl
Mt
Whni orvaWlaYon.90%kan
6dM1 mMaare llre]armvlY
aspmaa. PaWllrtq aamwrep
orten wNwlC«Y rodeapodre. No
ftn?ftWNstbn
aiaaaOdbw Manig%6an
wmo,M
aana6oMmMa
omerm«'xg
M1aimaslWbsgavira mdypmae.
nwn mvinnnnn
maymbNamon«n bink
W6YpaarntaigdmMa
11. BaMcunYg
Ldmaraeevbdt. IMreaWarw
Saran He�nttlle,dY Nag darts
SgMI'maN anO hequat on bdgmNm.
AlmW wrdnnucumnn bdM1birna.
ranks. vWpn6lCad p«wmpped
bima apdpanaRK coreak4o,o.
Rax binkaCa�y<iapbmapabnd
sataeetadap wer moddmo
mW bink
Rs mMecomaiae mForpmbnd
lwkln vatical EYectiaa Root.
mMa. WgacNMq aq wbrod
bink in vstli W ion
a.ana,,i
wel.
12. I.g¢a weNNgamMl9aae
doesltlnnn n &paag
EvbaeadabpueaaWamoor
Ev bora anb,WYced
Fraadrtam eatanivamasa wadbp.
vary amaA amaaYadmaca xaiHg.
mattw-OV Mvtlytwlst.
rcanaC6a dmaaswa"flnlCera
TmpdMiNWbincf as.m
Ildfamt clnaWwrllM1w'a Me Mkt
willvWatdbn. RMMi*mdnl
m N.MW Mbglw Mrs. xl h
avp9tuvlMlaubiaMtr. maaMv
rwcM1
channel wdM and miamai".Pu9
may rade uNawNnp e,d mau
adacdbga. anp bink aganpngq
d mMs
xvixq aummtre mnka. clemd
c«rsa«ada. clutwwtlln is l.gHr
wdmapm matw,..m eoaWpmgd
mwgwr, sae batsaa saalapwa
mMa a «vleN
13. Uimnwameid loblagaman
M tbinwm;bbge la weL
2a36 m; bbpam NgnW wMM.
ta20 m;bbgomakewmlbgow,w
Inas gan tom: bdpempaoBy elpre]
mwatlx rnpd %at»ieY9ariert
Y9ninj M1h mMw
FawdgaaMmdbaMw aA
WNPow
ceaeretl bawm mlCge
ToW Stores

Stream; I IV \Q — C-- ?rjs;TW a n eN
wam:
oaa:xnI
Weamer:
Location:
ObsenerF: �7\
� ]dooa7
Onmaoa Mee:
9 .TYae:
1.WwarobapMry
Feh
r0
49;
5O
M awaawbha
.,
NwlweMa
arolman debbaeetitle
wYweroa,bWOag aYm WNlly
aaNba'u-bP
ine
MweMa, MJMry utlIe WFAy,
CwaYVW
sgNbeb
(tlrWgeMb eaueb Yeem).
MYY'Me,9ft. awe agrprd
waMMtl. was agNM.
�antlepaea.cMmBlWawOrevd
anehuo0on. b0pYa.noNw mYar
mbag, b0aaq. fennae.w
mYwp.Ioeaa9. Iwmlro.w
/�
earasmlan uaaea ewawW
raweromaaadaaPe,mwan
da:e„tl.. m.ea.wan.
WHbs
dW Y+iFwumn UTentrabnow
ngb.. NgMrwwtmw
I
YadbW ameaaM.aroa
mqdY-ewcaia »afwenee
2. Fbw lept
Pnerilal atrwnwMro aWW
'�
Pwwnif Wumw Wear W-
PnaniynkawmWay aneam rin
EWnneN11aa1n;lYinbWypaeyW
waw Yrown HlnaAplYy anroeea
IMMb ,W
amaeadW.eae:eaemwY etreem
mmdaamn
alerinenhYsrtlw Yrewn
3. CIanM WllwalrwWa)
Noevtlwtad WnebelM
MOewab Nre war'kuslY been
MWwemrrevePWCWYbaen
Moeewb row PavmiW Mm
pkwaxaV. Yau.cMwwn
eamy).
dw.wf e. 5pewakrYJM1NY
di...IQae. sbawa 6 aclrvdY
aewro-aa. SYMm b ww*
waasYe, ronww
araYl.aMN Wmd.
dwto CNema Mesome meaNwa
aorto weuiaecromBlea•VYmga.
eapulaq lmewawYnF bupma
sagnNu (mleralY niaa veaMy)wM
aroaedlWYNYYaWw rowan
few peroe. Saagb.uHaW mecp.
woara bwan. SbeglWwa. Veba
l Ea�antlnwYl clwwgcwFeemwe
bMebroeWneFHeYropd
M.tlw bca esti eWNnwa, baY
lvwW.
HotlwW aMmnea lnvdlryw
KrY4FOMs vlemleaowwlreim:
nwYe:roagndwdwwah9
IMuawlwe: Nvew
wnwM mdiaW:muiW WM
cnnal Ma: awneeWoewed
mWaea Mwlbmadter
no
wMmmaJ: NOUMuawaM
aMwmWwe:lwxaamW: boa
IdrumcNe: GemY-wplebmpof.
eryceed: Mren roti mw atlWM
PW eNMorwl:Iweea an maaewH
bwa[rYln�smY: aeeWYcnfxsl:m
WM nen tle ma
NaheaM MeniiOnd WExhbwn
acMa boa qaF: Nven wab0nar4
mamw
awptledemeleaaa
s Oetl nawH
Fa=appwgeb pwooaduntl a lle
MeoaeaaeeatgmYPecba.
mearoaac, era Yndkdaa.
H HN anne
lmreaesonmerlemroewwed
v eryave asanpnW wM ropaihp.
ba
FaeaaY
boef malwial>a mm. Fa< 20%
vaae Ppk . Vo
ro 4 VryMroF, ma
mamas <e mm. ID<Fa <0py
o1abo nweyea
Wpeanwnleametwiel<a mm. Fe
4m . W<Fsm
mebld <I mm. 50<Fe<]0%
>]e96
8. Bw aeYrliwnerl
Fns<0.02 wdvaYa l2, baaan
Fn S<0.02wa WY>12, bare
Fa Se002 ora HY>12. brwaNN
MwMb waewaeNGWwINn
maWa,�vrvw ralYNeb Mem
wand wwlw,wsvegYalaa.
mNlwevpalYbnwWwpe
ampeeeaaawae
bM robe Haeeb amFaeaa
trz tle abeam wHnH bwlbx -awe
roti amwoeadawee maWro
waadro
cobbles. da m:+W Dawe OiwJna
roHraeooabe aero ewamameF
abbles almnSa
wewerouaauMas
UPba
Sn
I
abplae. Fw5>o.02WHYare<
12.robwamMaW
tiro Ndea M ve
Ieo S
v for 5>0.02
IMWM Ndew
Ntlero dr Nepweln 5<
V�
aawbmdme par. fa 5>0.02
W, S -O.
.V<.9wabmlro
aMwy<12
0@ roti My> 12
wfy>12
aNHy X12 ro bm roti maere
]. oMmeNgs.YtluaYq bewrcY
wawws.wmn Ws, Lwoiwee.
nsewmorawil
occaYwr. rauaR aaFwnam
mw..Wy newnwa acne reN
Flwaew «a oMn webbla. rrs:ga
Vatla mpd, Eraee MaPavYq.
emmw mx.a mromemM
wwbeduwc4w.. ram
adY.w eNn asesneb rod nwv.
meWeM.aam w..im.rmwP
atlwOb wmanalMdwad.
rrw roti —By lwa. WaaO CNwM
l
1 J
cwwaeabmunmW.�mJabn
bmgrW.aawwa.n
✓II
baMtl apemclbre
\l

fld�m IMM�an
. Bora wa ba We cdrvea
»N »hdW mreeUa malar
s a
YMam to»My Mm: mrrr
FON11-0
$aMytlryb»royb»i:
Pwr 10-1
lwnlya»Nbea�wwapna
Scor
anmsa»wdrrea
vmlaaYaePoO meaa»daiama
mamnal:urcaadWgO mae.»a
uc«0dkaeE mpbaee: lalva maY
aVia mdalM;am»Iyas aN
GNCWw Wa mderla4:laYnaa
»w.maa wn.a.e maam
Ma»awwamx.«
lel.»mn aayde wworedY.»roe
ucc»aaaba mune»
em nmada
e. ,tvaya n»xalaae eryiolY.+iae
s0'uavaucd renk)
eedrsboea. sH:rvlls°IM
mcaewaw�am«+cYawa
sad�abwaw+azH:tvlz>yN
BidtablMaN tH:rvu N
( ')
avrR a�roeawaas•Nmrcd.4+ea
maaNn los l:l (a5')NtlMw
+wcdsarva«urncdaalm
mIXagq bO.e:+(np)NdB»w
meWida m0.0:+(n0
pM cp�m���a�yly a
mosso
wle a«»Mary monads
mlmialmaw «IMnreae
+oma«pmelawea w:.am ewr<
ww ew awmay.auarlmwn
nle»n�nua aYuoa Ywaam
smr m�adwmrsaa.mmnwn
waror.awlagnnam mar Yary
N q»l sots aaarv»ea«d.
RNwty res wow.My. OecYluois
MmrOAMS Wdea»aywwm.
nmeprvda.ewvm. NaN.
x-]OY. gaatle»rv»Nwva.e
be»MYII maNe. MMIW. Md
EeoaIwn tre»wMmdwN.
ndpnyawn wwa. p.Y.wwaaw
Ir»awN papadO vepaation
uv�n soiP»+�aa.bem mwl»a
RNwfY acn xaia. carWwn
ervs» YeBdaMq;cleOmtM
OeM. Wwrvvesaabnapde0
veg cdM some
ndk. Wwn vepelNM
dM rea
Psaa.
be»wln YaY Waq. tlO artl MM.
vMke1Y Inareatt d'ieBatalM.
w'aWB0.
5aY 6wn Mav«»IYM m»nulma
ftk woodlem
mompd avk Wootly »aaYM
alMeEY J080%hdn M1xvMal.
wdit vrwo-*-g b
Mdtle OWlk WaOM1i YNala1M
�/
iU(
mn WNis »a MCCa MHIY
evP»wa. PatlalYNq «emvag
oflan Nmer4aa ma »Wave. No
u4aeEYk»Ilun]0%han
amass
des.«mnmdd
iNYnarea.,mw» amamp
lvaada.an aaaem rad •.wave.
meree Ngxewacma
aalwlq wamwayamaa
tt. M»aawq
LRtla«mawMra nOwuH mx
Sare�d«minarW Yae dunW
sgrocedena saaleammn nada-Abnel
ca+:.wea»m mn wau.
moa. Nagdncw wrwd.n.a
bW barh
reroe.leaammNad caaabuo».
flaxe»nscwirgerpa adMd
awneewroNFoaw mwtdtl.
flax reNis canes»m6v Wllwd
nratNwrlkY CYav;wr Rm mal
nenMs. Udbm Wga "md
,1
{y
lWk NveM:al Wec+pn
wNwge
Rare"aa
1
12 Ma»wvaryp «plrk4ye
Hp«IpB mNaaed«vpya
Evbmcad HrpuMaW«mNw
Evieem IXM1ptgla »yes agnYrya
frepuM aM yparya me»wWFg.
Yar amw ama.namwa»mp.
cremalwunoerlre axis
m.».,n;,g. ae.zyrewe wa
wm ayadM flddWaycaaaIX
arcwra.:ecama»w»uq ma va
e.epPe.erea
rreFaamarealald..»
cmma»mnero mwlai acdgga
ny dsrerbw, wnM
sues «d.aannw
»aacm MlaaM wads. me»�w
a moa
m»a
w�.
augd«aadereda. Clary
uroaanaca.ad nae a»dnn
wmMdba.cwra womb Hzlry
Co
wnnad;. aresda. aN adbpnsd
Y»Paa,aro orae aa.cewaea
o
reds n »iawa
13. Uwn»md WMCge Yan
meaNx Mnsaa o»+ae dgnmd
;Gel ssm:pNsebwey-
elq»ewmma b.
3rg m:Irpge is ageE Y,{mpav
taA m: bilsakaYralb EaY.a
Lw p»l is m: la4gab wa�rdgnetl
now Ngrm«amamxi»m
wm M.
un«» ne�eam o-uoa
H=laalew»I,V=vs1'r9. Fa. tradMaaatl.
=a4q w/y=wMnlyEmnrab

Cross Sections of Current Conditions
& Reference Reaches

!!XS
!!XS
!!XS!!XS
!!XS
!!XS
MC2
-AJN6-CJ N 4 -A
M C 2-B
JN4-B J N 5 JN6-AJN6-BXS15
XS16
XS17XS18
XS10
XS11
0 300150
Feet
Existing Conditions - Cross Section Locations
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/1/2018
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: S:\@RES GIS\Projects\NC\Gideon\MXD\Mitigation Plan\XS Locations.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Existing Stream
!!XS Cross Section Locations
Checked by: CSC
Upstream Downstream
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach MC2-A
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach MC2-A
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach JN6-A
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach JN6-B
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
92.5
93
93.5
94
94.5
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach JN6-C
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Upstream Downstream
92
92.5
93
93.5
94
94.5
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
Reach JN6-C
Ground Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Appendix C – Site Protection Instrument

Unique Places
February 23, 2018 To Save
Cara Conder
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Ms. Conder,
This letter confirms that Resource Environmental Solutions has agreed to engage Unique Places to Save
("UP2S"), a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization located in the State of North Carolina, as the conservation
easement grantee and long-term steward for the Gideon ("Site") located in Surry County, North Carolina. As the
conservation easement grantee and long-term steward, UP2S has agreed to and shall be responsible for periodic
inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are enforced and
maintained. Specific responsibilities include:
• Monitoring of Site is conducted on an annual basis.
• An on-site inspection is conducted once per year.
• Visits to Site are coordinated with landowner when possible.
• Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
• Signage for the easement boundary is maintained.
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are promptly communicated to
the landowner.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX), LLC shall act as Bank Sponsor of the Site. UP2S shall receive a
stewardship endowment in the amount of $40,953.71 to ensure annual Site inspections occur and that the terms
of the conservation easement are legally defended into perpetuity.
As the bond obligee for the construction and monitoring phase of the Gideon Site, we agree to abide by the
terms of the bond agreement(s) in the event that Resource Environmental Solutions fails to perform or no
longer exists. The fee for this is $2000 for construction bond and $1000 for the monitoring bond.
David Harper, Executive Director
Unique Places To Save
1/25/2018
V'
Representative Signature Resource
Environmental Solutions
Printed Name
1� NAZA�TH
Date
2 a� ao�s
PO Box 1183 • Chapel Hill, NC 27514 585-472-9498 - info(aunicueolacestosave.orc

Unique Places to Save Annual Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment
Gideon Mitigaton Easement - CONFIDENTIAL
Units Hours Cost/Unit Frequency Annual Cost
Annual Monitoring
Staff time to monitor mitigation easement, including file review,
travel time, on site time, post visit report production 8 acres 8 60.00$ Annual 480.00$
Staff time needed to address minor violations or issues N/A 10 600.00$ Once every 10 yrs.60.00$
Mileage 268 N/A 0.54$ Annual 143.38$
Meal Costs 1 N/A 20.00$ Annual 20.00$
Insurance N/A N/A 100.00$ N/A 100.00$
Total Annual Funding Amount 803.38$
Capitalization Rate 3.50%
Monitoring Endowment $22,953.71
Accepting and Defending the Easement in Perpetuity
Staff time for major violations N/A 50 60 N/A 3,000.00$
Legal Counsel N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,000.00$
Enforcing and ensuring long term maintenance, repair, replacement
of structures and signage N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,000.00$
Defense Endowment 18,000.00$
Total Monitoring and Legal Defense Endowment $40,953.71

Unique Places To Save
Property Monitoring Report 2017

I. PROPERTY INFORMATION

• NAME OF PROPERTY:

• PROPERTY ACREAGE:

• DATE EASEMENT GRANTED:

• DATE OF ANY EASEMENT AMENDMENT(S):

• OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFORMATION

Owner Manager/Representative
Name(s)
Address
City, State, Zip
Phone
Email

• GENERAL PROPERTY LOCATION

• PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (acreage, general biophysical characteristics, land/resource use):

• DESCRIPTION OF AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN, FEATURES OR RESTRICTIONS (building envelopes, areas of intensive
management, riparian areas, access points, historic, etc.)

II. MONITORING INFORMATION

• DATE(S) OF INSPECTION:

• GENERAL WEATHER CONDITIONS (temp, cloud cover, precip):

• IF AVAILABLE, APPROXIMATE PRECIPITATION TOTAL FOR PREVIOUS YEAR:

• LIST ALL PERSONS ATTENDING INSPECTION:

• TIME SPENT ON INSPECTION: _____ hours

• WAS THE OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE CONTACTED PRIOR TO INSPECTION? Y N

• DID THE OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE ACCOMPANY MONITOR? Y N

• WAS THE EASEMENT REVIEWED PRIOR TO INSPECTION? Y N

• WAS THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED SINCE THE LAST REPORT? Y N

o IF YES: DEED FROM: DEED TO:

• IS THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY FOR SALE? Y N

III. MONITOR OBSERVATIONS

• NATURAL AND/OR AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITIES OBSERVED. Note any rare species.

• DESCRIBE CURRENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE WITHIN THE EASEMENT:

• LIST AND DESCRIBE ANY MANAGEMENT CHANGES SINCE LAST INSPECTION. Describe the activity or alteration. Note
location and extent. Document with maps, photos, and/or illustrations.

♦ _____ AGRICULTURAL/OPERATIONAL CHANGES:

♦ _____ LAND USE CHANGES:

♦ _____ ECOSYSTEM/SPECIES PRESERVATION:

♦ _____ SCIENTIFIC (research, surveys, etc.):

♦ _____ RECREATIONAL OR EDUCATIONAL:

♦ _____ WILDLIFE OR HABITAT MANAGEMENT/RESTORATION:

♦ _____ EXOTICS OR DISEASE CONTROL:

♦ _____ OTHER:

• LIST AND DESCRIBE ANY MAN-INDUCED ALTERATIONS SINCE LAST INSPECTION. Describe the activity or alteration.
Note location and extent. Document with maps, photos, and/or illustrations.

♦ _____ CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS, STRUCTURES OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS:

♦ _____ EROSION OR OTHER SOIL DISTURBANCE:

♦ _____ OHV/ORV USE:

♦ _____ FERAL ANIMALS AND/OR EXOTIC PLANTS:

♦ _____ TRESPASSING AND/OR BOUNDARY ENCROACHMENT:

♦ _____ TRASH DUMPING AND/OR VANDALISM:

♦ _____ CONTINUAL OVERUSE:

♦ _____ DISEASE (plant or animal):

♦ _____ POLLUTION:

♦ _____ DEFERRED REQUIRED MAINTENANCE:

♦ _____ OTHER:

• DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES AND/OR ACTIVITIES PERMITTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EASEMENT. Such as
construction of buildings, facilities, general improvements, roads, water infrastructure. Include all reserved rights
exercised since last inspection. Note location and extent and any changes and/or activities and attach maps, photos,
and/or illustrations as necessary.

• DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THE EASEMENT.
Such as construction of buildings, facilities, general improvements, roads, water infrastructure. Note location and
extent and any changes and/or activities and attach maps, photos, and/or illustrations as necessary.

• NOTE ANY OBSERVED CHANGES IN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP OR CONDITION. NOTE ANY CONTACT WITH
NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS.

• LANDOWNER/REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS. Include any landowner/representative comments specifically related to
the terms of the conservation easement and changes in land use or management.

IV. SUMMARY, STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• SUMMARY. Provide a brief narrative. Information from previous reports must be incorporated if available. Include
impressions of long-term trends and conditions of the site.

• STATUS OF COMPLIANCE.

o _____ NO VIOLATION(S) OF EASEMENT TERMS OBSERVED
o _____ UNSURE DUE TO THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EVALUATION
o _____ SOME EVIDENCE OR ACTIVITIES WERE OBSERVED WHICH MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE EASEMENT

• SUGGEST ANY ACTIONS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THIS SITE MONITORING VISIT:

• INFORMATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR 2013 MONITORING VISIT:

V. MONITOR CONTACT INFORMATION

NAME:

TITLE:

ADDRESS:

PHONE:

EMAIL:

SIGNATURE OF MONITOR: __________________________________________ DATE: ______________

*This report is a record of one person’s observations during one visit. It is not intended to be a statement of landowner compliance of the conservation
easement.

VI. DESCRIPTION OF ENCLOSURES AND ATTACHMENTS

Indicate the number of the following items accompanying this report:

_____ Aerial photos
_____ Ground photos
_____ Maps and Illustrations
_____ Additional documentation

Other __________________________________________________

If attachments are separated from this report, note their location:

VIII. PHOTODOCUMENTATION LIST
Fill in the table below for all photos taken during the monitoring site visit. Also attach a map showing the location where the
photo(s) were taken.

Photo # Photopoint Description
UTM Northing
(meters)
UTM Easting
(meters)

Unique Places To Save
Stewardship Monitoring Procedures and Guidelines

Unique Places To Save (UP2Save) is dedicated to upholding and defending the
conservation values of the easements it holds. An important aspect of achieving this is to
conduct our stewardship monitoring practices in a professional, accurate, and efficient
manner. The following procedures and guidelines will help ensure that staff will have the
guidance and expertise to properly monitor UP2Save’s conservation easements.

UP2Save’s stewardship monitoring procedures and guidelines are separated into three
stages: (1) pre-monitoring due diligence; (2) monitoring of the easement property; and (3)
post-monitoring due diligence. Each stage in the monitoring process is crucial in
employing sound monitoring practices and creating accurate and reliable documentation.

Pre-monitoring Due Diligence:
Pre-monitoring due diligence includes components that prepare the monitor for the
impending field work and documentation of their stewardship activities. The following
procedures shall be followed prior to all conservation easement monitoring visits:

1. Contact the landowner to schedule a monitoring visit at least one to two weeks
prior to the scheduled visit either by phone, email, or letter (make an effort to
group monitoring visits to multiple easements in the same general area in one
trip).
2. Make an effort to invite the landowner to be involved in the monitoring process.
Usually having the landowner available for questions or discussion of issues
before and after monitoring is fine. It is not necessary that the landowner
accompany the monitor around the property unless the landowner prefers to do
so.
3. If unknown, acquire any information needed to access the property (e.g. lock
combinations, gate locations, road/trail locations, contact information for land
managers and neighboring landowners).
4. A few days prior to the monitoring visit, make an effort to contact the landowner
to confirm the monitoring date.
5. Prior to the monitoring date, review the conservation easement deed, baseline
documentation report, most recent monitoring report, and any other pertinent
information (e.g. landowner correspondence, older monitoring reports).
6. Create a monitoring map of the property using aerial imagery or a topo map as
the base layer. Ensure that the property boundary is clearly depicted on the map
as well as any building envelopes or other important boundaries or landscape
features (e.g. stream buffers, forest management plots, property points of access).
7. Enter the property boundary and BDR photopoint locations (if available) into a
GPS unit for field reference.
8. Inform at least two staff members of your schedule and destination(s). Have an
emergency contact phone number available at the office.
9. Monitoring material that is needed on the monitoring visit includes:

a. Stewardship Binder
b. Monitoring map
c. GPS unit (with extra batteries)
d. Compass
e. Camera (with extra batteries)
f. Notepad

10. Prepare for your field work. Bring necessary field equipment to conduct a safe
and effective monitoring visit. Field equipment should include:

Required
a. Sunscreen
b. Extra water
c. Extra clothing
d. Extra food
e. Extra cash
f. Topo map of greater area
g. First Aid/Survival Kit
h. Blanket(s)
i. Shovel
j. Spare tire(s)
k. Cell phone
l. Flares
m. Bolt cutters
n. Crowbar
Optional
a. Tent
b. Sleeping bag
c. Firearm(s)
d. Stove
e. Laptop computer
f. Bear spray

Approximate pre-monitoring due diligence completion time: 3 hours

Monitoring of the Easement Property:
The field portion of the monitoring effort should be interpreted as (1) an opportunity to
maintain and improve relations with landowners and/or landowner representatives; (2) a
small-scale duplication effort of the baseline documentation report; (3) an opportunity to
enhance, alter, or correct any deficiencies or errors in past monitoring efforts; and (4) a
check on the activities within and conditions of the property under easement.

The following procedures and guidelines will help ensure the efficiency, accuracy, and
safety of a monitoring visit:

1. The monitor should have a clear strategy of how the property will be monitored
prior to the site visit.
2. Meet with the landowner if possible prior to engaging in field work. Ask about
land management activities (past, present or future), activities on adjacent lands,
and any other issues related to the terms of the conservation easement.
3. Invite the landowner to accompany the monitor in the field. This is not necessary,
but it is polite to ask.
4. Enact the monitoring strategy laid out prior to the visit using all tools available
(e.g. GPS, compass, maps, photos).
5. Use GPS to track the monitoring route and take coordinates of photopoint
locations. Use the compass to take azimuth readings at the photopoint locations
(direction photo was taken). All photopoint coordinates must be taken in UTM
coordinates, Zone 13. All azimuth reading must be taken using the 3-digit method
(0 to 360°) to decrease ambiguity as opposed to using quadrants. For example, recording
a bearing of 192° is much clearer than 12° W of S, or S12°W.
6. Walk or drive as much of the property as possible making an effort to visit all access
points, boundary lines, and property corners. Pay special attention to building envelope
areas and other areas that may have more restrictive covenants (e.g. stream corridors, no-
timbering zones, high quality habitat areas).
7. Duplicate the photopoint locations that are depicted in the BDR. If new photopoint
locations are required; develop the new photopoint locations based upon current
landscape conditions and activities. Document these new locations in the monitoring
report and make notes that future monitoring efforts should follow the new photopoint
format. Note: the original photopoints portrayed in the BDR must always be replicated
unless the BDR is amended to not include certain photopoint locations.
8. TAKE FIELD NOTES! Do not rely on memory to complete the monitoring report.
9. Make an effort to meet with the landowner after the field visit to discuss any minor, non-
violation issues or other observations made while conducting the field visit. Do not,
under any circumstances, discuss potential minor or major violations to the
conservation easement with the landowner. UP2Save has specific procedures to
follow when addressing potential violations (see UP2Save’s Conservation Easement
Violations Policy).

Approximate monitoring completion time: 4-16 hours depending upon driving time and
size/complexity of property.

Post-monitoring Due Diligence:
Post-monitoring due diligence primarily consists of developing documentation of the
monitoring visit. This documentation consists of:

1. Filling out the monitoring report
2. Creating a monitoring map including the photopoints, access points, monitoring track,
and any other points of interest.
3. Writing a letter to the landowner that summarizes the monitoring visit and also states that
the landowner is in compliance with the terms of the conservation easement. If the
landowner is not in compliance with the terms of the conservation easement, then staff
will follow the UP2Save’s Conservation Easement Violations Policy.
4. Properly duplicate the monitoring report and file all copies according to the
UP2Save’s Stewardship Records Management Policy.
5. Mail the signed monitoring report and compliance letter to the landowner and any
representatives listed in the baseline or that have received monitoring reports in the past.
6. Schedule the next monitoring visit based upon observations in the field and seasonal
access to the property.

Approximate completion time: 3 hours

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT

THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Conservation Easement”) made this
day of , 201_ by and between ,
(“Grantor”) and _________________ (“Grantee”).

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

RECITALS

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

WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not-for-profit or educational corporation,
association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue
Code, the purposes or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) – (d)
listed below;

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

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following
natural communities: add or delete as appropriate: wetlands, streams and riparian
buffers. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to maintain streams, wetlands
and riparian resources and other natural values of approximately ___acres, more or
less, and being more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated fully herein by reference (the “Conservation Easement Area”), and
prevent the use or development of the Conservation Easement Area for any purpose
or in any manner that would conflict with the maintenance of its natural condition.
WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation
Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation Banking Instrument
(MBI) and Mitigation Plan for the ___________ Mitigation Bank, Department of the
Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW-_____________, entitled “Agreement to Establish
the ____________ Mitigation Bank in the _________ River Basin within the State of
North Carolina”, entered into by and between ___________ acting as the Bank Sponsor
and the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in consultation with the North
Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT). The __________ Mitigation Site has been
approved by the Corps for use as a mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable
stream and wetland impacts authorized by DA permits.

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

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

ARTICLE I.
DURATIONOF EASEMENT

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

ARTICLE II.
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to,
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited other than for
temporary or occasional access by the Enter Sponsor Name, the Grantee, its
employees and agents, successors, assigns, and the Corps for purposes of
constructing, maintaining and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation
Easement Area..

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

ARTICLE III
GRANTOR’S RESEVERED RIGHTS

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

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

ARTICLE IV.
GRANTEE’S RIGHTS

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

ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES

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

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

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

ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS

A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property
which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor
further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived
from and arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend title to the Property against the claims of all persons.

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

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

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

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

F. Long-Term Management. If livestock operations will be maintained on the
property, Grantor is responsible for all long-term management activities associated
with fencing to ensure livestock do not have access to the Protected Property. These
activities include the maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures, as deemed
necessary by the Grantee, to ensure the aquatic resource functions within the
boundaries of the Protected Property are sustained.

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

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

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

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

To Grantor:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Grantee:
[Name, address and fax number]

To Sponsor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Signatures of the Grantor and Grantee in appropriate form]

Appendix D – DWR Stream Identification
Forms

REACH MC2-A/B JN4-A/B JN5 JN6-A/B JN6-C
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) 28 23 20.5 21.5 15
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 3 2 3 3 2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 3 3 3 3 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 3 2 3 3 1
4. Particle size of stream substrate 3 2 3 3 1
5. Active/relict floodplain 3 3 2 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 3 3 2 3 1
7. Recent alluvial deposits 3 3 0 2 1
8. Headcuts 2 2 2 1 0
9. Grade control 0.5 1.5 1 1.5 0.5
10. Natural valley 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 0.5
11. Second or greater order channel 3 0 0 0 3
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ) 9.5 8.5 6 7.5 8.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 3 3 3 2 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 0 0 0 0
14. Leaf litter 1.5 0.5 1.5 1 1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1 1.5 1 1 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?3 3 0 3 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = ) 6 8.75 12 6 3.75
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 1 0 2 2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 1 3 3 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 2 3 1 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 2 2 0 0
22. Fish 0 0 1 0 0
23. Crayfish 0 1.5 1.5 0 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5 0 0
25. Algae 0 0 0 0 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed 0 0.75 0 0 0.75
Total Points (Subtotal=)43.5 40.25 38.5 35 27.25
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Summary
43.5
NC DWO Stream Identification Fnrm Versinn A.l l
Date: y --;D
Projec65he: V/ f'y ..:
Latitude:
Evaluator: E��
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is al /seal bomwem U O•'ZS
Stream Det nnination (circleonsI6.
Other 0�N LI _ I /
Xt 19orperamiafffa 30'
Ephemeral IMermM9 nl
.9. Qu Name:
A. Geomo hob Subtotal = L 3 1
1 Absent
Weak
ModKets I
Strong
1°' Cpntlnu' of channel bed and bank
0
1
0.5 0
3
2. Sinuosil M dtannel akatg thalyweg
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
2 1
C 3
3. In -channel struclum: ex. riffle -pool, step1mol,
d sequence
0
7
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
C 2
3
5. AGivelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depoeibonal bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley0.5
0
1
ri.5
17. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
Sketch:
arpbdal Niches are not rsWJ; See disoussiorn in manual
B. H drol Subtotal = , S
12. Presence of Basefbw
0 1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bachua1
0
3
14. Leaf liner
1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on planta or debris
0 .5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
ea = 3
tela frl 6T-Awb'111 lMF.la�:Q?�
18. Fibrous roots in stresmbad
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambad
3
2
0
20. Macrobenthos pole diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.
24. Amphibians
.5
1
1.5
25. A as
0
.5
1
1.5
26. Wetlorld plantsin streambed
FACW .7
MI = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial Streams may also be identified ueino other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: y - .+ S1Jn7
a d
eiK
rc I a --
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Data: y o B
Profectisits: S
Latitude:
Evaluator: N- -OT
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determinatlon (circle one)
Other
Nk 19 MMnrdrbeemr0* 5
X2 f8 or rerxdd X2 JO'
Ephemeral Imarmilbrd Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomo ho Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1dContinuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
1.5
3. Inmharmel structure: ex. dl8e-pool, step -pool,
d Isequence
0
1
2
3
4. Padide size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1
5. Adfvelreliat floodplain
0
1
1 5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7. Recem alluvial deposits
(02
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
Other = 0
3
9. Grade mntrol
0
0.5
1.5
10. NaNrel valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or rester order channel
0 =
YW = 3
Sketch:
Wftal ditches are rot rated: see discussims in manual
B. Hydrolow (Subtotal= 1 n 1
12. Presence or Baseflow
0 1 2
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria1
2
3
14. Leal litter
.5 1 0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debds
0 0.
1.5
16. Organic debris Imes or piles
0 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high eater table?
= Yes = 3
1
C. Biology Subtotal= i7_0
18. Fibrous roots in streambel
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. MacrobemFas(nate diversity and awmance)
0
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1
23. Crayfish
0
0.51
1 5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.
25. Algae
Q0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Weiland plants in sueembed
FACW = 0.75; OaL = 1.5
Other = 0
'penin wal aueams may also be kentified using oeer me Ws. See p. 35 of menus[.
Notes:
r
Sketch:

A/B
NCD Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 5N U"
Gate: 30 0
Prgecdske: dior,
Latitude:
Evaluator:
"
County: Sur
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Debrminatlon (circa one)
Other
Saeem laMMWWifeg 2 3 30'0' ��1 a�
X219w X T
m
Ephemeral IMrmNam:eilbPerennial
e.g.. Quad Na:
r
A. Geonvo hot Subtotal= 1
Absent
Weak
Mo
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
14. Leaf litter
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalvveg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. d8lepool, step -pool,
r uence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. AcWe/relic floodplain
0
0.5
2
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
01
0(A
1
2
3
8. Heaccuts
0
= 0.7 ;
2
3
9. Grade control0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
i 1
1.6
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
'artificial tlkMes are nm reled; see discusaoin nual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= � S ma
)
12. Presence of BaseOow
0 1
2
3
13. Iron cuddizig bacteria
0 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris Imes or piles
0 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soll-based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
1
C. Bio (Subtotal= -__J
18. Fibrous roots in sueambed
31
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (nate dlversky and abundance)
(0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
26. Algae
01
0(A
-C'
1.5
26. Weiland plants in streambed
= 0.7 ;
BL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other memodc. Sea p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Appendix E – USACE District Assessment
Methods/Forms

MC2-A MC2-B JN4-A JN4-B JN5 JN6-A JN6-B JN6-C
1 Presence of flow / persistent
pools in stream 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 3
2 Evidence of past human
alteration 0 5 3 2 4 5 5 3
3 Riparian zone 0 2 3 2 2 4 3 2
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical
discharges 0 3 4 1 1 4 3 2
5 Groundwater discharge 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 4 3 2 2 2 0 0 4
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 3
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4
9 Channel sinuosity 2 4 3 1 3 2 2 2
10 Sediment input 1 2 1 0 3 4 3 2
11 Size & diversity of channel bed
substrate 4 4 4 1 5 4 4 1
12 Evidence of channel incision or
widening 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 1
13 Presence of major bank failures 1 3 1 3 2 5 5 1
14 Root depth and density on banks 1 2 3 3 5 3 2 2
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,
or timber production 0 2 0 5 3 4 3 1
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool
complexes 4 5 3 2 6 5 3 1
17 Habitat complexity 0 4 4 4 5 4 5 2
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0 2 3 3 4 5 5 2
19 Substrate embeddedness 5 4 3 3 3 4 3 1
20 Presence of stream invertebrates 2 2 4 3 4 1 1 0
21 Presence of amphibians 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0
22 Presence of fish 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0
23 Evidence of wildlife use 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 2
31 59 53 44 71 66 58 41
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet Summary
PhysicalStabilityHabitatBiologyTotal Score:
Site: Gideon
Evaluator: CC
Date: 4/30/2018
Site: Gideon
Evaluator: CC
Date: 4/30/2018
Site: Gideon
Evaluator: MDE & EWT
Date: 4/30/2018
Site: Gideon
Evaluator: CC
Date: 4/30/2018
Site: Gideon
Evaluator: CC
Date: 4/30/2018
Site: Gideon
Evaluator: CC
Date: 4/30/2018
A
Site: Gideon
Evaluator: CC
Date: 4/30/2018
Site: Gideon
Evaluator: CC
Date: 4/30/2018

Appendix F – Wetland JD Forms

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2017-01462 County: Surry U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Bottom
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner:
RES
Jeremy Schmid
Address:
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 28605
Telephone Number:
919-926-1473
E-mail:
ischmidAres.us
Size (acres) 27.8 Nearest Town Dodson
Nearest Waterway Mill Creek River Basin Upper Yadkin
USGS HUC 03040101 Coordinates Latitude: 36.39654
Longitude: -80.8584
Location description: The project site Gideon Mitigation site is located on Ed Nixon Road, near Thurmond, North Carolina and
is adiacent to and associated with SAW -2017- 01507 Little Sebastian Mitigation site.
Indicate Which of the Following AyPly:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 10/27/2017. Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW -2017-01462
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below on DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact William Elliott at 828-271-7980 ext 4224 or
William.a.elliottCa ..usace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: See the PJD jurisdictional determination form dated 5/22/2018.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Atte: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by DATE.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division O ce if you do not obj the de tion in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: _William Elliott '
Date of JD: 5/22/2018 Expiration Date of JD: NONE

SAW -2017-01462
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http:Ucorpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/Pp=13 6:4:0
Copy furnished:
Byron Thomas Shaw II, Mary Beth Shaw, 227 Hawthorne Road, Elkin, NC 28621
Christopher Edward Nixon & Gwyn Dobbins Nixon, Jimmy Edward Nixon & Vivian J. Life Estate, 611 Ed Nixon Road, Thurmond, NC 28683
Stephen & Amy Shore, 433 Ed Nixon Road, Thurmond, NC 28683

NOTIMCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQLII+ ST FOR A11P%A1.
Applicant: RES. Jeremy Schmid File Number: SAW -2017-01462 1 Date: 5/22/2018
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
0 APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
® PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETFRMINATI0N E
S I C" 1' I c 1 N I - ]he tol i owing identities your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or
http;i/vN�i,�,.usaces .army.m&Missions/CivilW+orks/ReeulatoryProp-rarnandPerrnits.a_-spr or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR,,
Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer
for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is
authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its
entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional
determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may
request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the
district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice,
or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will
evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to
address some of your objections, or (c) not modifythe permit having determined that the permit should be issued as
previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your
reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer
for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is
authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its
entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional
determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions
therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the
division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section H of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received
by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide
new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days
of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety,,and waive all rights to appeal the
approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer.
This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding
the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be
appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.. Also you may provide new information for further
consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: William Elliott, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
SECTION U - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to ar
initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where
your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum
for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has
determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information of
analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is
already in the administrative record.
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
appeal process you may contact:
may also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory. Division
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: William Elliott
CESAD-PDO
Asheville Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10Ml.5
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any governmeir
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a
15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the o ortunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant oragent
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: William Elliott, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 5/22/2018
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: RES, Jeremy Schmid, 302 Jefferson Street, Suite
110.Raleigh, NC 28605
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, NCDMS OLF- Gideon Mitigation
Site, SAW -2017-01462
D. PROJECT LOCATIONS) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project site. Gideon Mitigation site is
located on Ed Nixon Road, near Thurmond, North Carolina and is adjacent to and associated with SAW -2017- 01507
Little Sebastian Mitigation site.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Surry City: Dodson
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 36.39654 Longitude: -80.8584
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest water body: Mill Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): February 27, 2018
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Estimated amount of
Type of aquatic
Geographic authority to
Latitude {decimal
Longitude {decimal
aquatic resources in
resources (i.e.,
which the aquatic resource
"may
Site Number
degrees)
degrees)
review area {acreage
wetland vs. non -
be„ subject (i.e.,
and linear feet, if
wetland waters)
Section 404 or Section
applicable
10/404)
See
Attached
Table

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification_ requiring "pre- construction :notification" (PCN), or
requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has
not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD
before accepting the terms and conditions of the. permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or
different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant
can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD
constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,
signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such
jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD
or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual
permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over
aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the
review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated for all checked items:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Vicinity, USGS, NWI Soil, Existing Conditions,WOUS
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:,
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
® National wetlands inventorymap(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is:
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
®Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): UNK
or ❑Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
William Elliott
Signature and date of R u atory
staff member completing PJD
5/22/2018
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable)1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.

Site
Little Sebastian
Little Sebastian
Gideon
Gideon
Gideon
Gideon
Little Sebastian
Little Sebastian
Little Sebastian
Gideon
Gideon
Gideon
Gideon
Gideon
Little Sebastian
Reach/Wetland ID
WA
WB
WC
WD
WE
WF
BS -1
JN -2
JN -3
JN -4
JN -5
JN -6
JN -7
Mill Creek
Mill Creek
Latitude Longitude
-80.859778 36.398586
-80.859642 36..397907
-80.855978 36.398336
-80.856767 36.396847
-80.856836 36.396359
-80.856058 36.394861
-80.851484 36.396111
-80.863542 36.399251
-80.859211 36.398372
-80.858733 36.395122
-80.857693 36.394568
-80.856718 36.396846
-80.855351 36.394343
-80.857033 36.394489
-80.861609 36.397017
Length (LF) /Area'(ac)
0.42
0.48
0.01
0.04
0.36
0.42
1424
1792
1363
634
78
2024
55
1855
3146

Appendix G – 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 H – Regulatory Agency Scoping
Letters

1
November 15, 2017
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review of the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus:
Gideon Site (SAW-2017-01462), Compass Point Site (SAW-2017-01465), Green Mesa Site
(SAW-2017-01466), Twiman Site (SAW-2017-01467), and Scout Site (SAW-2017-01469).
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Attention: Ms. Cara Conder
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Dear Ms. Conder:
This letter is in regard to your prospectus document for the proposed RES Yadkin 01
Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of the
mitigation sites listed below:
Corps Action ID Site Name Easement
(ac)
County Stream/Receiving
Water
Latitude (ºN) Longitude (ºW)
SAW-2017-01462 Gideon 8.6 Surry Mill Creek 36.3967 -80.8584
SAW-2017-01465 Compass
Point
13.73 Yadkin Yadkin River 36.2696 -80.6384
SAW-2017-01466 Green
Mesa
19.96 Yadkin N. Deep Creek 36.2132 -80.7181
SAW-2017-01467 Twiman 32.06 Yadkin N. Deep Creek 36.2130 -80.6902
SAW-2017-01469 Scout 14.0 Davie Hauser Creek 36.0322 -80.5166
The Corps determined the prospectus document was complete and issued a public notice
(P/N # SAW-2017-01462) on September 6, 2017. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the
views of interested State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or affected by
the proposed work. In addition, the Corps and members of the Interagency Review Team (IRT)
conducted field reviews of the proposed mitigation sites on October 16 - 18, 2017. Attached are
comments received in response to the public notice from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission, and a field visit memo incorporating comments from the attending IRT members.
The Corps has reviewed the information provided and considered the comments received
in response to the public notice and the field site visits. We have determined that the proposed
mitigation bank appears to have the potential to restore and protect aquatic resources within the
Upper Yadkin 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101 of the Yadkin River Basin.
Therefore, the bank sponsor may proceed with preparation of a draft Mitigation Banking
Instrument (MBI).
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
2
We appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United States. If
you have questions concerning the path forward for the proposed mitigation bank, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone] extension 59.
Sincerely,
Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
HUGHES.ANDREA.W
ADE.1258339165
Digitally signed by
HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI,
ou=USA, cn=HUGHES.ANDREA.WADE.1258339165
Date: 2017.11.15 11:25:11 -05'00'
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
MEMORANDUM
TO: Andrea Hughes
Mitigation Project Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Andrea Leslie
Habitat Conservation, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
DATE: 26 October 2017
SUBJECT: Comments on RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Davie, Yadkin and Surry Counties
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed
the final prospectus for the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Site. NCWRC staff
attended site visits with regulatory agency staff October 16-18. The prospectus proposes stream
restoration, enhancement, and preservation on over 29,800 feet of stream to net over 18,000
SMUs in the Yadkin River Basin (03040101).
The bank includes five sites, and general comments on each site follow:
x Gideon Site. Located on a 76-acre parcel and sandwiched between two Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) sites, this agricultural site will involve restoration, enhancement,
and preservation on 4,092 ft of Mill Creek and unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Mill Creek,
netting 2,664 SMUs. The site is less than a mile upstream of the Mitchell River, which
serves as habitat for Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa, US Federal Species of Concern,
NC Endangered). Excellent erosion and sediment control is especially important at both this
site and the adjacent DMS sites to minimize impacts to this mussel.
x Compass Point Site. This site is located on a 209-acre parcel in agricultural and forestry
uses. It was recently logged. The project will involve restoration and enhancement on 5,024
ft of UTs to the Yadkin River, netting 3,709 SMUs. The downstream end of the site is at the
confluence with the Yadkin River, and protection and enhancement of riparian habitat at this
location is especially ecologically beneficial, as it will provide a wildlife corridor that is
connected to the Yadkin River. We recommend that the landowner expand the forested
riparian area along the Yadkin River, as well. Two rare mussels [Creeper (Strophitus
undulatus, NC Threatened) and Brook Floater] are found in the Yadkin River in the vicinity
RES Yadkin 01 Mitigation Bank Page 2 October 26, 2017
Davie, Yadkin, Surry Counties
of the project, and erosion and sediment control is especially important at this site to
minimize impacts to these species.
x Green Mesa. This site is on a 273-acre parcel in agricultural use, and project activities
include restoration, enhancement, and preservation on 7,776 ft of UTs to North Deep Creek,
netting 3,531 SMUs. The old dam structure downstream of the present dam may serve as bat
habitat, and NCWRC biologists may perform bat surveys there in 2018.
x Twiman. This site is comprised of 10 parcels totaling 266 acres in agricultural use, and
project activities include restoration, enhancement, and preservation on 10,477 ft of UTs to
North Deep Creek, netting 5,766 SMUs.
x Scout. This site is on two parcels totaling 522 acres in agricultural use, and project activities
include restoration on 2,467 ft of Hauser Creek, netting 2,467 SMUs.
Detailed comments on the mitigation approach are captured in RES staff’s October 16-18 site
visit summary. NCWRC staff has reviewed this summary and has provided comments on it in a
separate email.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact Andrea Leslie at [phone] or at [e-mail].
ec: Travis Wilson and Oliva Munzer, NCWRC
MEMORANDUM
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: NC IRT
FROM: Cara Conder, Brad Breslow- RES
DATE: 11/14/2017 (revised)
RE: RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Bank IRT Site Visits
Attendees: Mac Haupt (NC DWR), Kim Browning (USACE), Andrea Leslie (NCWRC), Olivia
Munzer (NCWRC), Cara Conder (RES), Brad Breslow (RES), David Godley (RES)
Dates: October 16, 17, and 18, 2017
Gideon Site – 10/16/17
The Gideon Site is located between two disjunct portions of the recently contracted DMS Little
Sebastian full delivery site. While each project could be developed independently of the other,
the combined easements will result in a much larger contiguous protected corridor and high-
quality aquatic habitat.WRC mentioned that there are known occurrences of the brook floater
(Alasmidonta varicosa) in the Mitchell River, approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the
project area which RES mentioned in the Prospectus. Connecting the Gideon and Little Sebastian
Sites offer opportunities to create and protect habitat for the State protected species. IRT
members agreed the Gideon site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios
will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below.
x DWR requested that RES determine the potential wetlands on site. RES is currently
delineating the site.
x MC3-A: Group agreed to restoration at 1:1 ratio as originally proposed in prospectus.
RES explained that cows have full access and the landowner has historically moved the
channel. RES affirmed that construction sequencing would harvest native bed material
when possible (e.g. cobble). The crossing will be a culvert.
x JN5 – Group thought that Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio would be more appropriate
approach for this reach instead of Enhancement II. Enhancement measures will include
grading banks, installing grade control structures (including at the tie-in with MC3-A),
planting the buffer, and cattle exclusion.
x JN4 – Similar to JN5, the Group thought that Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio would be a
more appropriate approach for below the crossing. Enhancement measures will include
removing pipe in old channel, fixing current culvert, grading banks, installing grade
control structures, planting the buffer, and cattle exclusion. Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio
is the approach for above the crossing and includes cattle exclusion and light
supplemental planting.

x MC3-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1, but the Group agreed to
change the approach to Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio because of channel condition and
cattle access. Enhancement measures will include planting the buffer on the left bank and
cattle exclusion.
x JN6-C – RES originally proposed restoration on this reach and Group agreed to that
approach. However, proposed alignment and restoration approach will need to be dictated
by topographic survey data. RES is in process of data collection, including delineating
slough feature. WRC suggested fencing slough area if not in alignment of proposed
restoration area. Barns will likely be removed and the culvert at the driveway will be
reset to improve hydrologic connection to JN6-B.WRC Comment: At the break between
JN6-B & JN6-A, there is an old road that is eroding. RES agreed to stabilize this road.
x JN6-B – RES originally proposed Enhancement II on this reach. DWR did not agree to
2.5:1 ratio due to buffer being intact, but does agree this reach should be part of the
overall project. The consensus was Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of
removing the crossing and cattle exclusion.
x JN6-A – RES originally proposed preservation on this reach. Group agreed to including
this top part of the reach as preservation. The JD will determine the limits.
Compass Point Site – 10/16/17
IRT members agreed the Compass Point site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final
credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are
below.
x DW6: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio. WRC and DWR
recommended more of an Enhancement I approach (ranging from a 1.5 to 2 ratio), which
would include bank work (spot stabilization), riparian buffer planting, and livestock
exclusion.
x DW1-A: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio and Group agreed, with the
exception being the upstream most portion that ties into DW6. Group agreed that a mix of
Enhancement I and II would be best approach on the first 250 feet of DW1-A.
x DW2: Group agreed to Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio as originally proposed in
prospectus. RES confirmed that cows have access. Enhancement measures will include
planting the riparian buffer and cattle exclusion. DWR and RES agreed to installing a
stream gauge midway on the reach to monitor hydrology.
x DW1-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio. Group discussed
Enhancement I at a 1.5:1 ratio with enhancement measures including a combination of
bed and bank work, complete riparian buffer planting, and cattle exclusion. DWR
Comment: there was some discussion of E1, however, if that ratio is proposed vs the E2,
then the work needs to be justified in the mit plan. For the reach DW1-D, DWR believes
while it is a benefit to have a corridor connect to the Yadkin River, however, the ratio
that is appropriate would be no better than 7.5:1.USACE Comment: This will transition
from restoration in DW1-A at bedrock point. Buffered on one side, some areas do need
bank shaping. EII only if the banks are addressed. The existing road may cause the buffer
to be pinched to less than 50' at the end of the reach.
x DW1-C: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. This reach has patches of high
quality bed material including cobble and bedrock. Group agreed a Priority II Restoration
approach, including benching to aid in floodplain connectivity, would be the best
measure.
x DW1-D – RES originally proposed Enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio on this reach. WRC
wants to see this reach protected and included in the project. DWR and USACE
recommended a 7.5:1 ratio. The approach will be cattle exclusion and installing a boulder
grade control structure below the limits of restoration on DW1-C. WRC Comment: We
support the protection and riparian buffer enhancement of this reach, which would protect
a riparian corridor that would connect the Yadkin River to the site.
Green Mesa Site – 10/17/17
Overall the site has clear potential for functional uplift, but there are a few notable constraints
including powerline easement and a large pond that will remain (landowner will not allow pond
to be part of project). Because the pond will remain in place, RES and USACE discussed
potentially retrofitting the riser structure to include a bottom pond drain to release cooler water.
IRT members agreed the Green Mesa site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final
credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are
below.
x FF4 and FF1-D: RES originally proposed restoration at a 1:1 ratio. The approach is a mix
of Priority I and II restoration with potential for enhancement level I above the powerline
based on bedrock in the channel. USACE said clearly justify rationale for restoration
measures.
x FF1-C: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio. DWR and USACE
stated if channel was left in place and enhancement II approach was taken that it was
likely for no credit to be given due to powerline and lack of buffer near the road. Group
discussed starting restoration immediately below Baptist Church Road and RES agreed
this was best option if feasible.WRC Comment: There was discussion of raising the bed
elevation to lessen the DOT culvert perch. The discussion on lower FF1-C being too
close to the road also applies to upper FF1-D. Turning the channel into the field
upstream of where it turns now could allow R credit for both.
x FF1-C (below pond): RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an
approach of cattle exclusion, buffer planting, and tying into the restoration area. There is
a large stone wall in this reach with a culvert that might need to be retrofitted (if
possible). Group agreed the best approach is probably to leave the wall in place and credit
the enhancement at 3:1.USACE Comment: I agree with your summary for both areas
above and below the pond. It's recommended that SHPO review this area (and the area
where the other historic wall is in the buffer in FF1-A).
x FF5: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, invasive species treatment, and supplemental planting on right bank. DWR
stated there is no cattle pressure and there is decent buffer on the banks, but invasives are
problematic (high density of privet). WRC would like some of the black walnut removed
and those areas replanted with a more diverse mix of native hardwood vegetation.
USACE and DWR suggested a ratio of 7.5:1; however, if buffer planting and easement
was extended to at least 100 feet a higher ratio could be approved.
x FF3-A: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of
cattle exclusion and buffer planting. During the site visit RES suggested enhancement I at
a 1.5:1 ratio with an added measure of bank stabilization to reduce shear stress and in-
channel erosion. WRC agreed to rationale for enhancement I approach, but DWR stated
that there isn’t much work needed on this reach and a ratio of 5:1 is likely most
appropriate (see FF3-B below).DWR Comment: I had FF3A and B combined at a ratio
of 7.5:1.WRC Comment: We did not agree with the E1 approach, as this reach has a
stellar riparian forest; definitely agree on an E3 approach here, as light tough is needed
and riparian area is too nice to justify getting heavy equipment to address channel
erosion.USACE Comment: Widening the buffer and invasives control are necessary
here. My notes indicate a ratio of 5-7:5:1, depending on justification of functional uplift.
The historic house in the buffer should be addressed.
x FF3-B: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and light supplemental planting. IRT suggested combining FF3-A and FF3-B
into one reach and having the entire crediting approach be enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio.
This area might be generating wetlands that RES would not be claiming credit. RES is
currently delineating the site.DWR Comment: I had FF3A and B combined at a ratio of
7.5:1.USACE Comment: Widening the buffer and invasives control are necessary here.
My notes indicate a ratio of 5-7:5:1, depending on justification of functional uplift,
especially considering these enter the pond. A narrative of historical farming practices
would be beneficial.
x FF1-B: RES originally proposed enhancement III at a 5:1 ratio and Group agreed and
stated to justify the uplift in the mitigation plan.WRC Comment: There is evidence of
beaver here.
x FF2: RES originally proposed preservation and Group agreed to a 7.5:1 ratio with an
approach of fencing where needed.DWR Comment: DWR could go with 7.5:1 on the
preservation (FF2) but would like to see the reach extended above the crossing at the top
and fenced out.WRC Comment: There was a discussion on preserving a little more
above the fence line and whether the old road would be planted/fenced. There was a
question on the location of the property line and end of preservation.USACE Comment:
Channel in good condition, USACE feels preservation at 10:1 is appropriate. The
discussion of 7.5:1 would be entertained if the upstream portion excluded cattle, as well.
x FF1-A: RES originally proposed enhancement II at a 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of
cattle exclusion and buffer planting. While there might be some opportunities for bank
work, the group agreed that the enhancement II approach was best based on the amount
of bedrock in this reach.
Twiman Site – 10/17/17
IRT members agreed the Twiman site is acceptable for compensatory mitigation, and final credit
ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation Plan. Reach specific comments are below.
x TC2-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement I at 1.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, and bank stabilization. Group agreed to this approach.
x TC2-B: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. Group generally agreed with this
approach, but did note there is a section of potential enhancement I below the pond. Upon
further data collection/analysis, RES will determine the best approach for this section of
TC2-B. WRC Comment: The group discussed establishing the break between EI and R
at the bedrock nickpoint.
x TC1-A: RES originally proposed restoration at 1:1 ratio. Group agreed to this approach.
x TC3-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, invasive species treatment and spot stabilization. Group
agreed to this approach with a ratio ranging from 2.5 to 3 to be justified in the mitigation
plan.
x TC1-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. IRT suggested restoration as the approach. RES is open to
examining restoration along this reach based on watershed size and design discharge.
DWR Comment: these reaches should be restoration. If RES decides that restoration not
feasible then the ratio for enhancement would be greater than 5:1, could be as high as 8:1.
Planting outer 20 feet just does not do a lot for this system.USACE Comment: This
channel is incised, poor substrate, no buffer, channelized, with an available floodplain.
USACE & DWR feel restoration is appropriate.
x TC4: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. IRT suggested restoration as the approach. RES is open to
examining restoration along this reach based on watershed size and design discharge.
DWR Comment: these reaches should be restoration. If RES decides that restoration not
feasible then the ratio for enhancement would be greater than 5:1, could be as high as 8:1.
Planting outer 20 feet just does not do a lot for this system.USACE Comment: This
channel is incised, poor substrate, no buffer, channelized, with an available floodplain.
USACE & DWR feel restoration is appropriate.
x TC5-B: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, and minor spot stabilization. IRT suggested a lower ratio of
3:1 in some areas based on existing buffer condition. RES recommends potentially
splitting the reach into different treatments based on level of intervention and will justify
rationale in mitigation plan.
x TC7: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion, buffer planting, invasive species treatment and spot stabilization. Group
agreed to this approach with a ratio ranging from 2.5 to 3 to be justified in the mitigation
plan.USACE Comment: 3:1 ratio would be more appropriate.
x TC6: RES originally proposed Enhancement II at 2.5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. This reach is in a deeply formed gully, but is currently
stable with the exception of multiple headcuts at the top of the reach. DWR suggested
“filling in” the reach to bring the bed up and credit as restoration with a 1:1 ratio. RES
expressed concerns with filling in the gully because thee stream might lose jurisdictional
status after construction with such a small watershed (roughly 20 acres). DWR Comment:
Reach TC6 may not be a creditable reach. While I feel that the only beneficial treatment
would be filling like a RSC approach it is likely the stream would lose flow. Planting the
outer 20 feet for this reach would not be creditable enhancement either.USACE
Comment: I would question whether there would be flow if the bed was raised with
restoration. USACE would not release credit if the restored channel was not
jurisdictional. The channel is part of the larger system, and the lower portions of this
reach would benefit from cattle exclusion. I would suggest a lower EII ratio of 5-7.5:1.
x TC5-A: RES originally proposed Enhancement III at 5:1 ratio with an approach of cattle
exclusion and buffer planting. IRT agreed that this is an appropriate approach, but RES
needs to clearly justify the rationale for the enhancement on this reach.DWR Comment:
IRT suggested 7.5:1, would consider 5:1 if justified in mit plan. WRC Comment: RES
will need to address the issue of cattle accessing land via passage under the bridge and
the associated erosion.USACE Comment: USACE and DWR agreed that 7.5:1 would be
more appropriate, unless 5:1 can be justified.
Scout Site- 10/18/17
The Scout Site is located just upstream of the lower portion of the recently contracted DMS
Mockingbird Site. While each project could be developed independently of the other, the
combined easements will result in a better project and most importantly provide the opportunity
to add over 2,000 linear feet of priority I restoration and limit the amount of priority II
restoration on the Mockingbird Site. IRT members agreed the Scout site is acceptable for
compensatory mitigation, and final credit ratios will be determined in the Approved Mitigation
Plan. Reach specific comments are below.
x HC3: Group agreed that restoration at 1:1 ratio is the best approach for this reach and
including it will improve the development of the Mockingbird project. USACE
commented that a hunting blind within the proposed easement area will need to be
removed. There is an existing crossing that will be removed as part of the design. RES
also showed a tributary that was not included in the prospectus that would be eligible for
potential restoration credit at the tie-in with HC3, but would more likely be Enhancement
II for the rest of the reach.
Memorandum to the Record
October 6, 2017

Response to Public Notice and agency comments on the Prospectus to establish
the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (SAW-2017-01462) in the Upper
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101, North Carolina.

Andrea,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the Public Notice (SAW-
2017-01462) for the RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank) Prospectus. The bank
Sponsor, Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC wishes to establish a commercial umbrella
mitigation bank to generate mitigation banking credits to provide compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources associated with Section 404 permits within the Upper
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101. The Bank consists of establishing five mitigation sites
expected to provide approximately 6,373 cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) and 11,764 warm
SMUs by restoring, enhancing and preserving over 29,800 linear feet of stream and riparian
corridor. The project is designed to address stressors identified in the watershed and provide
improvements and ecological uplift to water quality, hydrologic function and both aquatic and
terrestrial habitat.
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following
comments as they pertain to RES Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Prospectus dated
July, 2017 and the Public Notice dated September 6, 2017.
 Section 1.4/Page 3: The project goals stated are too broad and somewhat vague. For
example, the goal: “Nutrient removal” and a few others may be better presented as
“Intercept, filter, minimize and potentially eliminate nutrients (such as…), sediment and
other pollutants/pathogens before entering the aquatic environment”.
o The goal of “Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat” is also vague and does not
address any particular habitat or species of interest. Since we have cool water
habitats being presented for restoration/enhancement then the goals should
address the habitat types and rationale for considering them.
o “Invasive species treatment” is more of an objective or action (and is stated as
such in the document) to address the real goal of “Eliminate competition to
native vegetation from exotic and invasive floral species”.
o I understand that many of the “goals” presented are at the prospectus level and
not necessarily applicable to each site but without clear goals, the establishment
of objectives and performance standards that relate back to the goals and
functional uplift of the site becomes more challenging.
 Section 3.7/Page 6: The last sentence should read: “If planted tree mortality affects 40
percent or greater of the initial planting in a stream or wetland restoration or
enhancement area, then a remedial/supplemental planting plan will be implemented
for the affected area(s).” This addresses “planted” vs. “volunteer” mortality and defines
the starting point to consider mortality.
 Section 5.1/Page 9: Be sure to continue coordinating the work at the Gideon Site with
the Little Sebastian sites and ensure the Mitigation Plan is updated with relevant
information about the adjacent restoration site. NCDMS’ Little Sebastian site is now out
on Public Notice, SAW-2017-01507, dated September 21, 2017. The Mitigation Plan
should address how the Gideon Site will tie in with the adjacent restoration work so that
the projects connect seamlessly and minimize disturbance to one another.
 Section 5.4.7/Page 13: Be sure to identify the adjacent restoration work at the Little
Sebastian site upstream and downstream of the project as a potential constraint. See
comment above.
 Section 5.5/Page 14: Table 6 does not match Figure 8. Be sure not to carry error forward
into the Mitigation Plan for Gideon Site.
 Section 5.5.1/Page 14: Second paragraph should state Enhancement Level II instead of
Level I. I also recommend 50-foot riparian buffers be considered for this site due to the
high potential for nutrients and fecal pathogens to enter the stream from the adjacent
pasture.
 Section 7.1/Page 21: SMU discrepancy should be corrected to match Table 6 on page 26.
 Section 7.4.2/Page 22: Information on FF-5 is missing.
 Section 7.5.1/Page 26: Enhancement Level I is not being utilized at the Green Mesa Site.
Level II is proposed for Reach FF3-A.
 Section 8.5.1/Page 34: Priority Level I is proposed for TC3-B only. Be sure to note pond
removals in this paragraph and restoration plan in general.
 Section 8.5.1/Page 35: Enhancement Level II includes TC3-A also.
 Section 9.1/Page 36: Recommend continuing to coordinate with NCDMS and the
adjacent Mockingbird site currently out on Public Notice (SAW-2017-01505) dated
September 15, 2017. The Mockingbird site is considering a Priority II approach to
restoration along Hauser Creek at the terminus of the Scout Site which is considering
Priority I approach on Hauser Creek (HC3). I agree that the sites can be developed
independently but they should complement each other and provide for a seamless
transition as one moves downstream from Scout to Mockingbird.
 Section 9.4.7/Page 39: See comment above.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, comments and concerns with the RES
Yadkin 01 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus and associated proposed sites to provide
compensatory mitigation in the Upper Yadkin River watershed of North Carolina. I believe the
sponsor has provided a viable plan to offset warm and cool water stream impacts that will be
incurred within the proposed service area. If you or the sponsor have any questions or need
clarification on any of the comments stated above, please contact me at 404-562-9225 or at
[e-mail].
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers

Comments submitted to Andrea Hughes (SAW-PM) via email on October 6, 2017.

MARS
y
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona NL Bamt ,, \Jminisrcarar
sn.amn.
R,,, Uu,,,
Sucmrvry Sad 11. H—th.
November 7. 2017
Daniel Ingram
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, #110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Re: RES Yadkin 01 Stream and Wetland Umbrella Mitigation Bank, ER 17-1991
Dear Mr. Ingram:
Thank you for your letter of July 7, 2017, concerning the above project.
Of6cc of Archin, and I lin.n
D'qu &v nM' Kn'in Chep.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Q
Ramona M. Harms
location: 109Raleigh NC27MI MAOina Md-4617Ma11 S—ka timer, IUhN(; 27699.4,17 Te1ePhone/Fan(919)&)76570/8()7-0599

302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
January 4, 2018
Mr. Vann Stancil
Habitat Conservation Biologist
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
215 Jerusalem Church Road
Kenly, NC 27542
Subject: Project Scoping for Gideon Stream Mitigation Bank in Surry 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
Gideon Site (36°23'47.9"N 80°51'25.2"W) 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 4,092 linear feet of stream. Current stream conditions
along the proposed restoration reaches demonstrate significant habitat degradation as a result of impacts
from agricultural land use, water diversion, and cattle intrusion. Additionally, the riparian buffer is in poor
condition throughout most of the project area.
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,
Eric Teitsworth | Ecologist
3188.03 acres
0 2,0001,000
Feet
USGS Map
Gideon Stream Mitigation Bank
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 12/29/2017
Drawn by: MDE
Document Path: C:\Users\mengel\Dropbox (RES)\@RES GIS\Projects\nc\Gideon\MXD\Scoping_USGS_Gideon.mxdLegend
Proposed Easement
Watershed
From:Stancil, Vann F
To:Eric Teitsworth
Subject:RE: [External] Project Scoping for Gideon Stream Mitigation Bank in Surry County
Date:Friday, January 12, 2018 11:36:51 AM
Hey Eric,

I see that this mitigation project is adjacent to the Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site. Is RES still
moving forward with the Little Sebastian project? I’ve taken my response for that project and
modified it for Gideon.

The Gideon Stream Mitigation Bank is located in Surry County on Mill Creek and 2 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.

I’ll let our biologists know that this project has expanded, but it looks like this just fills in a gap on Mill
Creek between Little Sebastian locations. Please let me know if I can assist further.

Thanks,
Vann

From: Eric Teitsworth [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 10:15 AM
To: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Cc: Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Project Scoping for Gideon Stream Mitigation Bank in Surry County

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].

Hello Mr. Stancil,

Resource Environmental Solutions is requesting a review for fish and wildlife species at a prospective
mitigation bank site in Surry County. Please see the attached letter and map for more details and
feel free to contact me with any further questions.

Sincerely,

Eric Teitsworth
Ecologist
RES| res.us
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.
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.
From:Matthew DeAngelo
To:"Russ, W. Thomas"
Subject:RE: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site
Date:Friday, April 6, 2018 4:04:00 PM
No worries. Thank you for the extra info. And yes, our activities will be in the pasture upstream.
Starting at about 4,500 ft. upstream of the Mitchell River confluence, we will be doing Enhancement
activities such as bank stabilization, buffer plantings, and fencing out cattle. Then, about 2,000 ft.
above that is where our full-on restoration begins. Then some more Enhancement activities above
that. So, we’ll see…maybe those floaters will make their way up some day.

From: Russ, W. Thomas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 3:00 PM
To: Matthew DeAngelo <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site

Sorry for the short reply. Here is a little more: lower Mill Creek is actually in decent shape, and
where it enters Mitchell River is a good population of Brook Floaters. Is the restoration upstream in
the cattle pasture? It looked really bad there, it and the Mitchell would benefit greatly.

TR

From: Matthew DeAngelo [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Russ, W. Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Ok thanks for passing that along.
From: Russ, W. Thomas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 11:32 AM
To: Matthew DeAngelo <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site

Yes, we surveyed it last week, no mussels, have at it.
William
On Apr 5, 2018 10:29 AM, Matthew DeAngelo <[e-mail]> wrote:
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Hey Russ,

Have you thought any more about when to do an assessment of Mill Creek?

Thanks,

From: Russ, W. Thomas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 8:41 AM
To: Matthew DeAngelo <[e-mail]>
Cc: Perkins, Michael <[e-mail]>; Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site

Matt, we should be able to assess Mill Creek in mid March. When do you plan to start the project?
TR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
William T. Russ // Foothills Coordinator, Aquatic Wildlife Diversity Program
Division of Inland Fisheries

NC Wildlife Resources Commission
645-A Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, NC 28752

office: 828-803-6035
mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]

ncwildlife.org

The Wildlife Diversity Program depends on the NC Tax Check-off for Nongame and Endangered Wildlife
on line 31 of your NC income tax form. Learn more about the Wildlife Diversity Program.

Get NC Wildlife Update -- news including season dates, bag limits, legislative updates and more --
delivered to your Inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.

From: Matthew DeAngelo [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:16 PM
To: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>; Russ, W. Thomas <[e-mail]>;
Perkins, Michael <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Mill Creek restoration site

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Hello all,

I wanted to follow-up with you guys to see if you still intend to perform a survey for brook floater at
our site. We are ramping up our Mitigation Plan for the project and are interested in the status of
this species. Let me know if you have any plans in mind, and we can coordinate an effort
accordingly.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

From: Stancil, Vann F [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 3:25 PM
To: Russ, W. Thomas <[e-mail]>; Perkins, Michael
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Matthew DeAngelo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mill Creek restoration site

T.R. & Michael,

I’ve attached information on the Little Sebastian stream mitigation site on Mill Creek, Mitchell River
trib. I emailed Matt DeAngelo about the possibility of brook floaters in Mill Creek and your plans to
check it out in the near future and copied him here. He is happy to assist with that survey effort and
can help with access to Mill Creek near the mitigation site if you’d like to sample there. Just let me
know how it goes…

-----------------------------

The Little Sebastian Stream Mitigation Site has been identified by Resource Environmental Solutions,
LLC (RES) to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream 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 (A USGS site map 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 listed in the attached letter 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
RES | res.us
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
January 4, 2018
Mrs. Janet Mizzi
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Project Scoping for Gideon Mitigation Project in Surry County
Dear Mrs. Mizzi,
Resource Environmental 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 Gideon Stream Mitigation Bank Project (36°23'47.9"N 80°51'25.2"W). The proposed project involves
the restoration and enhancement of approximately 4,092 linear feet of stream. The Site is currently in
agricultural use, specifically as pasture.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) database (accessed 29 December 2017) lists one endangered
species for Surry County, North Carolina: Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), and two
threatened species: Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and Small whorled pogonia (Istoria
medeoloides). No protected species or potential habitat for protected species was observed during
preliminary site evaluations. A review of the NHP database that there are known occurrences of the Brook
floater (Alasmidonta varicose) in the Mitchell River approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the Project
area. Based on initial site investigations, no impacts to federally protected species are anticipated as a result
of the proposed project. 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,
Eric Teitsworth | Ecologist
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

January 30, 2018

Mr. Eric Teitsworth
Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Dear Mr. Teitsworth:
Subject: Gideon Mitigation Site; Surry County, North Carolina
Log No. 4-2-18-120

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence received via email dated January 4, 2018. 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 Union Hill, North Carolina. The proposed bank
would entail restoration and enhancement of approximately 4,092 linear feet of Mill Creek and
its unnamed tributaries. The proposed project would be located approximately 0.8 river miles
upstream from the Mitchell 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.

You indicated that no potential habitat for protected species was observed during a site
reconnaissance. Additionally, the Service has no record of federally protected species or
respective habitats in the project vicinity. Based on this information, we do not believe the
proposed project would impact federally protected species.

2

However, the proposed project would occur less than one river mile upstream from a reach of the
Mitchell River with recent occurrences for the brook floater mussel (Alasmidonta varicosa). The
brook floater is a federal species of concern and is not currently afforded legal protection under
the Act. However, incorporating proactive conservation measures may help preclude the need to
list this species in the future. Like most freshwater mussels, this species is a sessile benthic
filter-feeder that is highly sensitive to aquatic habitat modifications. Eutrophication- and
sedimentation-mediated impacts are likely among this species’ greatest threats. Agricultural
runoff may transport toxins that impact both juveniles and adults. Attenuating these threats may
benefit this species.

The Service supports responsible and sustainable stream restoration activities and we offer the
following comments in the interest of protecting fish and wildlife resources:

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

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

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

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
(accelerating the erosion of banks and scour of the channel bed) nor aggrading (accelerating the
3

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
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.
4

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 4-2-18-120.

Sincerely,

- - original signed - -

Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor

5

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.