20161200 Ver 1_Mit_Plan_Draft_20190716

ID#* 20161200
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review
Completed Date
07/17/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal - 7/16/2019
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? *
Type of Mitigation Project:*
fJ Stream rJ Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Company/Owner:* NC DEQ DMS
Contact Name:*
Melonie Allen
Project Information
r Yes r No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: DRAFT Millstone Creek (Ken -Cox)
County: Randolph
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: Millstone _ Creek —Mit _ Plan_Draft_07122019.pdf 56MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Melonie Allen
Signature: *

Millstone Creek Mitigation Site
Randolph County, North Carolina
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
DMS Project Number: IMS # 204
Deep River Basin - 14-digit HUC 03030003020030
USACE Action ID:
DWR ID:
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environment Quality Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
DRAFT - April 15, 2019
Prepared by:
Jonathan L. Page, PE & Barbara A. Doll, PhD, PE
Biological & Agricultural Engineering Department, NC State University
Box 7625, Raleigh, NC 27695
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the
following documents, which govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery
of compensatory mitigation:
•Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal
Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section
§ 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
•NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and
dated July 28, 2010
Millstone Creek Site - Randolph County Mitigation Plan
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 4 
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 6 
1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 8 
2.WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION ............................................. 13 
2.1 River Basin and Watershed Planning Context .................................................... 13 
2.2 Stream Use Classification ................................................................................... 14 
3.BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................ 15 
3.1 Watershed Processes and Landscape Characteristics ....................................... 15 
3.1.1 Watershed and Site Geology ....................................................................... 15 
3.1.2 Watershed and Site Landuse ....................................................................... 19 
3.1.3 Site Soils ...................................................................................................... 21 
3.1.4 Site Vegetation ............................................................................................. 23 
4.2 Site Resources ................................................................................................... 26 
4.2.1 NT R1 and UTA R1 ....................................................................................... 26 
4.2.2 NT R2 and UT R2 ......................................................................................... 26 
4.2.3 UTB ............................................................................................................... 28 
4.2.4 Millstone Creek ............................................................................................. 31 
4.2.5 Wetland 1 ...................................................................................................... 33 
5. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 35 
5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................. 35 
5.2 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 37 
5.3 404/401 ................................................................................................................ 37 
6. FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL ......................................................................... 38 
6.1 Stream Functional Uplift Potential ........................................................................ 38 
6.1.1 Hydrology ...................................................................................................... 39 
6.1.2 Hydraulics ..................................................................................................... 39 
6.1.3 Geomorphology ............................................................................................. 40 
6.1.4 Physicochemical ........................................................................................... 40 
6.1.5 Biology .......................................................................................................... 40 
6.2 Constraints to Functional Uplift ............................................................................ 42 
7. MITIGATION SITE GOALS AND FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES ............................... 42 
8. DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN ........................................... 45 

2
8.1 Design Approach Summary ................................................................................. 45 
8.2 NT R1 and UTA R2 Basis for Design ................................................................... 46 
8.2.1 Design Channel Size and Discharge ............................................................. 47 
8.2.2 Reference Streams and Morphological Design Criteria ................................ 48 
8.3 NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB Basis for Design ......................................................... 49 
8.3.4 Implementation Plan ..................................................................................... 49 
8.4 Millstone Creek Basis for Design ......................................................................... 50 
8.4.1 Design Channel Size and Discharge ............................................................. 50 
8.4.2 Reference Streams ....................................................................................... 51 
8.4.3 Morphological Design Criteria ....................................................................... 53 
8.4.4 Sediment Transport ....................................................................................... 54 
8.4.5 Implementation Plan ..................................................................................... 56 
8.5 Wetland Basis for Design .................................................................................... 57 
8.5.1 Wetland 1 Design Approach .......................................................................... 57 
8.5.2 Implementation Plan ..................................................................................... 58 
8.6 Riparian Vegetation and Planting Plan ................................................................ 58 
8.7 Post-Construction Stabilization Plan .................................................................... 63 
8.8 Stream Crossings ................................................................................................ 63 
8.9 Project Risks and Uncertainties ........................................................................... 63 
10. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MITIGATION SUCCESS CRITERIA ........... 64 
10.1 Streams ............................................................................................................. 65 
10.1.1 Channel Dimension ..................................................................................... 65 
10.1.2 Longitudinal Profile and Planform Geometry ............................................... 65 
10.1.3 Channel Substrate ...................................................................................... 66 
10.1.4 Channel Hydrology ...................................................................................... 66 
10.1.5 Visual Assessments and Semi-annual Inspections ..................................... 66 
10.1.6 Photo Documentation .................................................................................. 67 
10.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 67 
10.3 Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 68 
10.4 Additional Monitoring ......................................................................................... 68 
10.4.1 Physicochemical ......................................................................................... 68 
10.4.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat Assessment ................................. 69 
11. SITE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN .................................................. 69 
11.1 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................. 69 

3
11.2 Site Maintenance Plan ....................................................................................... 75 
11.3 Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................... 75 
11.4 Long-Term Management Plan ........................................................................... 76 
12. DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................................ 77 
13. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 78 
14. APPENDICIES .................................................................................................... 81 
14.1 Appendix A – Detailed Functional Uplift Study with SQT .............................. 81 
14.1.1 Hydrology .................................................................................................... 81 
14.1.2 Hydraulics ................................................................................................... 82 
14.1.3 Channel Geomorphology ............................................................................ 83 
14.1.4 Physicochemical ......................................................................................... 85 
14.1.5 Biology ........................................................................................................ 93 
Fish Assessment ....................................................................................................... 97 
14.2 Appendix B – Field Morphology Data ................................................................ 99 
14.3 Appendix C – Detailed Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Analysis ................. 125 
14.4 Appendix D – Additional Maps and Figures ..................................................... 133 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Site Mitigation Summary .................................................................................... 9
Table 2: Watershed Temporal Landuse Summary by Site Resource ........................... 20
Table 3: Site Existing Stream Summary ........................................................................ 27
Table 4: Regulatory Considerations for Millstone Creek Mitigation Site ........................ 35
Table 5: Federally Endangered Species Listed for Randolph County, NC .................... 36
Table 6: Federal Species of Concern Listed for Randolph County, NC ........................ 36
Table 7: Estimated Impacts to Site Wetlands ................................................................ 38
Table 8: Millstone Creek Stream Functional Uplift Summary ........................................ 39
Table 9: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives ...................................... 44
Table 10: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Restoration Approach Summary ................... 46
Table 11: NT R1 and UTA R1 design summary ............................................................ 48
Table 12: Select Reference Streams from Zink et al. (2012) with proposed
Morphological Design Criteria ....................................................................................... 49
Table 13: Millstone Creek Reach 2 Channel Size and Discharge Analysis ................... 50
Table 14: Millstone Creek Reach 2 Reference Stream Summary ................................. 52
Table 15: Millstone Creek Morphological Design Criteria .............................................. 54
Table 16: Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Summary ................................................. 55
Table 17: Summary for Wetland Treatment Zones and Depths ..................................... 58
Table 18: Planting Plan Zones ...................................................................................... 61
Table 19: Summary of Performance Standards and Monitoring Metrics ....................... 70
Table 20: Millstone Creek Stream Mitigation Monitoring Plan ....................................... 72
Table 21: Millstone Creek Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Plan ...................................... 73
Table 22: General Site Maintenance Plan ..................................................................... 75
Table 23: Determination of Mitigation Credits ................................................................ 77
Table 24: Millstone Creek Site Resource Hydrology Functional Parameters ................. 81
Table 25: Millstone Creek Site Resource Hydraulic Functional Parameters .................. 82
Table 26: Select Millstone Creek Site Resource Geomorphology Functional Parameters
...................................................................................................................................... 84
Table 27: Millstone Creek Reachwide Streambank Erosion and Deposition Summary 84
Table 28: Summary Statistics for Stormflow WQ Samples in NT and UTA .................. 86
Table 29: Summary Statistics for Baseflow WQ Samples in NT and UTA .................... 87
Table 30: Total load of Nutrients for NT and UTA ......................................................... 88
Table 31: Summary of Physicochemical Functional Parameters .................................. 93
Table 32: Macroinvertebrate Assessment Summary ..................................................... 96
Table 33: Summary Biology Functional Parameters ...................................................... 99
Table 34: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for Millstone Creek. .............. 99
Table 35: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for the North Tributary .......... 99
Table 36: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for UT to Millstone Reach A
.................................................................................................................................... 100
Table 37: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for UTB .............................. 101
Table 38: NT R1 and NT R2 BEHI Assessment ......................................................... 121
Table 39: UTA R1 and UTA R2 BEHI Assessment ..................................................... 122
Table 40: UT Millstone Reach B BEHI Assessment .................................................... 123
Table 41: Millstone Creek BEHI Assessment ............................................................. 124
Table 42: Millstone Creek SSC Concentration and Sediment Load from TSS data and
the general USGS Equation ........................................................................................ 126
Table 43: ArcSWAT Model Summary for Sediment Load and TSS concentration for
Simulation Period from 1990 to 2006 .......................................................................... 129
Table 44: Millstone Creek Sediment Loads Delivered to Modeled Cross-Sections ..... 132
Table 45: Millstone Creek Streambank Adjustment Summary ................................... 141
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map ............................................................................................. 10
Figure 2: Existing Site Resources ................................................................................. 11
Figure 3: Site Mitigation Summary................................................................................. 12
Figure 4: Granite Rock Outcroppings Just Outside the Conservation Easement for
Millstone Creek Project Site .......................................................................................... 16
Figure 5: Bimodal streambed of angular granite and sand (photo from approximately
two miles upstream of Site) ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Boulder outcropping with large log creates bedform and flow diversity. Photo
taken in Millstone Creek upstream of the easement boundary. ..................................... 17
Figure 7: Stream and Geologic Features of Millstone Creek Mitigation Site. ................. 18
Figure 8: Millstone Creek Site Soils ............................................................................... 22
Figure 9: Millstone Creek Site Existing Vegetation ........................................................ 25
Figure 10: North Tributary at station 0+87 looking downstream (left). Note the steep,
eroded and sparsely vegetated streambanks. ............................................................... 26
Figure 11: NT R2 (left) and UTA R2 (right) .................................................................... 28
Figure 12: UTB looking upstream (left) and downstream at STA 8 + 60 FT .................. 30
Figure 13: Millstone Creek at STA 15 + 50 FT (left) and STA 19 + 10 FT (right) ........... 32
Figure 14: Wetland 1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... 34
Figure 15: Step-pool systems with underlying sand layer in Anne Arundel County, MD
(left) and Durham, NC (right) ......................................................................................... 47
Figure 16: Terrible Creek Reference Reach .................................................................. 51
Figure 17: Sandy Creek Reference Reach .................................................................... 52
Figure 18: Riparian Vegetation and Planting Plan ......................................................... 60
Figure 19: Millstone Creek Site Monitoring Plan ............................................................ 74
Figure 20: NOx-N Concentrations pre-fencing (left) and post-fencing (right) for UT
Reach A (UT) and North Tributary (N) ........................................................................... 88
Figure 21: Total Nutrient Loads From Baseflow and Stormflow for UT to Millstone
Reach A and North Tributary ......................................................................................... 89
Figure 22: In-situ probe conductivity measurements at NT and UTA. .......................... 90
Figure 23: Fecal coliform in grab samples at Millstone (UT-base, N-base, and Mill-dn)
and Jordan Lake (JL-pre and JL-post). .......................................................................... 91
Figure 24: TKN, NOx-N, NH3-N, and TP (left) and TSS (right) concentrations at Mill-dn.
...................................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 25: Total taxa richness for Millstone Creek tributaries ....................................... 95
Figure 26: EPT taxa richness for Millstone Creek tributaries ........................................ 95
Figure 27: EPT abundance for Millstone Creek tributaries ........................................... 95
Figure 28: North Tributary Existing Longitudinal Profile .............................................. 102
Figure 29: North Tributary XS1 STA. 0 + 87 FT ......................................................... 102
Figure 30: North Tributary Station 0+87 looking upstream ......................................... 103
Figure 31: North Tributary XS1 STA. 1 + 86 FT ......................................................... 103
Figure 32: North Tributary Station 1+86 looking downstream ..................................... 104
Figure 33: North Tributary XS1 STA. 3 + 16 FT ......................................................... 104
Figure 34: North Tributary station 3+16 looking upstream .......................................... 105
Figure 35: UTA Longitudinal Profile ............................................................................ 106
Figure 36: UTA XS1 STA. 0 + 64 FT ........................................................................... 107
Figure 37: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 0+64 Looking Upstream ................................. 107
Figure 38: UTA XS2 STA. 2 + 49 FT .......................................................................... 108
Figure 39: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 2+49 Looking Downstream ............................ 108
Figure 40: UTA XS3 STA. 3+95 FT ............................................................................ 109
Figure 41: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 3+95 Looking Downstream ............................ 109
Figure 42: UTA XS4 STA. 5+30 FT ............................................................................ 110
Figure 43: UT Millstone Reach A STA 5+30 Looking Upstream .................................. 110
Figure 44: UTB Existing Longitudinal Profile .............................................................. 111
Figure 45: UTB STA. 6 + 76 FT .................................................................................. 112
Figure 46: UTB STA. 6+76 looking downstream ......................................................... 112
Figure 47: UTB STA. 8 + 62 FT .................................................................................. 113
Figure 48: UTB STA. 10 + 98 FT ................................................................................ 114
Figure 49: Millstone Creek Existing Longitudinal Profile Summary ........................... 114
Figure 50: MC XS1 STA. 1 + 75 FT ............................................................................ 115
Figure 51: MS XS1 STA. 1+75 Looking Downstream .................................................. 115
Figure 52: MC XS2 STA. 3 + 91 FT ............................................................................ 116
Figure 53: MC XS2 STA. 3 + 91 FT Looking Upstream .............................................. 116
Figure 54: MC XS3 STA. 8 + 37 FT ............................................................................ 117
Figure 55: MC XS3 STA. 8 + 37 FT Looking Upstream. .............................................. 117
Figure 56: MC XS4 STA. 13 + 33 FT .......................................................................... 118
Figure 57: MC XS4 STA. 13 + 33 FT Looking Upstream ............................................ 118
Figure 58: MC XS4 STA. 17 + 37 FT .......................................................................... 119
Figure 59: MC XS4 STA. 17 + 37 FT .......................................................................... 119
Figure 60: MC XS6 STA. 19 + 84 FT .......................................................................... 120
Figure 61: MC XS6 STA. 19 + 84 FT Looking Upstream ............................................. 120
Figure 62: BEHI assessment locations STA. 0+15, STA. 0+30, STA. 0+52 and 1+95
.................................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 63: BEHI Assessment Locations (From Left to Right) STA. 0+25, STA. 1+89
Right Bank and STA. 1+89 Left Bank. ......................................................................... 122
Figure 64: HEC-RAS Model of the Existing Millstone Creek Project Reach ............... 130
Figure 65: Streambed Elevations from Quasi-unsteady HEC-RAS Model of the Existing
Millstone Creek Project Reach .................................................................................... 131
Figure 66: Millstone Creek Watershed Slopes ............................................................ 133
Figure 67: Millstone Creek Watershed Landuse .......................................................... 134
Figure 68: Millstone Creek Drainage Area ................................................................... 135
Figure 69: Millstone Creek Site Tributary DA’s and Topography ................................. 136
Figure 70: Millstone Creek Site Streambank Condition Summary ............................... 137
Figure 71: Morphology Survey Cross-Section and Soil Boring Locations ................... 138
Figure 72: Millstone Creek Substrate Sampling Locations (Upstream) ....................... 139
Figure 73: Millstone Creek Substrate Sampling Locations (Downstream) ................... 140
Figure 74: Millstone Creek Channel Adjustment Summary ........................................ 143
Figure 75: Millstone Creek 2007 – 2010 Deposition and Erosion ............................... 144
Figure 76: Millstone Creek 2010 – 2014 Deposition and Erosion ............................... 145
Figure 77: Millstone Creek 2014 – 2016 Deposition and Erosion ............................... 146
1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The proposed Millstone Creek Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the Deep River
sub-basin of the Cape Fear River Basin in Randolph County, North Carolina (HUC:
03030003020030, N35°41'48.06" W79°37'26.24"). The Site is located approximately 3
miles southeast of the Town of Ramseur off Highway 22 (Figure 1). The existing
conservation easement extends across two parcels: one owned by Joe Dean Cox and
Billie Jo Cox, and the other is owned by Victor Craig Staley and Anthony Todd Stout. See
Appendix E for the Site location and conservation easement delineation. The site and
contributing rural watersheds are located within the Carolina Slate Belt (EPA Ecoregion
45c) with rolling hills typical of the NC Piedmont.
Land adjacent to the Site and within the established conservation easement has
been heavily impacted by cattle grazing and the land application of swine waste for 20+
years. This agricultural production practice has led to severe water quality and aquatic
habitat impairment, streambank trampling and degradation of the riparian and wetland
vegetation on all of the site’s mitigation assets. There are four (4) streams and one (1)
wetland feature located within the existing easement (Figure 2). Site streams are divided
into seven (7) reaches: NT R1 (303 LF), NT R2 (103 LF), UTA R1 (505 LF), UTA R2 (100
LF), UTB (605 LF), Millstone Creek R1 (1,462 LF) and Millstone Creek R2 (553 LF). The
total existing stream length onsite is 3,631 LF. The tributaries (NT, UTA and UTB) have
all been heavily impacted by grazing, livestock trampling and land applications of
swine wastes. UTB terminates at a jurisdictional wetland feature (1.159 AC) that
formed through sediment deposition behind a remnant sawmill impoundment. Seepage
along the terrace toe of slope is likely contributing additional hydrologic input. A ditch
drains the wetland area and flows offsite and eventually into Millstone Creek
approximately 400 feet south of the easement boundary. Millstone Creek is a large sand
bed system with high sediment supply, lack of sediment storage on point bars and low
benches, bank erosion and lateral migration and lack of native woody riparian
vegetation.
Mitigation activities within the Site are designed to address specific stressors to
water quality and aquatic habitats. On reaches NT R1 and UTA R1, riffle-step-
pool systems with an underlying sand layer have been proposed to provide
processing and treatment of extremely high nutrient concentrations and loads.
Enhancement I activities on reaches NT R2 and UTA R2 include minor bank grading
and bedform diversity with enhanced native riffles and log steps. Enhanced riffles
and log steps will be placed within the UTB channel for grade control, increased bed
elevation and to target a more appropriate pool- to-pool spacing ratio. Two small pieces
of Wetland 1 will be enhanced through invasive species control and the replanting of
native wetland species. Much of Wetland 1 will be re-established through removal the
existing ditch and berm, moderate excavation and grading. Bank grading, wood
structures and brush toe protection will be implemented on Millstone Creek Reach
1. Reach 2 will be realigned with wood structures and habitat
features. The proposed mitigation work will result in the 3,647 stream mitigation units and
0.88 wetland mitigation units (Table 1, Figure 3).
Through a research partnership established in August 2014 between North
Carolina State University Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering (NCSU
BAE) and the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NC DMS), substantial effort
has been made to collect detailed hydrologic, water quality, macroinvertebrate, landscape
process, geomorphic and functional data at the proposed mitigation site. The field
measured dataset has been used to develop and guide the mitigation planning effort. The
proposed restoration approach for the Site is designed to optimize functional upl ift with
respect to existing conditions, site constraints, specific landscape processes, in -stream
fluvial processes and onsite constraints.
Table 1: Site Mitigation Summary
Site Resource Existing Proposed Level Ratio Credits
NT R1 303 LF 325 LF Restoration 1:1 325
NT R2 103 LF 103 LF Enhancement I 1:1 103
UTA R1 505 LF 523 LF Restoration 1:1 523
UTA R2 100 LF 100 LF Enhancement I 1:1 100
UTB 605 LF 596 LF Enhancement* 1:1 596
Millstone
Creek R1 1,462 LF 1,462 LF Enhancement I 1:1 1,462
Millstone
Creek R2 553 LF 538 LF Restoration 1:1 538
Wetland 1.159 ac
1.159 AC Rehabilitation 2:1 0.580
0.601 AC Reestablishment 1:1 0.601
Total Stream Credits = 3,647
Total Wetland Credits = 1.185
* Ut B subject to 1.5:1 ratio, this has been increased to 1:1 to yield 199 additional credits (5.5%)
to offset cost of supplemental monitoring associated with regenerative stormwater conveyance
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
9
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Existing Site Resources
Figure 3: Site Mitigation Summary
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
2.WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
2.1 River Basin and Watershed Planning Context
Millstone Creek (HUC 03030003) is 7.22 miles long and flows into the Deep River,
which is a tributary to the Cape Fear River. The proposed Millstone Creek Mitigation Site
is located 1.39 miles above the confluence of Millstone Creek and the Deep River. Neither
Millstone Creek nor the sub-basin of the Deep River (HUC 03030003020030) that it lies
within are included in DMS’s Compensation Planning Framework (CPF). Further, there is
no site specific benthic or water quality monitoring data available for Millstone Creek from
the NC Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or the Upper Cape Fear River Basin
Association (UCFRBA). In addition, there is no specific mention of Millstone Creek in any
watershed plans available from neither the NC DEQ, NC DMS nor the Piedmont Triad
Regional Council (PTRC). PTRC is a voluntary association of municipal and county
governments enabled by state law to promote regional issues and cooperation among
members. The PTRC serves local governments in 12 counties including Randolph and
conducts watershed planning as part of its water resources efforts.
(NC-DEQ, 2005) Cape Fear River Basin-Wide Plan noted that the Deep River from
Haskett Creek to Brush Creek (20.9 miles) is supporting of aquatic life because of a
“good” benthic community qualitative rating just D/S of the Town of Ramseur. The location
of this “good” benthic macroinvertebrate rating is approximately 5 miles U/S of the Deep
River’s confluence with Millstone creek. However, turbidity was noted as exceeding water
quality standards on several occasions at the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
(UCFRBA) ambient monitoring station B5100000, which is located a short distance of
approximately 0.4 miles downstream of the Millstone Creek confluence with the Deep
River. Ambient monitoring data for this station from 2008 to 2012 reported 8 occurrences
of exceeding the fecal coliform standard (200/400) and 4 for exceeding the turbidity
standard (50 NTU) (n=60 samples). The station reported no exceedance for
Nitrate/Nitrite, TKN, TN, TP, DO, TSS, Temp, pH, or specific conductance. Similarly, the
upstream ambient monitoring station on the Deep River in Ramseur (B5070000),
approximately 5 miles upstream of the Millstone Creek confluence, reported 3
exceedances for Turbidity and 8 for fecal coliform during the same four year monitoring
period (NCDEQ, 2014).
This reach of the Deep River is not rated for recreational use because of the fecal
coliform bacteria screening criteria at these stations both U/S and D/S of the Millstone
Creek confluence. In contrast, the current 319 Watershed Restoration Plan Map lists the
18.2 mile reach from Gabriel’s Creek to Brush Creek as impaired, which spans U/S and
D/S of the confluence (NCDEQ, 2015). However, this impairment is attributed to Copper
concentrations and Mercury in fish tissue. The reach is currently meeting the 50 NTU
criteria for turbidity and fecal coliform of 200 counts per 400 mL. The draft 2016 303(d)
list does not include this stretch of the river citing inconclusive data for Chlorophyll a (40
ug/l standard) and no mention of copper or mercury (NC DEQ, 2016). PTRC (2016) also
indicates that 20 miles of the Deep River are currently listed as impaired for biological
community either due to low dissolved oxygen levels and/or high chlorophyll-a levels,
both indicative of high nutrient inputs and eutrophication. This impairment is likely the
result of large contributions of nutrients from agricultural production practices in sub-
basin. Exacerbating the effects of these pollutants are several small dams - most are
poorly maintained and slow water flow. The stagnant river flows allow algal growth and
possible river eutrophication, which can lead to hypoxic water conditions and biological
die-off. PTRC (2016) speculates that the rare and endangered species endemic to the
Deep River may be driven from this river system under these conditions.
PTRC (2016) has outlined the need for an Asheboro Municipal Watershed
Restoration Plan and is currently seeking funds to produce a comprehensive watershed
restoration plan including a detailed watershed assessment, policy and program
recommendations to address water quality needs. Based on the NC DEQ Cape Fear
Basin plan assessment of the Deep River D/S of the Millstone Creek confluence
combined with the observations and priorities of the PTRC and TJCOG, reducing the
export of sediment, nutrients and pathogens to the Deep River should be a priority for the
watershed and its tributaries, which includes Millstone Creek. Given the presence of
cultivated and pasture lands in the watershed, the conclusion that Millstone Creek is
contributing substantial loading of sediment, nutrients and fecal pollution to affected
segment of the Deep River is reasonable. The mitigation plan for the Site should be
targeted at addressing these pollutant issues.
2.2 Stream Use Classification
Millstone Creek is the only perennial stream located within the project area (DWQ
Stream Index Number 17-19) with a designated stream use classification. DWQ classifies
Millstone Creek as “C”. The “C” classification indicates waters protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and
other uses suitable for Class C. There are no restrictions on watershed development or
types of discharges. A stream evaluation of Millstone Creek determined it to be a strong
perennial stream with a score of 32.5. The tributaries (NT, UTA, UTB) classified as at
least intermittent streams with scores of 26 or greater. Therefore, surface waters within
the embankments of Millstone Creek and its tributaries are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the U.S. (33 CFR
Section 328.3).
3. BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Watershed Processes and Landscape Characteristics
3.1.1 Watershed and Site Geology
The Site and contributing watersheds are located within the Carolina Slate Belt.
The Carolina Slate Belt consists mostly of rocks originally deposited on or near the earth’s
surface by volcanic eruption and sedimentation (North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985).
The major rocks of the slate belt are volcanic argillites, basic and acid tuffs, breccias and
flows (Daniels et al., 1999). Volcanic igneous rocks rise above the surrounding slates as
high rolling hills and small mountains. The interfluves are irregular, and sharp topographic
breaks like knolls and saddles are common. The valley sides are relatively short. Thick
soils tend to occur on the smoother parts of the Slate Belt and thin soils occur on the
broken or sharply irregular landscapes. Alluvial fills in the small streams draining the
Slate Belt are narrow, shallow to hard rock, and contain an abundance of slate fragments.
The small first and second order streams or drainage ways tend to be short and stubby
with high angle junctions. Alignment of tributaries across the main stream is common and
may be related to the underlying rock structures. Right angle turns are also common in
the main channels (Daniels, Buol, Kleiss, & Ditzler, 1999). Most of the non-eroded or
moderately eroded soils have silt loam surfaces and over 30 percent silt with fine sand in
the B horizon. Soils formed in the Carolina Slate Belt have relatively high silt contents and
overlie relatively thin saprolite compared to soils formed in the felsic crystalline areas.
Soils in the Slate system have more slowly permeable B horizons and saprolite than their
felsic crystalline counterparts.
The Slate Belt is cut in several places by coarse-grained intrusive rocks, generally
termed granites, which are relatively un-deformed due to intrusion following the
metamorphism that affected the sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Millstone Creek and
nearly the entire contributing watershed are located in a sub-region characterized by
primarily intrusive rocks and metamorphosed granite rock. Intrusive granite material has
been observed as outcroppings within and adjacent to the existing site easement as well
as in the U/S reaches of Millstone Creek (Figure 4). The substrate of the reach of Millstone
Creek that is within the proposed mitigation site is dominated by sand, however in the
upstream reaches cleaved rock and rounded granite boulders are common. The cleaved
rock and the erodible silty sand of the region combine to produce a bimodal bed in these
U/S reaches (Figure 5). Millstone Creek also contains periodic granite rock clusters and
outcroppings, which provide an important source of flow and bedform diversity (Figure 6).
Outcroppings are common in the creek, the floodplain and in the pasture area adjacent
to the easement as well.
Figure 4: Granite Rock Outcroppings Just Outside the Conservation Easement for
Millstone Creek Project Site
Figure 5: Bimodal streambed of angular granite and sand (photo from approximately
two miles upstream of Site)
Figure 6: Boulder outcropping with large log creates bedform and flow diversity. Photo
taken in Millstone Creek upstream of the easement boundary.
Slopes within the watershed range from approximately 15% to 20% along some of
the interior ridges to approximately 2% to 4% along the watershed boundary and near the
streams. The highest elevations in the watershed are greater than 730 ft above mean sea
level in the southern portion of the drainage area, and the lowest elevations are at the
most downstream area of the project at approximate elevation 425 ft. The topographic
relief within in the Millstone Creek watershed is approximately 305 ft. Topography within
the site easement varies widely. With the Site boundaries, the valleys of NT and UTA are
relatively steep longitudinally with gentle hillside slopes connecting to the terrace. UTB
and Millstone Creek have flatter valleys with steep hillside slopes connecting to the
terrace. Elevations within the site range from 480 ft above UTA down to 424 ft at the D/S
end of Millstone Creek.
Figure 7: Stream and Geologic Features of Millstone Creek Mitigation Site.
3.1.2 Watershed and Site Landuse
For the last 25+ years, landuse characteristics in the NT, UTA and UTB
watersheds have been relatively constant with the majority of land being managed as
pasture or hay production and the remainder in forest cover (Table 2). Swine wastes have
also been land applied to the pastures in the vicinity of the tributaries. By 2001, much of
the remaining forest cover was removed and the tributary watersheds on Site were almost
entirely managed as pasture or hay production. This landuse change is supported by
aerial photos from 1993 that shows forest cover in the valleys and riparian zone of the
proposed mitigation site. The 2014 aerial shows that most of the forested area in the
valleys and along the streams was removed for hay production and grazing.
Landuse changes in the Millstone Creek watershed have been relatively dramatic
since 1992. There has been a consistent trend in the conversion of forest to pasture and
hay production going from 62% forest in 1992 to 35% forest in 2011 with the majority of
the landuse change occurring between 1992 and 2001. Disturbances like changes in land
cover may lead to changes in flow regime and sediment supply boundary conditions,
which can cause channel incision, down cutting and subsequent widening. There are no
major metropolitan areas, rapidly expanding municipalities or NC DOT planned highway
construction projects in the Millstone Creek watershed. The watershed is very rural with
just 4% developed and less than 1% impervious cover. Urbanization and impervious
cover is not expected to be a factor of future landuse changes. The Millstone Creek
watershed is more likely to experience the continued trend of the conversion of forest
cover to pasture and hay production potentially impacting future stream flow and sediment
supply regimes. The watersheds of the tributaries are nearly entirely in pasture and simply
establishing riparian vegetation within the existing easement will lead to a substantial
increase in forested cover likely similar to the 1992/3 conditions.
Table 2: Watershed Temporal Landuse Summary by Site Resource
North Tributary – 26 Acres (0.04 mi2)
Landuse1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 10% - - -
Grasslands - - - -
Shrub / Scrub - - - -
Pasture 90% 99% 99% 99%
Developed - <1% <1% <1%
Impervious - <1% <1% <1%
Other - - - -
UT Reach A – 26 Acres (0.04 mi2)
Landuse1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 18% - - -
Grasslands - - - -
Shrub / Scrub - - - -
Pasture 82% 95% 95% 95%
Developed - 5% 5% 5%
Impervious - <1% <1% <1%
Other - - - -
UT Reach B – 53 Acres (0.1 mi2)
Landuse1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 25% - - -
Grasslands - - - -
Shrub / Scrub - - - -
Pasture 75% 98% 98% 98%
Developed - 2% 2% 2%
Impervious - <1% <1% <1%
Other - - - -
Millstone Creek – 8.3 mi2
Landuse1 19922 2001 20062 2011
Forest 62% 39% 37% 35%
Grasslands - 5% 6% 7%
Shrub / Scrub - 4% 4% 5%
Pasture 37% 48% 49% 48%
Developed <1% 4% 4% 4%
Impervious <1% <1% <1% <1%
Other - <1% <1% <1%
1Landuse data and category obtained from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD)
2 For 1992 and 2006, NLCD reports Pasture and Hay Production as “Planted Area”
3.1.3 Site Soils
Soils at the proposed Millstone Creek Mitigation Site are generally described as
loams on moderately steep to steep slopes. The dominant soil type within the easement
is MaC or “Mecklenburg Loam” on 8 to 15% slopes. MaC soils tend to form in long narrow
swaths and along ridges and hillslopes (USDA NRCS, 1995). Mecklenburg Loams are
highly erodible on slopes with limited fertility properties unless supplemented with
fertilization inputs. This soil type characteristic of soils across the Slate Belt with relatively
high silt contents that overlie relatively thin saprolite layers. The 8% to 15% slope
designation is indicative of the valley configuration within the site where the valley walls
slope quickly and steeply from a terrace to the valley floor. RvA or “Riverview Sandy
Loam” on 0% to 2% slopes and described as “frequently flooded” is also present within
the easement in the vicinity of the D/S reach of UTB and Wetland 1. RvA soil type extends
west and north beyond the existing earthen berm towards Millstone Creek. Other soil
types located within the site are CcB (“Cecil Sandy Loam”, 2% to 8% slopes), MaD
(“Mecklenburg Loam”, 15% to 25% slopes), and MeB2 (“Mecklenburg Clay Loam”, 2% to
8% slopes), however these soils are outside the extents of the proposed restoration effort.
The soil type distribution within the easement boundary is shown in Figure 8..
Figure 8: Millstone Creek Site Soils
3.1.4 Site Vegetation
Plant community classifications were originally conducted by the Catena Group in
2007. The Catena Group delineated and described three vegetation community types
within the easement boundary based on the Schafale and Weakley classification for the
site (Schafale & Weakley, 1990). The three types are described below and their range is
shown on Figure 9 9.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Remnants of this community are located along the banks of Millstone Creek. This
area transitions into a Pasture/Disturbed community throughout the remainder of the Cox
property. The canopy along Millstone Creek is fragmented and mainly consists of yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), box elder (Acer negundo), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), red elm (Ulmus rubra), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Sub-
canopy and shrub species observed include black willow (Salix nigra), box elder,
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and the invasive
exotics, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The
herbaceous layer includes poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbriar (Smilax spp.),
violets (Viola spp.), southern crownbeard (Verbesina occidentalis), poor man’s pepper
(Lepidium virginicum), (Bermuda grass (Cynodon sp.), and the invasive Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Piedmont Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community is confined to a narrow buffer along NT and UTA. These
tributaries converge at UTB and then transition into Wetland 1 and are encompassed by
the Pasture/Disturbed community. The canopy along NT and UTA consists of yellow
poplar, sweet gum, hackberry, red elm, sycamore, red maple, green ash, American
beech, (Fagus grandifolia), cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata), and mockernut hickory
(Carya alba). Sub-canopy and shrub species black willow, elderberry, American holly
(Ilex opaca), ironwood, and the invasive exotics, multiflora rose and Chinese privet. The
herbaceous layer includes poison ivy, greenbriar (Smilax spp.), violets (Viola spp.),
polkweed (Phytolacca americana), southern crownbeard, Bermuda grass, and the
invasive Japanese honeysuckle.
Pasture/Disturbed Community
Land adjacent to and within the Site is used for animal production, primarily cattle
and hogs. As a result, pasture and disturbed conditions dominate the property mostly due
to heavy cattle grazing. This plant community is dominated by Bermuda grass, fescue
(Festuca spp.), poor man’s pepper, sow thistle (Sonchus sp.), and weedy dogfennel
(Chamaemelum mixtum). There is scattering of tree species such as loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), sweet gum, box elder, green ash, and Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) in
these open areas. Shrub and herbaceous species such as multiflora rose, blackberry
(Rubus spp.), and the invasive exotic Chinese privet are present and often common along
community ecotones.
Figure 9: Millstone Creek Site Existing Vegetation
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
26
4.2 Site Resources
4.2.1 NT R1 and UTA R1
NT R1 (303 LF) and UTA R1 (505 LF) are small headwater tributaries that lie within
confined valleys with small drainage areas managed nearly 100% as pasture (Table 3,
Figure 10). NT R1 and UTA R1 are perennial channels, however the flow regime has
likely been impacted by downcutting and intersection of the groundwater table. These
systems would likely be intermittent systems in the absence of channel degradation in a
post-restoration scenario. Headcutting that migrated up valley has resulted in an incised
system and the export of approximately 2,500 tons of sediment from each reach
(determined by surface comparison in AutoCAD C3D). The exported sediment was
deposited in what is now Wetland 1 below UTB. The disturbance that triggered channel
degradation may include conversion of forested area to pasture, encroachment and
removal of the riparian vegetation that resulted in a change in sediment supply, sediment
size, flow regime or bank vegetation boundary conditions. Cattle access and bank
trampling has also contributed to degradation of the channel.
Figure 10: North Tributary at station 0+87 looking downstream (left). Note the steep,
eroded and sparsely vegetated streambanks.
4.2.2 NT R2 and UT R2
NT R2 and UTA R2 are both relatively short perennial streams in confined valleys
located below NT R1 and UTA R1 (Table 3, Figure 11). The disturbance that triggered
channel degradation may include conversion of forested area to pasture, encroachment
and removal of the riparian vegetation or change in sediment supply, sediment size, flow
regime or vegetation boundary conditions. NT R2 is a B5 stream type (Rosgen, 1994).
Entrenchment varies from entrenched to moderately entrenched (ER = 1.4 to 2.0). The
existing channel is straight with a relatively steep channel slope of 0.0386 ft/ft, low width-
to-depth ratio (median = 10.2) and a D50 particle size of fine sand (0.4 mm). UTA R2 is an
F5 stream type with low sinuosity (1.07) and low entrenchment ratio (1.1) (Rosgen, 1994).
The D50 for NT R1 and UTA R1 is sand, however both reaches also contain some coarse
riffle material and the streambed is dominated by riffle/run with little habitat heterogeneity.
From the existing longitudinal profile (see Appendices), it is clear that these reaches lack
pools and other bedform feature diversity.
Table 3: Site Existing Stream Summary
Parameter
Site Resource
NT (R1 / R2) UTA (R1 / R2) UTB Millstone Creek
Drainage Area 0.04 mi2 0.04 mi2 0.1 mi2 8.3 mi2
Stream Order 1st 1st 2nd 4th
Flow Regime Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial
Existing Length 303 LF / 103 LF 505 LF / 100 LF 605 LF 2,015 LF
Stream Type G5 / B5 G5 / F5 G5 / E5 E5 / C5
QBKF (ft3/s) 8.7 6.7 9.7 171 - 295
ABKF (ft2) 2.3 14.6 2.1 – 3.7 75.3 – 123.6
WBKF (ft) 4.9 14.5 4.4 – 5.6 28.9 – 46.6
DBKF (ft) 0.5 1.0 0.5 – 0.7 2.6 – 3.4
W/D 10.2 14.3 6.6 – 9.3 9.0 – 17.6
BHR 1.5 2.0 1.0 – 2.3 1.1 – 1.2
ER 2.0 1.1 1.8 – 20 7.1 – 12.3
K 1.05 1.02 1.08 1.09
Valley
Confinement Confined Confined Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined
Valley Type Colluvial Colluvial Alluvial Alluvial
Valley Slope 0.0405 ft/ft 0.0265 ft/ft 0.0163 ft/ft 0.0023 ft/ft
Channel Slope 0.0370 ft/ft 0.0270 ft/ft 0.0144 ft/ft 0.0021 ft/ft
D16 (mm) <0.062 <0.062 0.4 0.3
D50 (mm) 1 0.5 0.5 0.6
D84 (mm) 38 23 9 1.6
D100 (mm) 256 512 256 5.7
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
27

Figure 11: NT R2 (left) and UTA R2 (right)
A small channel with depositional benches and good herbaceous grass cover has
formed in NT R2. A cross-section was measured at NT R2 STA. 3 +16 FT. This cross-
section was assumed to represent the bankfull dimensions and stage for this channel and
the depth to water surface from the bankfull feature was transposed to other cross-
sections upstream to measure channel dimensions and the degree of degradation. The
bankfull dimensions at NT R2 STA. 3 +16 FT were ABKF = 2.3 ft2, WBKF = 4.9 ft, DBKF = 0.5 ft
and DMAX = 0.6 ft. Estimated QBKF is 8.7 cfs using Manning’s equation with a roughness
value of 0.035. Published regional curves for North Carolina do not include gauged sites
below 0.1 mi2, however extrapolating below the curves using the regression equations
(ABKF = 21.99*DA0.67 and QBKF = 91.62*DA0.71) for a 0.04 mi2 drainage area, ABKF and QBKF
are expected to be 2.5 ft2 and 9.3 cfs, respectively. While it is not always appropriate to
extrapolate the regional linear relationships beyond measured values, in this instance
predicted values from the regional curves support field measurements. A representative
bankfull cross-section was measured just above UTA R2. This cross-section was
determined to represent the bankfull dimensions and stage for this channel and the depth
to water surface from the bankfull feature was transposed to other cross-sections
upstream and downstream to measure channel dimensions and the degree of
degradation. The bankfull dimensions at UTA R1 STA. 3+95 FT were ABKF = 2.0 ft2, W BKF
= 7.9 ft, DBKF = 0.3 ft and DMAX = 1.2 ft. Estimated QBKF is 6.7 cfs using Manning’s equation
with a roughness value of 0.035. Per the NC Regional Curves, ABKF and QBKF are
expected to be 2.5 ft2 and 9.3 cfs, respectively.
4.2.3 UTB
UTB is a 2nd order perennial system that begins below the confluence of NT R2
and UTA R2 in the vicinity of a former impoundment for cattle watering (Table 3, Figure
12). The drainage area is 56 ac and managed mostly as pasture. The valley is alluvial
and moderately confined relative to channel width and meander belt width with a valley

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
29
slope of 0.0169 ft/ft. The existing channel water surface slope is 0.0161 ft/ft. The valley
floor rises steeply to a high terrace at the edge of the existing pasture. UTB is moderately
incised through the upstream and middle reaches and has been impacted by historical
channelization along the southern hillslope toe, livestock trampling, heavy cattle grazing
of riparian vegetation and impoundments at the upstream and downstream extents. UTB
is nearly a plane bed system characterized by mostly riffle – run features, two log steps
and no defined pools. The channel has limited floodplain connection due to moderate
degradation.
UTB terminates at a jurisdictional wetland feature (Wetland 1) that formed through
sediment deposition behind a remnant sawmill impoundment. Bank height ratios are 1.4
to 2.3 in much of the reach. At the downstream end where the stream flows into Wetland
1, the longitudinal slope decreases and the bankfull stage appears to be at top of bank
(BHR=1). The stream is a G5 / E5 stream type (Rosgen, 1994). Most of the reach is
moderately entrenched (ER = 1.4 to 1.8), has low sinuosity (1.19) and low width-to-depth
ratio (6.6 to 9.3). The lower end of the stream is not incised and has more available
floodplain area (ER=20), however the hydraulics and flow regime may be influenced by
Wetland 1. Detailed Plots and photos of cross-sections are shown in included in the
Appendices. The streambed contained a wide range of particle sizes from fine silts and
clays (<0.062 mm) to cobbles 180 - 256 mm in size. The high proportion of silt/clay and
sand in the bed is due to the disturbance from cattle and extensive bank erosion within
UTB and in the reaches above (NT R1, R2 and UTA R1, R2). A bimodal distribution of
particles was also observed, which is typical of streams and rivers experiencing bank
erosion and incision. The median partible size (D50) is sand in the 0.5 mm size range,
however this is heavily influenced by the bank erosion and bank trampling. A second peak
in the distribution is visible for small gravels 5.7 – 8 mm in size.
Figure 12: UTB looking upstream (left) and downstream at STA 8 + 60 FT
No clear bankfull indicators can be found in the upper reach of UTB due to the
active incision, erosion and cattle trampling that has occurred in the reach. However, near
the downstream end of UTB bank heights have decreased and bankfull features are
visible. In this lower section, the channel is small, has stable banks and good herbaceous
grass and wetland vegetation cover. However, this lower reach is impacted by the former
impoundment and Wetland 1 just downstream. At STA 10+95 FT, the left top of bank may
represent the bankfull stage. This cross-section was assumed to represent the bankfull
dimensions and stage for this channel and the depth to water surface from the bankfull
feature was transposed to other cross-sections upstream and downstream to measure
channel dimensions and the degree of degradation. The bankfull dimensions at UTB STA.
10+98 FT were ABKF = 2.1 ft2, WBKF = 4.4 ft, DBKF = 0.5 ft and DMAX = 0.9 ft. Estimated
QBKF is 5.7 cfs using Manning’s equation with a roughness value of 0.035. Published
regional curves for North Carolina do not include gauged sites below 0.1 mi2, however
extrapolating below the curves slightly using the regression equations (ABKF =
21.99*DA0.67 and QBKF = 91.62*DA0.71) for a 0.1 mi2 drainage area, ABKF and QBKF are
expected to be 4.7 ft2 and 17.8 cfs, respectively. These values are somewhat greater than
the field measured geometry and discharge, and may be explained by the hydrologic
regime and landscape position. Continuously measured discharge on NT R2 and UTA
R2 just above the confluence with UTB has suggested the surface runoff volumes and

rates are half of what is typically expected for similarly sized watersheds. This would
subsequently impact bankfull channel geometry. The jurisdictional wetland is also located
just downstream of the measured cross-section at STA. 10+98 FT, which may also be
impacting hydraulics and flow regime at this cross-section.
4.2.4 Millstone Creek
Millstone Creek is a 4th order sand bed system with a relatively large watershed
(DA = 8.3 mi2), low sinuosity and low channel water surface slope (0.0020 ft/ft) (Table 3,
Figures 13). The valley is flat (0.0023 ft/ft) and confined within the easement boundaries.
The hillside slopes steeply down from terraces on the east and west sides of the valley.
Channel bedform is dominated by riffle, ripple, dune and run features with a few pools at
meander bends and around large woody debris (LWD). There are a few point bars and
depositional benches in the in the stream, however, they are providing limited storage for
heavy sediment loads that are being transported to the reach. Rather, sediment is
accumulating across the streambed, marginalizing aquatic habitat and forming mid
channel and transverse bars. The banks have been impacted by cattle access and
removal of native riparian vegetation, which has caused mild to severe bank erosion and
lateral migration of several meander bends. The context of the Simon and Hupp’s (1986)
channel evolution model, Millstone Creek has experienced relatively recent (on geologic
time scales) disturbance, degradation and is now is continuing into the degradation and
widening phase (Stage IV). The disturbance that triggered channel degradation may
include conversion of forested area to pasture and hay production, encroachment and
removal of the riparian vegetation or change in sediment supply, sediment size and flow
regime boundary conditions. The project reach of Millstone Creek terminates at the
southernmost easement boundary.
The stream has incised slightly with bank height ratios of 1.1 to 1.2 meaning the
stream has some access to the floodplain. The slight degree of incision is likely due to
floodplain aggradation and deposition rather than downcutting of the channel bed. The
existing project reach is an E5/C5 stream type (Rosgen, 1994). The stream is not
entrenched (ER = 7.1 to 12.3), has moderate width-to-depth ratio (median = 11).The
reach also has a low sinuosity (1.09), which is not indicative of a typical E or C stream
type. However, two meander bends (STA 15+00 FT to STA 18+00 FT) with tight radii of
curvature are contributing to bank erosion and lateral adjustment. Bulk samples were
collected in the field to characterize the bed material rather than conducting a reach-wide
pebble count. The median particle size (D50) for Millstone Creek is 0.6 mm, which is
medium to coarse sand. Some fine to very fine gravels were also present in the bulk
samples. The depth of the substrate was measured to evaluate the deformability of the
bed. At all auger sample site locations, the substrate was a consistent texture (sand with
some fine gravels) until a restrictive clay layer was encountered or the total depth of the
auger was reached. Boulders and bedrock were not encountered during the sampling

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
31
effort. The depth of the substrate ranged from 0.9 ft to 2.0 ft before the restrictive clay
layer was reached for most sample sites. At several substrate depth locations, a
restrictive layer was not encountered (> 4 ft). Substrate depth measurements were used
as inputs for the hydraulic and sediment transport modeling and to inform the restoration
design approach.
Figure 13: Millstone Creek at STA 15 + 50 FT (left) and STA 19 + 10 FT (right)
Few defined bankfull features were present within the Millstone Creek project
reach. For the three riffle cross-sections that were surveyed at STA. 1+75 FT, STA. 8+37
and STA. 19+84 FT, the cross-sectional areas up to top of bank were 158 ft2, 138 ft2 and
156 ft2 respectively. These areas are substantially greater than the cross-sectional area
predicted by the regional curve (ABKF = 21.99*DA0.67) of 90 ft2 for an 8.3 mi2 drainage area
(Doll et al., 2002). This suggests that the channel may have enlarged through incision
and widening. Measuring the channel area from a lower distinguishable bankfull feature
at the surveyed riffle cross-sections resulted in bankfull cross-sectional areas of 75 ft2,
106 ft2 and 124 ft2, which are more similar to the cross-sectional area predicted by the
regional curve and support measurements made in the field. The lower bankfull features
resulted in in BHR’s of 1.1 – 1.2, indicating a mild degree of incision. The bankfull ABKF
measurements resulted in QBKF‘s of 171 cfs, 282 cfs and 295 cfs (mean = 240 cfs). These
discharges are somewhat lower than the discharge predicted by the NC Piedmont
regional curve (QBKF = 91.62*DA0.71) estimate of 412 cfs. A gage station was installed
below the project reach of Millstone Creek in January 2016 and a rating curve was
developed from the continuous stage and discharge measurements. From the rating
curve and known hydraulic geometry, Manning’s n was determined to be 0.05 for flows
up to top of bank at the gauge. The calculated Manning’s n value is higher than other
typical Slate Belt systems due to increase bedform roughness created by the high sand
supply to the project reach.
4.2.4 Wetland 1
Jurisdictional delineations were performed by The Catena Group Inc. in 2007 using
the three-parameter approach as prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratories 1987). Supplementary technical
literature describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
hydrological indicators was also utilized. One area (Wetland 1) was classified as
jurisdictional wetland within the project site (Figure 14). According to the Cowardin
Wetland Classification System, this wetland feature is classified as a “farmed palustrine
wetland forested with deciduous tree species” (PFO1f). All three wetland criteria
were observed in Wetland 1. Wetland 1 is a 1.159 acre herbaceous dominated
depression contiguous to UTB. A few small canopy trees were observed which
include swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) and black willow (Salix nigra).
Other younger tree species were sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) and green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The herbaceous layer was dominated by common rush
(Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex sp.), Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria
pennsylvanica), switchgrass (Dicanthelium sp.), monkey flower (Mimulus ringens),
arrowhead (Sagitaria latifolia var. latifolia), seedbox (Ludwigia sp.), water hemlock
(Cicuta maculata), and orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis).
Wetland 1 has been degraded by damming, ditching, cattle access, grazing and
deposition of sediments from NT, UTA and UTB. Anecdotal evidence was gathered from
the current land owner, who indicates that UTB was historically used for a sawmill and a
small impoundment formerly existed in the area of the wetland. This evidence is
reasonable given the presence of the berm and the ditch along the eastern boundary.
This is also a depositional area where eroded sediment from NT, UTA and UTB has
settled. Up to 5,000 tons of legacy material may accumulated behind the small mill dam.
Groundwater gauges were installed by the Catena Group in February 2007 and monitored
through October of 2008. The wells were installed at selected locations to assist in
evaluating the shape and fluctuation of the groundwater. The location of the wells is
shown in Figure 14. Gauge 2 is located within Wetland 1 and Gauge 1 is located in the
UTB floodplain. Graphs of the resulting groundwater elevations from the well monitoring
period are provided in Figure 14. Gauge 2 demonstrates extended periods of saturation
within 12 inches of the ground surface and some standing water above the soil surface
during the wet season. Gauge 1 also shows some periods of high water table and
standing water present, however these conditions occur less frequently and to a lesser
degree than what is observed in the jurisdictional wetland area.
Figure 14: Wetland 1 Existing Conditions

5. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

Regulatory considerations for the proposed Millstone Creek Mitigation Site include
Section 404/401, Endangered Species Act, Historic Preservation Act and FEMA
Floodplain Compliance. Site regulatory investigations, requirements and summary is
included in Table 4 and the following sections.
Table 4: Regulatory Considerations for Millstone Creek Mitigation Site

Regulatory Consideration Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs.
Waters of US – Section 404 Yes PCN to be prepared Appendix F
Waters of US – Section 401 Yes PCN to be prepared Appendix F
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix G
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix G
Coastal Zone Management Act /
Coastal Area Management Act

No

N/A

N/A

FEMA Floodplain Compliance

Yes

NA

NA
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
An August 26, 2008 search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) digital database of rare plants, animals, and natural areas for records of
threatened and endangered species or federally designated habitat found within one mile
(1.6 kilometers) of the project site resulted in no elemental occurrences. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service website was consulted on August 27, 2007, to obtain a listing of all
threatened and endangered species for Randolph County (Table 5). Plants and animals
with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and
Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. There are two federally protected species
listed for Randolph County. The proposed project is Not Likely to Effect Cape Fear Shiner
populations in the vicinity of the project and will have No Effect on Schweinitz’s sunflower.
Table 5: Federally Endangered Species Listed for Randolph County, NC

Common Name Scientific name Status
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas E
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E

There are ten Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for
Randolph County (Table 6). FSC are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened
or Endangered. FSC species are those under consideration for listing or for which there
is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, FSCs which are listed as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species
Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended. Table 2.7.1
summarizes federal species of concern listed for Randolph Counties (August 27, 2008
USFWS list).
Table 6: Federal Species of Concern Listed for Randolph County, NC

Vertebrates
Common Name Scientific name Record
American eel Anguilla rostrata FSC
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC
Carolina redhorse Moxostoma sp. 2 FSC
Invertebrate
Common Name Scientific name Record
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason FSC
brook floater Alasmidonta varicose FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Savannah Lilliput Toxolasma pullus FSC
yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Vascular Plant
Common Name Scientific name Record
Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum C
birdsfoot-trefoil Lotus unifoliolatus var. Helleri FSC
5.2 Cultural Resources
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch conducted a
feasibility study for the Cox Site in 2004. According to the report, files were reviewed at
both the North Carolina Archeology Office and the North Carolina State Historical
Preservation Office on December 12, 2003, and all records indicated no known
archeological or historically relevant site within the project area.
5.3 404/401
The results of the onsite delineation of jurisdictional waters of the US indicates four
(4) jurisdictional channels including Millstone Creek and three (3) unnamed tributaries
within the Site. Stream determinations for on‐site channels are included in Table 3. Just
1 jurisdictional wetland area was delineated within the proposed project area, totaling
1.159 acres. Jurisdictional wetlands were delineated using the USACE Routine On‐Site
Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual and subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional
Supplement. Wetland determination data forms representative of on‐site jurisdictional
areas as well as non‐jurisdictional upland areas have been included in the Appendices.
The jurisdictional determination is currently under review by the USACE.
During project development and design, impacts to jurisdictional streams and
wetlands were avoided and minimized as much as possible. Temporary and permanent
impacts to Wetland 1 are anticipated with the proposed rehabilitation and
reestablishment activities. However, rehabilitation and reestablishment activities
will result in an overall increase of functional uplift. During the design phase, efforts
were made to align proposed restoration stream sections to avoid existing wetlands as
much as possible and minimize grading impacts. Minor wetland impacts will be
necessary during the construction of UTB and rehabilitation of Wetland 1. The majority
of wetland impacts, approximately 0.3 acres, will be temporary for construction
access and/or minor grading (Table 7). The hydrology and vegetation of the impacted
wetland will be improved after grading and restoration activities are completed.
Approximately 0.26 acres of wetland will be permanently filled or converted to stream
in areas of proposed stream restoration. These
permanent wetland impacts will be offset by rehabilitation and re-establishement of
Wetland 1 and vernal pool creation within the Millstone Creek floodplain. Stream and
wetland impacts will be detailed in the 401/404 PCN application. Project streams and
wetlands will continue to be protected under the conservation easement placed on the
property.
Table 7: Estimated Impacts to Site Wetlands
Jurisdictional
Feature Type Area
Permanent Impact Temporary Impact
Activity Impact Area Activity Impact Area
Wetland 1 Palustrine 1.159 ac Stream Re-
alignment 0.02 Grading and
Excavation 0.3
6.FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
6.1 Stream Functional Uplift Potential
The potential for functional uplift at the Millstone Creek Mitigation Site has been
evaluated in the context of the “Stream Functions Pyramid” described Harman et al.
(2012), which uses a hierarchy of five stream functions, each of which supports the
functions above it on the pyramid (and may reinforce those functions below it). The
functions from top to bottom are hydrology, geomorphology, physicochemical and
biology. This functional approach is based on the 2008 Federal Mitigation Rule (33 C.F.R.
§ 332/40 C.F.R. § 230) that provided a new regulatory definition for stream restoration:
“Restoration means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former or
degraded aquatic resource.”
The North Carolina “Stream Quantification Tool” (SQT) was used to evaluate and
quantify the functional uplift potential for all stream reaches at the Site and is summarized
in Table 8. In general, all streams on the Site can reach the “Functioning at Risk”
designation that that is quantified by the SQT. The primary limitation to functional uplift
for all reaches at the Site is related to the hydrology and physicochemical parameters of
the contributing drainage areas. The tributaries will all be moved from “Not Functioning”
to “Functioning at Risk” with most of the lift produced by restoring hydrology, hydraulics
and geomorphology functions. Millstone Creek will remain “Functioning at Risk” (FAR
score increased from 0.39 to 0.58), however substantial gains in geomorphology function
will result from the restoration efforts. Additional limitations and constraints to functional
uplift are described in Section 5.4.

Table 8: Millstone Creek Stream Functional Uplift Summary

Site Resource NT R2 UTA R2 UTB Millstone Creek
Functional Category Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Hydrology 0.32 0.89 0.32 0.89 0.28 0.86 0.17 0.35
Hydraulics 0.62 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.85 1.00
Geomorphology 0.19 0.88 0.28 0.71 0.15 0.86 0.23 0.73
Physicochemical 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.07 0.07
Biology 0.05 0.35 0.02 0.35 0.15 0.45 0.19 0.19
Overall Score 0.24 0.66 0.12 0.59 0.15 0.67 0.39 0.58
Functional Lift 175% 391% 346% 49%
Stream Functional Feet 25 69 12 59 181 366 796 1201
BMP Functional Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
Functional Feet Gained 44 47 185 405

Not Functioning (NF): 0.0 - 0.29
Functioning at Risk (FAR): 0.3 - 0.69
Functioning (F): 0.7 - 1.0

6.1.1 Hydrology
The major documented watershed disturbance for streams at the Site has been
the conversion of forested cover to pasture lands and hay production. The tributary
catchments are nearly 100% pasture or managed for hay production and the Millstone
Creek catchment is only 35% forest and 48% pasture and hay production. Loss of
forested land cover, canopy interception and uptake frequently results in a change in
stream flow regime or sediment supply boundary conditions. Surface runoff volumes and
peak discharges increase, while the time to peak decreases meaning greater discharges
arrive at the watershed outlet sooner (Leopold, 1968). Sediment supply may also increase
from more erodible upland areas and channel and bank sources as stream flow and
power increase. Uplift is produced for hydrology of the tributaries by reducing reach-scale
runoff through buffer planting (reforesting) and implementation of the riffle-step-pool
systems with an underlying sand layer, which will provide temporary storage, treatment
and elimination of the erosional gullies (concentrated flow points). The Millstone Creek
watershed is relatively large (8.3 mi2) and the restoration effort will not produce uplift in
catchment hydrology. Some reach-scale hydrology uplift is possible through
establishment of riparian buffer.
6.1.2 Hydraulics
Restoration efforts on the tributaries will address incision and entrenchment.
Floodplain connection will increase the water table elevation in the riparian zone for
enhanced nutrient processing and uptake. Increased flood frequency will provide
additional opportunity for detention and spreading of flood flows to decrease in-channel

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
39
velocities and shear stresses. The hydraulics of Millstone Creek are currently
“Functioning”, however this not indicative of a healthy and functioning system overall.
Substantial bank erosion and lateral migration has been documented, degrading
Geomorphology functions described in Section 6.2.3. The restoration effort will result in
“Functioning” hydraulics for all tributaries and enhance the hydraulic function of Millstone
Creek.
6.1.3 Geomorphology
Geomorphology for all stream reaches has been designated “Not Functioning”. All
reaches lack native woody riparian vegetation with the exception of the area east of the
left bank of Millstone Creek. The bedform of the tributaries is nearly 100% riffle / run, with
no pools. The tributaries are also relatively straight with low sinuosity, which is not
uncommon for streams in confined valleys with relatively steep water surface slopes.
Millstone Creek does have several shallow pools with median pool-to-pool spacing ratio
(P-P/W BKF) of 5.9, however the range of P-P/W BKF is inconsistent and varies widely from
2.5 to 20.0. There is very little large woody debris (LWD) in all of the streams.
Geomorphology uplift will be created by incorporating LWD into channels and riparian
area, enhancing riffles, excavating deep pools and establishing native riparian vegetation.
6.1.4 Physicochemical
Rigorous surface water and groundwater quality monitoring has been conducted
on the tributaries and mainstem of Millstone Creek since summer 2014. High nutrient and
pathogen inputs from land applied swine wastes are the most prevalent physicochemical
stressors on the Site’s tributaries and wetland. To provide physicochemical uplift at the
site, the proposed restoration design includes planting and reestablishment of woody and
herbaceous riparian vegetation, reconnection of streams to floodplains, construction of
riffle-step-pool channels with underlying sand layers as BMPs above NT R2 and UTA R2,
and an expanded wetland downstream of UTB. Riparian buffer establishment will provide
shade to decrease in-stream temperatures and supply organic material. Exclusion fencing
and an undisturbed riparian zone may also filter some pathogens from surface runoff.
Uptake and processing of nitrogen, which is a major stressor at the site, may also be
increased through more frequent floodplain inundation and a higher water table in the
riparian zone. The riffle-step-pool systems and expanded wetland area are designed to
increase processing and filtration of nutrients and fecal coliform before being transported
downstream.
6.1.5 Biology
Benthic macroinvertebrate assessments have been conducted at the Site on four
occasions including November 2014, April and November 2015 and May 2016. All
sampling has been conducted using protocols developed by the North Carolina Division
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
of Water Resources (NC DEQ, 2016). For the first two visits (November 2014 and April
2015), the NT exhibited significant accumulated Coarse Particulate Organic Matter
(CPOM) suggesting limited flow. The benthic fauna was dominated by tolerant taxa
including midges (Zavrelimyia in the fall and Tanytarsus in the spring) and amphipods; no
EPT organisms were collected. The NT scored poor and fair bioclassification during these
visits, respectively. (Note: DWQ Biotic Index values for small Piedmont streams with
seasonal correction factors applied as appropriate). UTA had less CPOM suggesting
more flow and more cobble and small boulders were present, however the fauna at this
location was also dominated by very tolerant taxa (mostly midges including
Conchapelopia group and Zavrelimyia spp). Two EPT organisms were collected (one
mayfly and one caddisfly) on the first visit and only one the second visit. During the third
site visit in Fall 2015, both tributaries exhibited positive differences in taxa richness, the
presence of intolerant taxa (having a BI of 2.5 or less) and lower biotic index values. EPT
taxa richness and the presence of intolerant taxa increased in 2015, which resulted in a
lower biotic index and an improved bioclassification (Good/Fair). This sampling suggested
that conditions had improved in both locations since fence of the cattle had occurred. The
caddisfly, Diplectrona modesta was present in both of the tributaries and the caddisfly
Lepidostoma spp was found in the UTA. During the fourth visit in spring 2016, taxa
richness values were similar to the values noted from this location in the fall 2015.
However, there was an increase in abundance of tolerant taxa (especially Simulium spp,
Chironomus spp., and Physella spp.), which increased the Biotic Index values and
resulted in a Poor bioclassification for the North Trib. and Fair for UT Reach A.
The sample location of UTB is approximately 160 ft. below the confluence of NT
and UTA. The instream habitat at this location becomes slightly more heterogeneous and
the presence of bank habitat was noted. For the first sampling in Fall 2014, the total
number of taxa was 18 at this location and 3 EPT taxa were collected (two mayflies;
Paraleptophlebia spp, which was common, and Centroptilum spp: and one caddisfly
Ptilostomis spp). The benthic fauna at this location is also dominated by tolerant taxa
including midges and Physidae snails. Three taxa that have a NC Biotic Index of < 2.5
were collected, which lowered the total biotic index for the site to 6.12 and a Fair
bioclassification using these criteria. Millstone Creek was sampled within the project
reach and just D/S of the project at a location below the confluence with UTB in November
2015. During the May 2016 sampling Millstone Creek was sampled just U/S and within
the project reach. The habitat in all sampling locations is dominated by shifting sand. At
all locations, the taxa richness and abundance in Millstone Creek is much higher than
those recorded from all tributary locations.
Implementation of the mitigation plan will address stressors leading to degraded
biological conditions on the Site tributaries and Millstone Creek. Streambanks will be
stabilized and revegetated to decrease the reach-scale sediment and nutrient inputs,
treatment systems on the tributaries will be constructed to enhance nutrient processing
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan

and uptake, and instream habitat will be improved by adding LWD and bedform diversity.
6.2 Constraints to Functional Uplift
Significant site constraints to creating functional uplift exist at the Millstone Creek
Mitigation Site. Constraints are primarily related to catchment management and size,
physical site boundaries within the existing conservation easement, and the jurisdictional
wetland onsite. NT, UTA and UTB are all significantly impacted by management practices
in their small contributing drainage areas, which are nearly 100% pasture with land
applied swine wastes. This has resulted in extremely high nitrogen and phosphorus loads
in the base flows and storm flows of the tributaries. Some of the contributing drainage
area will be reclaimed as riparian buffer from the streams out to the easement boundary
(6% of NT, 9% of UTA and 10% of UTB) but it is not likely to impact the overall catchment
hydrologic response and condition. BMP applications (RSCs) have also been proposed
on reaches above NT R2 and UTA R2 to provide additional nutrient processing and
physicochemical lift, however it is unlikely that instream TN and TP concentrations and
loads of the receiving tributaries will be decreased to a reference quality condition as
described by the NC Quantification Tool (Harman et al., 2012). Ongoing and rigorous field
monitoring of nutrient concentrations and loads will continue through the post-
implementation phase of the project to evaluate the overall nutrient processing and
benefits to the tributaries. The contributing drainage area to Millstone Creek is very large
(8.3 mi2) and will be unchanged by any restoration activities within the project easement.
Proposed enhancement and restoration stream lengths are relatively short and
their valleys are confined to moderately confined. Establishing optimal and appropriate
planform geometry is limited within the existing conservation easement, and limited
reach lengths. Millstone Creek in particular is constrained by the confined valley and
easement boundaries. The proposed stream length is just 51 bankfull widths and is
limited at the D/S extent by Wetland 1 and the existing channel at the easement
boundary along the toe of the eastern hillslope. A break in the existing conservation
easement to provided cattle access and a ford crossing also restricts the proposed
alignment configuration. UTB is similarly impacted by a confined valley, short reach length
and confluence with Wetland 1 and the D/S extent.
7.MITIGATION SITE GOALS AND FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
The proposed mitigation goals represent desired outcomes that are verifiable
through physical field measurements or visual assessments and the specific restoration
objectives are activities that will result in the accomplishment of the stated goals. The
project goals, restoration objectives and expected outcomes are presented in Table 9.
For the development and preparation of this mitigation plan, substantial amounts of
baseline and existing condition data have been collected and will be used in the
development of post-implementation performance standards and project success criteria.
However, some goals and restoration objectives will not be incorporated into the
proposed performance standards and success criteria. This is particularly true for
physicochemical and biology restoration objectives, which typically are not included in
project success criteria. Additional monitoring of physicochemical and biology parameters
will be included the post-implementation evaluation of the project for the purpose of
research and advancement of the science and practice of compensatory mitigation and
stream restoration. Proposed project performance standards and success criteria are
described in Section 10.

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
44

Table 9: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
Goal Restoration Objective Expected Outcomes Function(s)
Supported
Enhance processing of
nutrients from onsite
sources.
Construct stream and wetland
systems designed process
nitrogen and phosphorus.
Contribute to NC DEQ Cape Fear Basin Plan by
reducing and managing nutrient inputs. Temporary
storage and detention of surface runoff. Improve
water quality and conditions for macroinvertebrate
recruitment.
Hydrology,
Physicochemical,
Biology
Direct onsite stream
channels towards
equilibrium condition.
Construct channels with
appropriate dimensions, planform
geometry and profile such that
streams transport water and
sediment without excessive
aggradation, degradation or lateral
adjustment.
Significantly reduce sediment inputs from onsite
channel and bank erosion. Efficiently transport high
sediment load supplied to Millstone Creek.
Geomorphology
Restore and enhance
native streambank and
floodplain vegetation.
Plant native tree and
understory species in
riparian zone and on streambank.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion and
reach-scale runoff. Increase nutrient processing,
uptake and storage within the floodplain. Create
riparian habitats. Add a source
of LWD and organic material to stream.
Hydrology (reach-
scale),
Hydraulics,
Geomorphology,
Physicochemical,
Biology
Improve instream habitat
and bedform diversity.
Install habitat features and LWD
including log riffles, log j-hooks
and brush toe protection. Add
additional LWD to channel bed.
Increase and diversify available
habitats for macroinvertebrates, fish,
and amphibians supporting existing aquatic
communities and recruitment, leading to an
increase in biodiversity over time.
Geomorphology,
Biology
Permanently protect the
Site from local
disturbance and other
uses.
Establish conservation easement
on the Site. Install livestock
exclusion fencing.
Protect Site from encroachment on the riparian
corridor and direct impact to streams and wetlands.
Hydrology (reach-
scale),
Hydraulics,
Geomorphology,
Physicochemical,
Biology
8. DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
8.1 Design Approach Summary
The design approach for the Site was developed to meet the mitigation goals and
restoration objectives presented in Section 7. The restoration objectives are based on
existing conditions, site constraints, specific stressors to Site resources and downstream
ecosystems and the potential for functional uplift for the site. Design approaches for
enhancement and restoration activities have utilized analog, analytical, empirical and
other published design guidance as a basis for design and the development of design
criteria. Proposed channels have been sized through evaluation of local and regional
empirical relationships, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and field collected
measurements. Sediment transport competency and capacity was used to calibrate and
validate the hydraulic design of the proposed stream channels. This design approach has
been used successfully by the NCSU BAE Stream Restoration Program for other projects
throughout North Carolina and the methods and process are covered in detail in the River
Course Workshop Series (RC 101, 201, 302 and 311).
As described in previous sections, the Site’s tributaries have all been heavily
impacted by encroachment and removal of the riparian vegetation, cattle access, grazing,
headcutting and high nutrient concentrations in baseflows and stormflows from land
applied swine wastes. On reaches NT R1 and UTA R1, riffle-step-pool systems with an
underlying sand layer have been proposed to provide processing and treatment of
extremely high nutrient concentrations and loads before being conveyed to downstream
tributaries NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB and Wetland 1. Enhancement I activities on reaches
NT R2 and UTA R2 include minor bank grading and bedform diversity with enhanced
native riffles and log steps. Enhanced riffles and log steps will be placed within the UTB
channel for grade control, increased bed elevation and to target a more appropriate pool-
to-pool spacing ratio. UTB flows into the only jurisdictional wetland feature on the site –
Wetland 1. Two small pieces of Wetland 1 will be enhanced through invasive species
control and the replanting of native wetland species. Wetland 1 will be re- established
through removal the existing ditch and berm, moderate excavation and grading. The re-
habilitated wetland area is designed to increase hydraulic residence time of baseflows
and stormflows conveyed by UTB to provide additional nutrient uptake and processing.
Millstone Creek is a large sand bed system and the proposed design has been
developed to address its specific stressors, which include high sediment supply, lack of
sediment storage on point bars and low benches, bank erosion and lateral migration
and lack of native woody riparian vegetation. Bank grading, wood structures and brush
toe protection will be implemented on Millstone Creek Reach 1. Reach 2 will be
realigned with wood structures and habitat features. Appropriate riparian vegetation will
be planted along all project reaches and out to the extents of the easement boundaries.
The restoration activities will be protected in perpetuity by an existing
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
45
conservation easement have has be placed on the project area. The proposed mitigation
and plan and restoration approach summary are included in Table 10 and Figure 3.
Table 10: Millstone Creek Mitigation Site Restoration Approach Summary
Site
Resource Existing Proposed Level Notes
NT R1 303 LF 325 LF Restoration
Realignment, riffle-step-pool system with sandy fill
material to provide treatment and processing of
nutrients from ag. sources
NT R2 103 LF 103 LF Enhancement I Some bank grading, enhanced riffles and log steps,
planting
UTA R1 505 LF 523 LF Restoration
Realignment, riffle-step-pool system with sandy fill
material to provide treatment and processing of
nutrients from ag. sources
UTA R2 100 LF 100 LF Enhancement I Some bank grading, enhanced riffles and log steps,
planting
UTB 605 LF 596 LF Enhancement I Some bank grading, enhanced riffles and log steps,
planting.
Millstone
Creek R1 1,462 LF 1,462 LF Enhancement I
Bank grading, wood and habitat structures, bank
treatments and enhanced depositional areas for
sediment storage.
Millstone
Creek R2 553 LF 538 LF Restoration Realignment, appropriate channel dimensions, wood
and habitat structures, bank treatments
Wetland 1.159 ac
1.159 AC Rehabilitation Invasive species control, re-plant appropriate
vegetation.
0.601 AC Re-
establishment
Plug ditch, invasive species control, re-plant
appropriate vegetation, re-establish additional
wetland area and hydrology through grading and
excavation.
8.2 NT R1 and UTA R1 Basis for Design
The design approach for NT R1 and UTA R1 specifically targets
nutrient processing and treatment mitigation goals for the site. Riffle-step-pool
systems with an underlying sand layer will be implemented on NT R1 and UTA R1
(Figure 15). This is an innovative approach to the restoration of headcuts and incised
gullies that also enhances nutrient processing. The proposed systems include a series
of pools connected by riffles, boulder steps and a subsurface sand seepage layer (Brown
et al., 2010). The riffles, steps and pools provide grade control, energy dissipation and
bedform diversity to restore high gradient systems. When stream flow fills a pool, a
hydraulic gradient is created forcing water downward into the sand seepage layer
providing added filtration. This interaction between the surface and subsurface, the
hyporheic zone (Boulton, 2007), is a hotspot for microbial growth and nutrient
processing (Groffman et al., 2005). The hyporheic zone is a critical component of both
the hydrology and water quality benefits of these systems. Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
46
Figure 15: Step-pool systems with underlying sand layer in Anne Arundel County, MD
(left) and Durham, NC (right)
The channel morphology characteristics of high gradient headwater streams in
North Carolina have been characterized by Zink et al. (2012) and are applicable as a
starting point for design of riffle-step-pool systems. Morphological design parameters of
particular interest in riffle-step-pool system design for energy dissipation, grade control
and stability are riffle slope ratio, riffle length ratio, pool length ratio, pool-to-pool spacing
and step height ratio. A hybrid design approach was adapted for NT R1 and UTA R1 that
incorporates, analytical, analog and empirical techniques. The primary purpose of the
proposed step-pool systems is to provide grade control and energy dissipation as
stormflows move down valley and to enhance physicochemical functions through
processing of nutrient loads.
8.2.1 Design Channel Size and Discharge
The proposed step-pool systems are designed for storage and treatment of runoff
from 1.0” of rainfall and conveyance of the Q2 and Q100 discharges. A summary of NT R1
and UTA R2 design parameters is included in Table 11. Storage for runoff occurs in
upland ponds, pools and the underlying sand layer. The water quality design storm ratio
(runoff volume / design storage volume) is 1.0 and 1.3 for NT R1 and UTA R2,
respectively. More storage is available in UTA R1 because it is longer than NT R1. The
additional length of UTA R1 is needed to fill the eroded gully and to decrease the design
reach slope. The riffle cross-sections are sized to convey the Q2 discharge within the
channel. Higher flows will spread onto vegetated benches beyond top of bank. A high
with-to-depth ratio and wide floodplain bench has been designed to minimize flow depths,
velocities and shear stresses. Max depth for the Q100 discharge is 0.9 ft in the bankfull
channel and 0.3 ft on the vegetated benches. Large riffle substrate material is needed to
resist the high shear stresses of the relatively steep channel slopes. For both reaches,
the design D50 and D85 particles are 150 mm and 430 mm, respectively, which will resist
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
shear stresses and mobilization up to the Q100 discharge. Boulder step structures will be
used for additional grade control and energy dissipation. The boulder structures will be
silled in across the vegetated bench perpendicular to flow to prevent scour and failure
around the structures during high flows.
Table 11: NT R1 and UTA R1 design summary

Watershed and Hydrologic Summary
Parameter NT R1 UTA R1
DA (ac) 23.1 25.9
1 in ROV (ft3)1 4,164 4,513
1-Year 24-Hour Q (ft3/s) 10.1 10.9
2-Year 24-Hour Q (ft3/s) 15.7 17.3
10-Year 24-Hour Q (ft3/s) 32.5 35.2
100-Year 24-Hour Q (ft3/s) 61.4 66.5
Runoff Storage and Sand Layer Design
Stream Length (ft) 325 523
Pond Storage (ft3) 1,050 1,750
Pool Storage (ft3) 1,018 1,872
Sand Storage (ft3) 1,968 2,429
Total Storage (ft3) 4,036 6,051
Design Storm Ratio2 1.0 1.3
Sand Layer Volume (yd3) 180 300
Channel Design Hydraulic Summary
Q2 Q100 QBKF Q100
SWSE (ft/ft) 0.0478 0.0478 0.0518 0.0518
Area (ft2) 3.5 12.4 3.5 12.4
Width (ft) 8 22.5 8 22.5
Depth (ft) 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6
Dmax (ft) 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9
W/D 18.3 40.7 18.3 40.7
Discharge (cfs) 16.1 61.4 16.8 66.5
Velocity (ft/s) 4.6 5.6 4.8 5.8
tCH (lb/ft2) 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.7
Competency – min. (mm) 95 127 104 138
Competency – max. (mm) 288 385 313 418
Proposed D50 (mm) 150 150
Proposed D84 (mm) 430 430
8.2.2 Reference Streams and Morphological Design Criteria
Select morphological parameters reported by Zink et al. (2012) with similar
longitudinal slopes to NT R1 and UTA R1 are presented in Table 23 with proposed design

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
parameters for NR R1 and UTA R1. All morphological design parameters are within the
range of the reference dataset with the expectation of pool-length ratio (LPOOL/ WBKF) and
pool-to-pool spacing ratio (p-p/ WBKF). These parameters are slightly higher than the
reference data because the proposed pools were designed to be over wide (oversized)
for extra storage of runoff and energy dissipation. The increased pool width subsequently
increased pool length and pool-to-pool spacing. The decision to increase pool width and
storage was made based on observations of several similar systems in the Southeast
and Mid-Atlantic that appeared to have undersized pools not sufficient to dissipate energy
and store runoff.
Table 12: Select Reference Streams from Zink et al. (2012) with proposed
Morphological Design Criteria

Stream

S (ft/ft)

D50

D84

W/D HSTEP/
WBKF
SRIF/
SWSE
LRIF/
WBKF
LPOOL/
WBKF
p-p/
WBKF
LS4 0.0370 71 347 21.5 0.02 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.6
LS2 0.0450 175 512 18.1 0.04 0.8 1.3 1.0 2.1
BF 0.0480 39 194 16.9 0.04 1.6 0.7 0.9 1.6
LS1 0.0540 145 450 18.4 0.04 - - 0.8 1.0
SR1 0.0680 163 745 17.6 0.07 0.4 1 0.7 1.3
AC 0.0900 70 191 20.7 0.08 1.1 0.8 0.7 2.0
NC 0.0920 47 154 25.0 0.09 0.7 1.5 0.7 1.9
PC 0.1040 96 268 19.5 0.10 0.8 1.5 0.2 1.3
Min 0.0370 39 154 16.9 0.02 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.6
Median 0.0610 84 308 19.0 0.06 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.5
Max 0.1040 175 745 25.0 0.10 1.6 1.5 1.0 2.1
NT R1 0.0478 150 430 18.3 0.08 0.7 1.3 1.5 2.6
UTA R1 0.0518 150 430 18.3 0.08 0.7 1.3 1.5 2.6

8.3 NT R2, UTA R2 and UTB Basis for Design
8.3.4 Implementation Plan
NT R2 and UTA R2 are relatively short perennial reaches located below the step-
pool streams on NT R1 and UTA R1. The existing channel alignment is not being changed
and the streams are relatively straight with K values near 1.0. Minor bank grading will be
constructed with threshold riffles, log steps and pools for energy dissipation. An old
embankment that created a pond at the confluence of NT R2 and UTA R2 will be
removed. Invasive species will also be controlled and native riparian vegetation will be
planted for reforestation. The design channel slope is still relatively steep through each
reach (NT R2 = 0.0370 ft/ft, UTA R2 = 0.0270 ft/ft). On UTB, log steps and constructed
riffles will be used to raise the existing bed elevation up to within 0.7’ – 0.8’ of the existing
floodplain elevation to enhance floodplain connection. Near the downstream terminus of

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
50
UTB from STA 5+29 to STA 5+96, the stream will be realigned to flow into the re-
established wetland area. Constructed riffles, riffles with log rollers and log and boulder
step structures will be used to create habitat features for macroinvertebrates and hold
grade. Pool-to-pool spacing ratios between 1.8 to 3.2 will targeted for energy dissipation
and habitat.
8.4 Millstone Creek Basis for Design
8.4.1 Design Channel Size and Discharge
Empirical and analytical methods were used to develop the channel design for
Millstone Creek Reach 2 (Table 13). Where bankfull indicators were present, field cross-
sections were measured and Manning’s equation was used to estimate QBKF. Additionally,
NCSU BAE installed a gage station on Millstone Creek in fall 2015 and discharge data
collection has been ongoing. The field gage station has been used to back calculate
roughness coefficients for modeling purposes and estimate bankfull area and discharge.
Clear bankfull indicators are not present at the gage station cross-section. Bankfull area
and discharge at the gage station where determined by translating the bankfull stage from
other cross-sections in modeling scenarios. Field measured channel dimensions and
discharges were compared the NC Piedmont Regional Curve, the Alan Walker Curve and
Lowther (2008) reference reach curves and outputs from a watershed hydrology model.
For Millstone Creek Reach 2. ABKF and QBKF is 85 ft2 and 305 ft2, respectively. The
proposed channel area is smaller than two of the three surveyed cross-sections and
slightly less than the channel predicted by the NC Piedmont Regional Curve. Proposed
QBKF is substantially lower that the discharge predicted by the NC Piedmont and Alan
Walker Curves, which is likely due to the very low slope (0.0020 ft/ft) of the project reach.
Proposed QBKF has been selected to be very close in value to modeled QBKF at the field
gage station.
Table 13: Millstone Creek Reach 2 Channel Size and Discharge Analysis
Millstone Creek DA = 8.3 mi2 and Proposed SWSE = 0.0019 (ft/ft) ABKF QBKF
Empirical Relationships
NC Piedmont Regional Curve 91 412
Alan Walker Curve - 373
Lowther Piedmont Reference Reach Curve 38 89
Manning’s from Field XS
MC XS 1 124 370
MC XS 3 75 245
MC XS 4 105 352
Field Monitoring Downstream Gage Station 109 311
Summary of Parameters
Mean 87 307
Median 89 352
Design 85 305

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
51
8.4.2 Reference Streams
Two reference streams were used to develop channel dimension, planform
geometry and longitudinal profile morphological design criteria. The project reach of
Millstone Creek is a unique stream in that it is a large sand bed system with high sediment
supply in a moderately confined valley located within the Carolina Slate Belt. Streams in
the Slate Belt region typically have gravel beds with some large angular bed material and
low sediment supply. Reference quality reaches were not located upstream or
downstream of the project reach. Locating a reference reach with the exact valley and
morphology characteristics proved challenging. Select reference streams used in
development of morphological design criteria are described below and in detail in Table
31.
Terrible Creek
Terrible Creek is located near Fuquay Varina in Wake County (Figure 16). This
reach classifies as a C5 stream with a drainage area of 2.30 square miles. The stream
has an average bankfull width of 19.3 feet and an average slope 0.0049 ft/ft. Good riparian
buffer corridor with mix of pine and hardwood trees present. Wetland and aquatic plants
are prevalent on streambanks and in streambed. Streambank cover is highly variable with
large tree and extensive shade in some sections, while other areas are dominated by
vines, other herbaceous plants and woody vegetation and are more open to sunlight. The
upstream section of the reference appears to have been formerly impacted by beaver,
which likely contributed to timber loss and more open canopy. Some invasive species
present. Overhanging vegetation is prevalent along much of the reach.

Figure 16: Terrible Creek Reference Reach
Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek is located in Randolph County (Figure 17). The reach length
surveyed is 1213 feet. This reach classifies as an E5 stream with a drainage area of 2.63
square miles. The stream has an average bankfull width of 20.9 feet and an average
slope 0.0057 ft/ft. Fairly well developed riparian buffer is present with a thick understory.
Streambank cover consists of some trees, grass and other herbaceous plants, including
Microstigium. Some streambanks are bare in spots. Overhanging vegetation is present
and the forest canopy nearly completely shades the creek bed.

Figure 17: Sandy Creek Reference Reach

Table 14: Millstone Creek Reach 2 Reference Stream Summary

Parameter Existing Millstone
Creek

Terrible Creek

Sandy Creek Proposed Millstone
Creek R2
DA (mi2) 8.3 mi2 2.3 mi2 2.6 mi2 8.3 mi2
Stream Type E5 C5 E5 C5 / E5
D50 (mm) 0.4 1.8 1.4 0.4
Valley Type Confined - Mod.
Confined Alluvial Unconfined Alluvial Unconfined Alluvial Confined - Mod.
Confined Alluvial
SVAL (ft/ft) 0.0021 0.0071 0.0114 0.0021
SWSE (ft/ft) 0.0020 0.0050 0.0060 0.0020
K (ft/ft) 1.09 1.41 1.90 1.11

Parameter Channel Dimension Comparison
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Wbkf (ft) 28.9 30.9 46.6 19.1 19.2 19.3 16.9 20.9 24.9 - 36.0 -
Dbkf (ft) 2.6 2.7 3.4 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.1 - 2.6 -
W/D 9.0 11.1 17.6 11.5 14.0 16.4 10.6 11.0 11.9 - 14.0 -
Abkf (ft2) 75 106 124 22.3 27.4 32.5 36.2 38.6 40.9 - 85.0 -
Dmbkf (ft) 3.3 4.1 4.3 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 - 3.6 -
ER 7.1 7.5 12.3 3.2 4.0 5.7 4.7 6.1 8.9 6.0 9.2 10.6
BHR 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 -

Parameter Channel Hydraulic Comparison
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max

Qbkf (cfs) 245 403 422 76 106 139 163 195 221 - 305 -
Vbkf (ft/s) 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.5 5.1 5.4 - 3.6 -
tbkf (lb/ft2) 0.28 0.30 0.35 0.37 0.45 0.53 0.60 0.71 0.79 - 0.29 -
wbkf (lb/ft/s) 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.7 2.3 2.7 3.6 4.3 - 1.0 -
Compt. (min) (mm) 23 24 29 30 37 43 49 58 64 - 24 -
Compt.
(max) (mm) 68 74 87 92 111 130 147 175 193 - 72 -

8.4.2 Morphological Design Criteria
Proposed morphological design criteria are presented in Table 15. For the channel
dimensions, a width-to-depth ratio (W/D) of 14.0 was to develop channel dimensions. A
W/D of 14.0 is fairly common approach in restoration design. It is difficult to construct
large channels like Millstone Creek with low W/D because it requires side slopes to be
steep and bank heights to be higher, which brings additional risk and uncertainty to project
establishment and long-term stability. After implementation, W/D may decrease as the
channel narrows with sediment deposited on the low benches and channel side slopes.
A maximum riffle depth ratio (Dmbkf/Dbkf) of 1.3 was used because sediment supply is
expected to be high and sediment transport capacity is needed to avoid aggradation in
the channel bottom. For pool depths, a maximum pool depth ratio of 3.0 is proposed to
create deep pools for habitat, energy dissipation and potential settling of sediment due to
the low valley slope. The pools are also designed to be relatively wide with a pool width
ratio of 1.4 (W bkfp/W bkf), which will allow for construction of a gently sloping (7:1) point bar
for sediment deposition and storage. Radius of curvature ratio (RC/W bkf) ranged from 2.2
to 3.6. Lower RC/W bkf are represented in the reference reach dataset, however in NCSU
BAE’s experience bank treatments or structures are needed to deflect flows until
streambank vegetation becomes established. RC/W bkf between 2.0 and 3.5 tend to yield
the most stable outside meander bends. Meander width ratio (W blt/W bkf) ranged 2.0 to 4.8,
which was limited somewhat by the easement and valley constraints. Pools are spaced
at 3.5 to 7.1 channel widths with a median of 5.5, and proposed riffle length ratios ranged
from 0.5 to 2.9. Some of the design pool-to-pool spacing and riffle length ratios are outside
of the reference reach criteria due to constraints caused by working within the existing
channel. However, the median values are with the acceptable range of the reference
reach criteria.
Table 15: Millstone Creek Morphological Design Criteria

Reach

Terrible Creek – C5

Sandy Creek – E5

Proposed Stream – E5 / C5

Parameter Dimension Summary Dimension Summary Dimension Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
W/D 11.5 14.0 16.4 10.6 11.0 11.9 - 14.0 -
Dmbkf/Dbkf 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 - 1.3 -
Dbkfp/Dbkf 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.1 1.4 1.8 - 1.7 -
Wbkfp/Wbkf 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 - 1.4 -
Abkfp/Abkf 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 - 2.5 -
Dmbkfp/Dbkf 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 - 3.0 -

Parameter Planform Summary Planform Summary Planform Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Lm/Wbkf 4.2 5.2 9.4 5.7 12.6 23.1 7.5 10.2 12.4
Rc/Wbkf 1.1 1.2 2.2 1.4 1.8 8.1 2.2 2.5 3.6
Wblt/Wbkf 1.6 2.5 3.6 2.8 4.3 4.7 2.0 3.1 4.8

Parameter Profile Summary Profile Summary Planform Summary
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max
Lp/Wbkf 0.4 1.7 3.8 0.6 1.6 4.4 0.9 3.0 4.6
p-p/Wbkf 0.6 2.3 4.6 1.2 3.0 5.6 3.5 5.5 7.1
Sp/S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lrif/Wbkf 0.2 0.8 1.3 0.4 0.7 3.0 0.5 2.1 2.9
Srif/S 1.6 5.7 14.6 2.1 3.2 7.5 1.9 1.9 2.4
8.4.3 Sediment Transport
Millstone Creek receives a relatively high watershed and reach sediment supply.
Sediment sources include upland, channel and bank sediments. The project reach has
also experienced mild incision and subsequent widening, decreasing in-channel
velocities, shear stress and stream power, which resulted in moderate aggradation of
sand and fine gravels in pools and on lateral bars. The reach also lacks sufficient
depositional storage for supplied sediment on low benches and point bars. Quantitative
sediment supply estimates can be highly variable and erroneous due to watershed,
channel, landscape, soils and fluvial process variability. To characterize sediment supply
to the project reach of Millstone Creek for the existing conditions assessment and
restoration design approach, three (3) distinct methods were employed:
1. Estimating the annual sediment load measured at the Millstone Creek field monitoring
station and converting TSS concentrations to SSC concentrations with USGS
regression equations described by Glysson et al. (2000).
2. Modeling of the Millstone Creek watershed and streams using ArcSWAT and ArcGIS
3. Modeling annual sediment load that is transported by the existing project reach of
Millstone Creek in HEC-RAS.
Each method for estimating sediment supply to the Millstone Creek project reach has
strengths and weaknesses related to data collection and measurement methods, model
nuances and inherent variability. The methods and technical approach for estimating
sediment supply are described in detail below. Details of each method and quantification
approach are included in Appendix C.

Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Summary

Estimates of sediment supply ranged from 4,300 tons per year to 11,340 tons per
year. The approaches included estimates based on field collected TSS data and
correlated SSC data using the general USGS regression, watershed modeling of uplands
and streams using ArcSWAT, and finally hydraulic and sediment transport modeling using
HEC-RAS.
Table 16: Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Summary

Method and Approach Predicted Annual Sediment Load
Field measured TSS data and the general
USGS equation for SSC concentration

4,300 to 8,600 tons per year
Watershed modeling in ArcSWAT using
historical weather data

11,340 tons per year
Mobile bed and annual sediment transport
capacity modeling in HEC-RAS 9,305 tons per year

While field collected data is often preferred for technical analysis, TSS data
collected at the project reach presents several challenges for use in estimating sediment
supply, which includes the configuration of the sampling apparatus, error in the correlation
of TSS data to SSC data and lack of bedload data. The sampling methods used can
dramatically under predict the sand fraction of the stream flow sample and do not capture
bed load at all. Thus, a substantial amount of error is introduced to the estimate. ArcSWAT
has the ability to estimate upland, channel bed and bank sediment loads from historical
weather and discharge records, which can determine long term averages or trends.
However, the model must be calibrated and validated to field collected weather, flow and
water quality data to accurately simulate discharges and pollutant loads. Calibration and
validation of a SWAT model was beyond the scope of this mitigation planning effort, but
the model outputs were loosely calibrated to field collected TSS data. Additionally,
SWAT’s routines for simulating channel bed and bank erosion are somewhat coarse with
multiple adjustable calibration coefficients. SWAT also lacks reach-scale sediment
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
56
transport routines.
Of the three (3) technical approaches used, hydraulic and mobile bed sediment
transport modeling with HEC-RAS 5.0 likely provides the most reliable estimate of
sediment supply for the Millstone Creek project reach. However, it should be noted that
is produced a number that is still only an estimate. This approach focused hydraulic and
sediment transport properties of the study channel rather than modeling and
characterizing the watershed, which means it is more feasible to physically measure all
necessary model input parameters. Model inputs like channel substrate gradation,
channel substrate depth, unsteady stream flow and cross-sectional geometry were all
physically measured in the field. Sediment transport equations described by Yang (1987)
(which solve for suspended and bedload concentration) were then used to simulate the
movement of sediment from one (1) cross-section to the next. This approach minimizes
error compared to the other technical approaches described.
Millstone Creek Sediment Transport Capacity
Sediment transport capacity of the existing Millstone Creek project reach was
modeled using the hydraulic design tools in HEC-RAS 5.0 (Figure 64). Sediment transport
capacity analysis is most valuable when used to compare the study reach to a reference
condition U/S or D/S of the project or to a proposed design configuration. A suitable
reference condition was not available U/S or D/S of the project reach, thus the existing
sediment transport capacity analysis will be compared to proposed design and functional
objectives for the design. The existing project reach has shown signs of aggradation
through the formation of mid-channel and lateral bars. One of the functional objectives of
the restoration design approach will be to moderately increase the sediment transport
capacity of the proposed channel such that more sediment will be moved through the
system to D/S reaches or be deposited on depositional features like low benches and
point bars within the project reach. For the design QBKF of 305 cfs, the existing channel
can move up to 3,000 tons of sediment per day. Compare this to the proposed channel
at QBKF (305 cfs) where the channel can now move up to 4,100 tons of sediment per
day. This modeling analysis shows a moderate increase in sediment transport capacity
from the existing to the proposed condition. The moderate increase incapacity should
alleviate aggradation within the existing channel in conjunction with the proposed
depositional features like low benches and wide point bars.
8.4.5 Implementation Plan
Millstone Creek Reach 1 begins at the north boundary of the Site easement and
flows to the break in the easement at STA 14+62. This reach will not be realigned. Log
riffles, log vanes and brush toe protection will be installed to target a pool-to-pool spacing
ratio between 4.0 and 6.0. Additional wood structures including cover logs and log sills
will be added to the channel to enhance bedform diversity and aquatic habitats. Vertical
and unvegetated banks will be sloped back at 3:1 and planted aggressively with native
woody vegetation. Millstone Creek Reach 2 has been designed as a Rosgen E4/C4.
Reach 2 will be realigned from STA 14+18 to STA 20+20. Sinuosity and slope are
relatively low due to site and valley constraints. The low valley slope, U/S and D/S tie in
elevations set by the easement boundary. Reconfigured riffle and pool cross-sections will
be constructed throughout the reach that are designed to moderately increase sediment
transport capacity and depositional surface area for storage of sediment within the reach.
Large woody debris (LWD) will be incorporated into the channel for habitat features, flow
diversity, bank protection and grade control. Log riffles will be used for grade control and
brush toe protection will be used on most outside meander bends. Log j-hooks, sod mats
and soil geolifts will be used where outside meander bends are construction in fill material
or where lower radius of curvature ratios (RC/W BKF) were used for the proposed alignment.
Riffles with smaller woody debris and boulders may also be used to diversify the bed
features.
8.5 Wetland Basis for Design
8.5.1 Wetland 1 Design Approach
The design approach for Wetland 1 specifically targets nutrient processing and
treatment mitigation goals for the site. The proposed rehabilitation and reestablishment
of Wetland 1 is modeled after the layout and function of a treatment wetlands. Specific
modifications to Wetland 1 include:
•Remove existing berms that are remnant of past damming and hydromodification.
•Plug existing ditch.
•Increase the surface area of the wetland.
•Include deep pools for settling of sediment and attached phosphorus and provide
amphibian habitat.
•Create wetland hydrology and planting zones including shallow water and shallow
land to encourage nutrient processing, uptake and removal.
•Incorporate variable depths and roughness to elongate the flow path and increase
the hydraulic retention time.
The wetland will include three zones of varying water depths and wetland plant
communities. A description of the three zones is provided in Table 17. Water depths
and available surface storage of runoff within Wetland 1 will vary from 0 – 12 inches
seasonally with more storage available during summer months and substantially less
storage available in the winter months when the water table rises.
Table 17: Summary for Wetland Treatment Zones and Depths
Zone Depth below Ground
Surface Description and Function
Deep Pool 18-36 inches
Persistent deep water with little to no
vegetation. Dissipate energy, trap sediment,
amphibian habitat.
Shallow Water 0-6 inches
Shallow standing water and/or saturated soil
conditions during most of the year and
dominated by extensive wetland vegetation.
Shallow Land 0
Inundated with water during stormflows and
saturated conditions during the wet periods;
planted with appropriate vegetation to withstand
periodic flooding.
8.5.2 Implementation Plan
Wetland 1 is a jurisdictional feature located within the Millstone Creek floodplain
that has been degraded by damming, ditching, cattle access and trampling, settlement of
eroded material from NT, UTA and UTB and invasive species. The existing area of
Wetland 1 is 1.159 acres and the proposed design will expand this area to 1.76 acres.
To construct the restored UTB channel, 0.02 acres of Wetland 1 will be permanently
occupied by the new channel. Wetland 1 is the primary recipient of extremely high nutrient
and sediment loads conveyed by the tributaries. This will be rehabilitated and re-
established to provide additional water quality treatment to tributary baseflows and
stormflows flows. The proposed design includes 1.159 acres of wetland rehabilitation to
control invasive species and re-plant desirable wetland vegetation. An additional 0.601
acres of wetland will be re-established through grading and removal of an existing
earthen berm, plugging on an existing ditch, invasive species control and planting of
wetland species. Specifically, the wetland will be designed to maintain wetland
hydrology and to increase physical, chemical and biological processes of nutrient
processing and uptake by elongating the hydraulic flow path and retention time. A strip of
ground at higher elevation will be graded into the wetland to lengthen the flow path and
increase hydraulic retention time. An armored outfall will be constructed to safely
convey flows from the wetland to Millstone Creek.
8.6 Riparian Vegetation and Planting Plan
The primary objective of the riparian vegetation and planting plan for the Site is to
establish native woody and herbaceous species to support geomorphic, physicochemical
and biological functions. Deep rooting vegetation is a key element to post-construction
stabilization, long-term success, establishment of new channel boundary conditions and
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
58
functional uplift. The entire area within the conservation easement will be planted and
revegetated by distinct zones described in Figure 18 and Table 18. Four riparian
vegetation communities are proposed for the site. Species planted as bare roots or live
stakes will be planted at 12‐foot by 6‐foot spacing for an initial density of 605 stems per
acre. The targeted density after monitoring year 3 is 320 stems per acre. Live stakes will
be planted on channel banks at 6‐foot spacing. No live stakes will be installed below base
flow elevation. Sod mats have also been proposed on outside meander bends of Millstone
Creek. All invasive and undesirable species will be chemically treated or mechanically
removed during construction. Excess woody debris, branches and trunks from invasive
plants may be chipped, burned or removed from the site. To ensure vegetation growth
and survival, soil amendments may be added. Soil tests will be conducted to determine
appropriate rates of lime and fertilizer. Excavated topsoil may be stockpiled, reapplied
and disked as needed before seeding and planting activities occur. During post-
implementation monitoring, appropriately spaced vegetation plots will be established on
all restoration and enhancement reaches. Invasive species within the conservation
easement will be also be identified and mapped. Recommendations will be made for
corrective action should additional invasive species treatment and control be needed.

Figure 18: Riparian Vegetation and Planting Plan
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 Draft - April 15, 2019
61
Table 18: Planting Plan Zones
Zone Name Description Area Materials Methods Management
1
Upland
Hardwood
Forest
Tree and shrub species
well suited for deep, well-
drained, slowly permeable
Mecklenburg loams. Fruit-
bearing shrubs and oak
species selected to
provide food for deer, wild
turkey and other wildlife
Steep, well-
drained slopes
adjacent to NT
and UTA and
extending to a
point at which
the slopes flatten
out to the valley
bottom
Bareroot
seedlings
Permanent
herbaceous
seed
Invasive plants (e.g.
multi-flora rose and
Chinese privet)
chemically treated
and physically
removed. Soil tests to
be performed and
amendments added
as appropriate
Supplemental
planting, pruning,
mulching and
fertilizing as
needed. Chemical
and or physical
treatment/removal
of invasive plants
2
Floodplain
Riparian
Area
Trees and shrubs that are
common to Piedmont
alluvial floodplains.
Canopy, sub-canopy and
shrub species that are
known to endure periodic
flooding and occasional
brief periods of saturation
following flood events and
moist soil condition during
the wet season of the
year.
lowland
floodplain areas
of UTB and
Millstone Creek,
minimum width
of 50’
Tublings
Invasive plants (e.g.
honeysuckle and
Chinese privet)
chemically treated
and physically
removed. Soil tests to
be performed and
amendments added
as necessary
Supplemental
planting, pruning,
mulching and
fertilizing as
needed. Chemical
and or physical
treatment/removal
of invasive plants
3 Streambank
Tree and shrub species
that persist in Piedmont
riparian zones where they
provide excellent
rootmass and root
structure. High bush
blueberry included on
upper slopes to provide
wildlife benefit.
All streambanks
Millstone Creek
and all
tributaries
Small tree
and shrub
live stakes
and plugs,
Permanent
herbaceous
seed
Live stakes planted
during dormant
season above
baseflow elevation.
Supplemental
planting, pruning,
mulching as
needed. Chemical
and or physical
treatment/removal
of invasive plants

Zone Name Description Area Materials Methods Management

4

Wetland
Tree and shrub species
typically observed within a
Piedmont alluvial forest
and tolerant of periodic
inundation and fluctuating
water table. Herbaceous
plants typical of Piedmont
wetlands that are tolerant
of persistent shallow
water and/or saturated
soil conditions

Shallow Land
Zone of
Wetland 1 and
along the edges
of the existing
and low areas of
Millstone Creek
and UTB
floodplain

Tublings,
plugs, bare
roots

Spread 4 - 6 inches
of topsoil (as needed)
on the surface of the
wetland for plant
establishment.

Supplemental
planting, pruning,
chemical and/or
physical
treatment/removal
of invasive plants

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 DRAFT – April 15, 2019
63
8.7 Post-Construction Stabilization Plan
Immediately following grading, excavation and channel work, topsoil may be
reapplied and seasonally appropriate temporary seed, permeant seed, fertilizer, lime (or
other necessary soil amendments) and mulch will be spread over all bare earth. Coir
matting or sod mats will placed on all streambanks. Live stakes will be installed in the
outside of meander bends to help anchor sod mats in place. Sod will be harvested from
excavated areas within the valley. The sod will be stripped and immediately transported
and installed to newly constructed streambanks. Irrigation (from the stream) will be
established to water the sod for the first 4 weeks following construction as needed,
depending on rainfall amounts. Erosion control matting will be installed on all
streambanks and anchored with wooden stakes. Additional post-construction stabilization
and S&EC descriptions and details are available in the construction documents.
8.8 Stream Crossings
A single easement break and stream crossing will be established at approximate STA 15
+ 10 FT on Millstone Creek. The crossing will be an armored ford crossing for livestock
access to pastures on the adjacent landowner’s property. The crossing will be gated and
fenced off. The fencing may be charged with high tensile wire when the crossing is in
active use. Cattle will not have access to Millstone Creek when moving through the
crossing.
8.9 Project Risks and Uncertainties
Land adjacent to and surrounding the project and established conservation easement is
managed for cattle grazing and hay production. There is potential for cattle to
inadvertently access the project area. The exclusion fencing will be inspected twice a year
during post-implementation monitoring and signs of cattle intrusion will be reported. A
swine waste pond exists just upslope of Millstone Creek and swine wastes are also
applied on the fields adjacent to the project streams. Swine waste applications adjacent
to the tributaries have been targeted with treatment systems and the expansion and re-
establishment of the existing wetland area. However, it is possible that the waste
application areas or zones could change over time. There is a break in the easement with
a ford crossing through Millstone Creek for cattle access and grazing in fields east of the
project. The easement break may be mowed or maintained occasionally by the
landowner.
Contributing drainage areas to all site streams are very rural with no documented plans
for urban development or NC DOT roadway construction and expansion. Substantial
amounts of land cover have already been converted from forest to pasture and hay
production or shrub / scrub cover. It is unlikely that additional changes in landuse would
alter the hydrology, hydraulics and sediment supply to the project reaches. There are
three primary risks to the project which are detailed below:
1. Sediment supply to Millstone Creek is high, particularly from reaches immediately
upstream of the project where channel bed and bank erosion persist. Substantial effort
has been made to evaluate and quantify existing sediment supply the project reach
on Millstone Creek through field evaluations and analytical studies. The existing
channel also shows signs of aggradation in the form of mid-channel bars, alternating
lateral bars and filling of pools. The proposed channel has been designed to provide
storage on point bars and low benches (inner berm) and moderately increase
sediment transport capacity to decrease the risk of aggradation within the channel.
Aggradation within the channel can negatively impact hydraulic, geomorphology and
biology functions. However, an increase in sediment transport capacity may also
create the risk of channel degradation. Analysis of the proposed design indicates the
risk or channel degradation is low. In general, with high sediment supply systems like
Millstone Creek there is substantial risk of dramatic post-implementation adjustment
of channel dimensions to occur as sediment is transported and stored within the
system.
2. Riffle-step-pool systems with underlying sand layer on NT R1 and UTA R1. The
primary purpose of the systems is to enhance nutrient processing, detain storm flow
runoff and adequately convey high flows without degradation from the drainage area
over a relatively steep gradient (NT R1 = 0.042 ft/ft, UTA R1 = 0.048 ft/ft) to the
tributaries. The grade controls and pools have been designed to resist the shear
stresses and dissipate energy up the Q100 discharge. RSCs have been used in urban
areas with mixed success of processing and treatment of nutrients. However, this is
largely due the low nutrient concentrations and loads that are typically found in influent
urban runoff (i.e. it is difficult to clean relatively clean water). There are no published
research studies available on the application and performance of the system in and
agricultural environment with high nutrient supply. However, the principles and design
approach or the urban and agricultural systems are similar and the treatment and
processing capability at the project site is expected to be higher than an urban
scenario. This is because nutrient concentrations and loads are extremely high in both
storm flows and base flows.
3. Restored stream features (bedforms, banks, structures and floodplain) are particularly
vulnerable to damage from flooding and overbank flows in the 1 – 2 years following
implementation. Overbank and flood flows can degrade immature streambank and
floodplain vegetation leading to bank erosion, floodplain rills and channelization, and
structure failure. This risk of damage during high flows decreases substantially after
vegetation becomes established on the streambanks and floodplain. Adaptive
management strategies are detailed Section 12.
10. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MITIGATION SUCCESS CRITERIA

The stream and wetland performance standards for the project will follow approved
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 DRAFT – April 15, 2019
65
performance standards presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.3,
12/18/2014), the Annual Monitoring Template (April 2015), and the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines issued April 2003 by the USACE and DWR. Annual monitoring and semi‐
annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of site resources after
implementation. Performance standards are proposed for stream morphology, hydrology
and vegetation and wetland hydrology and vegetation. Performance standards for
streams will be evaluated throughout the seven year post‐construction monitoring. If all
performance standards have been successfully met, NC DMS may propose to terminate
stream, wetland and/or vegetation monitoring after MY5.
10.1 Streams
10.1.1 Channel Dimension
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches should function in a state of
dynamic equilibrium. Changes in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width‐to‐depth
ratio will be evaluated based on the magnitude and rate of adjustment in comparison to
other natural or reference adjustments. For restored, meandering streams, such as
Rosgen C and E‐type streams, entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 and bank height
ratios shall be less than 1.2. If channel adjustments do occur, these changes will be
evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of departure from
natural adjustments. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising stream bed or
eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward
equilibrium or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width‐to‐depth ratio in
meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Corrective action would not be taken
if channel changes indicate a movement toward equilibrium as the proposed boundary
conditions become established.
To assess post-implementation channel dimensions, 6 permanent cross-sections
will be established on Millstone Creek (3 riffle, 3 pool), one riffle cross-section on NT R1,
two riffle cross-sections on UTA R1 and two riffle cross-sections on UTB NC DMS
guidance. Each cross-section will be monumented with rebar pins, NCSU BAE caps and
stakes to establish its location and tied to the original survey datum. The permanent cross-
sections will be surveyed annually. Cross-section surveys will include points measured at
all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, thalweg and any other
significant geomorphic features. If bank erosion is observed within permanent pool cross-
sections during the post-implementation monitoring period, bank pin arrays or 3D surface
modeling will be used to document bank erosion rates and exported sediment volume.
10.1.2 Longitudinal Profile and Planform Geometry
An as-built longitudinal profile survey will be conducted following project
implementation and will include top of bank, bankfull, thalweg and water surface. In
general, riffles are expected to be steeper and shallower than pool features. Pools are

expected to be deep with a nearly flat water surface profile between the P.C. and P.T.
The total fraction of riffles and pools is not expected to change significantly from the as-
built condition for tributaries. Adjustments in the lengths and slopes of run and glide
features are expected. For Millstone Creek, variability of bedform feature location and
quantity is expected from year-to-year. This is due to high sediment supply and sand
bedded nature of the existing and proposed channel. Wood structure will be used to
create some bedform diversity through grade control and scour, but substantial changes
in bedform features are expected because the channel bed is highly mobile. The
longitudinal profile survey should indicate that BHRs remain near to 1.0 for NT R2, UT
A2, UTB and Millstone Creek. Planform geometry data will not be collected or reported
during the annual monitoring surveys unless dramatic lateral adjustments and excessive
bank erosion are observed at permanent cross-sections or through visual inspection.
10.1.3 Channel Substrate
Channel substrate materials will be sampled with the pebble count method.
Restoration reaches are expected to show maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle
features and finer particles in the pool features. A modified Wolman reach‐wide pebble
count will be performed in each restoration reach each monitoring year for classification
purposes. A wetted perimeter pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to
characterize the specific riffle material.
10.1.4 Channel Hydrology
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented throughout the monitoring
period. Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven‐year monitoring
period and must occur in separate years. Stream monitoring will continue until
performance standards in the form of two bankfull events have been documented.
Bankfull events will be documented using photographs and a pressure transducer or
similar continuous monitoring equipment, as appropriate for site conditions. The selected
measurement device will be installed in the stream within a surveyed riffle cross section.
The device will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will also be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment
deposition.
10.1.5 Visual Assessments and Semi-annual Inspections
Visual assessments will be performed along stream reaches on a semi‐annual
basis during the seven year monitoring period. Potential problem areas such as channel
bed and bank erosion, structure failure, vegetation health (e.g. low stem density,
vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock
access will be noted in project documents. Potential problem areas will be mapped,
photographed and accompanied by a written description in the annual monitoring report.

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 DRAFT – April 15, 2019
66
Problem areas with be re‐evaluated during each subsequent semi-annual visual
assessment. If remedial actions are required, recommendations for maintenance
activities and / or repairs will be provided in the annual monitoring report.
10.1.6 Photo Documentation
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for five years
following construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS
equipment so that the same locations and view directions on the site are photographed
each year. Photos will be used to monitor restoration reaches as well as vegetation plots.
Cross-sectional photos will be taken of each permanent cross-section looking upstream
and downstream. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots.
Representative digital photos of each permanent photo point, cross-section and
vegetation plot will be taken on the same day that the stream and vegetation assessments
are conducted. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same
area in each photo over time. Photographs should illustrate the site’s vegetation and
morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross section photos should demonstrate no
excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the
absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade control structures
should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable.
Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Using the NC DMS Baseline Monitoring Report Template (02/2014), a baseline
monitoring document and as‐built record drawings of the project will be developed within
60 days of the completion of planting and monitoring device installation on the site.
Complete monitoring reports will be prepared annually in the fall and submitted to NC
DMS using the NC DMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and
Content Guidance (April 2015). The monitoring report shall provide a project data
chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, population of
NC DMS databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making
regarding close‐out. The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion
of construction or until performance criteria have been met. All survey will be tied to grid.
10.2 Wetlands
Wetland hydrology monitoring will be conducted to ensure the jurisdictional
wetlands are meeting 8% wetland hydrology. The site will present continuous saturated
or inundated hydrologic conditions for at least 8% of the growing season during normal
weather conditions. A “normal” year is based on NRCS climatological data for Randolph
County, using the 30th to 70th percentile thresholds as the range of normal. The growing
season for Randolph County, using the 50% chance of higher than 28 F method, is from
March 21st through November 14th ,238 days. Hydrologic performance will be
determined through evaluation of automatic recording gauge data.
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 DRAFT – April 15, 2019
67
10.3 Vegetation
Vegetative performance for riparian vegetation associated with the stream
restoration component of the project will be in accordance with the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines issued October 2016 by the USACE. The success criteria are an interim
survival rate of 320 planted stems per acre at the end of monitoring year three (MY3) and
a final survival rate of 210 stems per acre at the end of monitoring year 7 (MY7). The
expected buffer planting areas are shown in Figure 36. Areas outside of the buffer planting
areas currently have trees, but will be planted as needed following construction activities
to achieve the target density. Additional Monitoring
10.3.1 Physicochemical
Pre-implementation water quality data collected by NCSU BAE indicates that the
primary stressors to the site streams are elevated nitrogen concentrations in the
tributaries during baseflows and stormflows. Increased fecal coliform counts, TSS and TP
concentrations were also documented during storm flows. To evaluate post-
implementation water quality, 4 permanent continuous discharge and water quality
sampling stations will be established at the site (3 tributary stations and 1 station on
Millstone Creek above the proposed confluence with the UTB / Wetland 1). Locations of
the permanent monitoring stations are shown in Figure 37. Additional water quality
parameters will include:
a.Total Nitrogen (NH3, NOx, TKN)
b. Total Phosphorus
c.TSS
d.Fecal Coliform
e.Conductivity
f.pH
g.DO
Parameters a through c will be collected using automatic flow-paced sampling
equipment and analyzed by a State‐certified water quality lab. Grab samples for Fecal
Coliform analysis will collected on every other site visit (approx. monthly) Additional items
e through g will be measured with calibrated water quality meters in the field during site
visits to collect water quality samples (approx. every 2 weeks or more frequently). Cattle
has been fenced out of the entire easement as part of project. This activity should remove
the primary source of elevated fecal coliform counts. Stabilization of the headcuts on NT
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 DRAFT – April 15, 2019
69
R1 and UTA R1 should remove the primary source of fine sediment entering project
streams. Treatment of agricultural runoff in by BMPs on NT R1 and UTA R1 should reduce
nutrient concentrations, fecal coliform and fine sediment inputs. However, due to the
inability to control land management practices and treat the entire contributing drainage
area to the tributaries, NCSU BAE and NC DMS are not proposing to tie water quality
data to specific project performance criteria.
10.4.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat Assessment
Post‐construction benthic macroinvertebrate and habitat assessments will be
conducted semi-annually on NT R2, UTA R2, UTB and Millstone Creek to assess
changes that may result from the restoration and best management activities. Sample
site locations will be based on those utilized during the pre‐construction data collection
efforts. The benthic macroinvertebrate samples will be collected following the Qual‐4
method as described in the Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis
of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (February 2016). No specific performance criteria are
proposed based on benthic macroinvertebrate surveys or habitat assessments.
11. SITE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
11.1 Monitoring Plan
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required
performance standards are met and project goals and objectives are achieved. Annual
monitoring data will be reported using the DMS Annual Monitoring Reporting Template
(April 2015). The monitoring report shall provide project data chronology that will facilitate
an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of DMS databases for
analysis and research purposes, and assist in close‐out decision making. Using the DMS
As‐Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (February 2014), a baseline monitoring
document and as‐built record drawings of the project will be developed within 60 days of
the planting completion and monitoring installation on the restored site. Monitoring reports
will be prepared in the fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS by November
30. These reports will be based on the DMS Annual Monitoring Template (April 2015) and
Closeout Report Template (March 2015). Closeout monitoring period for stream
mitigation credits will be seven years beyond completion of construction or until
performance standards have been met. Table 19 describes how the proposed monitoring
plan is designed to verify that project goals, objectives and functional uplift have been
achieved. Detailed steam and wetland monitoring components are included in Table 20,
Figure 19.
Table 19: Summary of Performance Standards and Monitoring Metrics
Goal Treatment Performance
Standard Monitoring Metric Expected Outcomes Functional Uplift
Enhance
processing of
nutrients from
onsite sources.
Construct stream and
wetland systems
designed to process
nitrogen and
phosphorus.
*15% decrease in
TN and TP loads to
NT R2, UTA R2 and
UTB.
Instream monitoring of
discharge, TN and TP
concentrations on NT
R2, UTA R2 and UTB
Contribute to NC DEQ Cape
Fear Basin Plan by reducing
and managing nutrient inputs.
Improve water quality and
conditions for Site resources
and downstream ecosystems.
Hydrology,
Physicochemical,
Biology
Direct onsite
stream channels
towards equilibrium
condition.
Construct stream
channels with
appropriate dimensions,
planform geometry and
profile such that channel
maintenance and
adjustments are
representative of other
natural systems.
ER > 2.2, BHR < 1.2,
graphical
presentations of
stream processes
and hydraulic and
geomorphic
functions.
Permanent cross-section
monitoring, visual
inspections and photo
documentation.
Decrease sediment inputs
from channel and bank
erosion. Efficiently transport
high sediment and stream
flow.
Improved overall
hydraulic geomorphic
functions.
Improve bedform
diversity and
instream habitat.
Install habitat features
and structures, add
LWD, increase bedform
diversity, improve in-
stream water quality.
Longitudinal profile
(as-built), stable
riffles and deep
pools.
> 35% riffle features in
streams (as-built and
closeout survey) and
DMPOOL / DBKF > 2 at
permanent pool XS
Diverse bedform features.
Improved conditions and
desirable habitat for
macroinvertebrates.
Biology
Restore native
riparian vegetation.
Plant native tree,
understory and grass
species in riparian
zones, streambank and
wetland areas.
210 planted stems
per acre at MY7.
Interim survival rate
of 320 planted stems
per acre at MY3 and
260 at MY5.
100 m2 vegetation plots
will be placed on 2% of
the planted area of the
project and monitoring
annually.
Planted stem densities will be
at or above 210 planted
stems per acre at MY7, with
volunteer trees also growing
onsite.
Reduce sediment inputs
from bank erosion.
Increase nutrient
processing, uptake and
storage within the
floodplain.
Create riparian habitats.
Add a source of LWD
and organic material to
stream.
Permanently
protect site
resources from
local disturbance
and other uses.
Establish and record
conservation easement
on the Site. Install in
livestock exclusion
fencing.
Prevent easement
encroachment.
Site and easement
boundary visually
inspected annually for
encroachment.
No detrimental impacts to the
conservation easement, site
streams, wetlands or riparian
buffer.
Hydrology (reach-scale),
Hydraulic,
Geomorphology,
Physicochemical,
Biology
* NCSU BAE and NC DMS are not proposing to tie water quality data to specific project performance criteria; this is proposed as a non-binding target
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 DRAFT – April 15, 2019
72
Table 20: Millstone Creek Stream Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Monitoring
Parameter
Monitoring
Method
Quantity per Stream Frequency Notes NT R1 NT R2 UTA R1 UTA R2 UTB Millstone Creek
Dimension Riffle XS 1 0 2 0 2 3 Annual - Pool XS 0 1 0 0 0 3
Planform
Geometry Field Survey N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1
Longitudinal
Profile Field Survey N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A As-built 2
Substrate
Reach Wide
(RW), Wetted
Perimeter (WP)
100 pebble
count
1 RW, 1 WP 1 RW,
1 WP
1 RW, 1
WP
1 RW, 1
WP
1 RW, 2
WP 1 RW, 3 WP Annual -
Hydrology Gage Station 1 1 1 1 1 1 Continuous 3
Vegetation Plot Stem
Counts 1 1 1 1 2 4 Annual 4
Invasive
Vegetation Field Inspection Annual 5
Easement
Boundary Field Inspection Annual 6
Reference
Station Photos Photographs 2 1 2 1 2 4 Annual -
1.Pattern data will be collected during as‐built baseline monitoring survey only, unless XS and visual observations indicate substantial lateral migration.
2.Profile data will be collected during as‐built baseline monitoring survey only, unless XS and visual observations indicate substantial vertical adjustment.
3.Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected during semi‐annual site visits, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers will be
set to record stage once every two hours. Devices will be inspected and downloaded semi‐annually.
4.The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters (10m x 10m) for woody tree species and shrubs. Vegetation assessments will be conducted following the Carolina
Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2006).
5.Locations of invasive vegetation will be mapped and submitted with the annual monitoring report.
6.Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped and submitted with the annual monitoring report.
Millstone Creek Site - Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 DRAFT - April 15, 2019
73
Table 21: Millstone Creek Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Monitoring
Parameter
Monitoring
Method
Quantity per Wetland Resource Frequency Rehabilitation Reestablishment
Groundwater
Hydrology Gage Station 1 1
Data downloaded
quarterly for MY0 –
MY5
Wetland
Vegetation Plot Stem Counts 1 1 Annual
Figure 19: Millstone Creek Site Monitoring Plan
11.2 Site Maintenance Plan
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of all site
features and easement boundaries shall be conducted a minimum of once per year
throughout the post‐construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following site construction and is described in Table 22.
Table 22: General Site Maintenance Plan
Site Feature Maintenance through Project Close-out
Stream
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of
instream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
channel. Areas where storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel
may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head‐cutting.
Beaver activity will be monitored and beaver dams on project streams will
typically be removed during the monitoring period by a contracted entity to
allow for bank stabilization and stream development outside of this type of
influence.
Wetland
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
plantings of live stakes or containerized plants and spreading of wetland
seed mixes. Areas where floodplain flows intersect the wetland may also
require maintenance to prevent scour.
Riparian Vegetation
Riparian vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the
targeted community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities
may include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing.
Invasive plant species or excessive native volunteer tree growth that
threatens the viability of planted species shall be controlled by mechanical
and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide
application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Easement Boundaries
Easement boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear
distinction between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries
may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree‐blazing, or other
means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as needed basis.
11.3 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of site construction DMS will implement the post‐construction
monitoring protocols previously described in this document. Project maintenance will be
performed as described previously in this document. If, during the course of annual
monitoring it is determined the site’s ability to achieve site performance standards are
jeopardized, NC DMS will notify USACE of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective
Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in‐house technical staff or
may require engineering and consulting services.
11.4 Long-Term Management Plan
Upon approval for close‐out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be
transferred to the NC DEQ Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation’s
Stewardship Program. This party shall 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. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed
restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party. The NC DEQ
Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation’s Stewardship Program
currently houses DMS stewardship endowments within the non‐reverting, interest‐
bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from
the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A‐
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of
stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non‐
wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to
steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will
be re‐invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.

12. DETERMINATION OF CREDITS

The estimated stream and wetland credits proposed for the Site are listed in Table
23.
Table 23: Determination of Mitigation Credits

Mitigation Credits

Type

Stream

Riparian Wetland
Non-
riparian
Wetland
Riparian
Buffer
Nitrogen
Offset
Phosphorus
Offset
Project
Totals 3,647 N/A 0.88 N/A N/A N/A
Project Components

Resource

Existing

Approach

Level

Proposed Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
NT R1 303 LF
Realignment, riffle-step-
pool system with sandy fill material R 325 LF 1:1 325
NT R2 103 LF
Some bank grading,
enhanced riffles and log
steps, planting E1 103 LF 1:1 103
UTA R1 505 LF
Realignment, riffle-step-
pool system with sandy
fill material
R 523 LF 1:1 523

UTA R2

100 LF
Some bank grading,
enhanced riffles and log
steps, planting

E1

100 LF

1:1

100
UTB 605 LF
Some bank grading,
enhanced riffles and log
steps, planting.
E1 596 LF 1:1 596
Millstone
Creek R1
1,462
LF
Bank grading, wood
and habitat structures,
bank treatments

E1

1,462 LF

1,462

Millstone
Creek R2

553 LF
Realignment,
appropriate channel
dimensions, wood and
habitat structures, bank
treatments

R

538 LF

1:1

538
Wetland 1

1.159
Invasive species
control, re-plant appropriate vegetation. Rehab 1.159 AC 2:1 0.580

Wetland 1
Plug ditch, invasive
species control, re-plant
appropriate vegetation,
re-establish additional
wetland area and
hydrology through
grading and excavation.

Re-estab

0.601 AC

1:1

0.601

Millstone Creek Site - Randolph County Mitigation Plan
IMS Project # 204 DRAFT - April 15, 2019
77
13. REFERENCES

Daniels, R., Buol, S., Kleiss, H., & Ditzler, C. (1999). Soil Systems in North Carolina.
Technical Bulletin. Soil Science Department. North Carolina State University.
Raleigh, NC.

Doll, B., Jennings, G., Spooner, J., Penrose, D., Usset, J., Blackwell, J., & Fernandez,
M. (2016). Identifying Watershed, Landscape, and Engineering Design Factors
that Influence the Biotic Condition of Restored Streams. Water, 8(4), 151.

Doll, B. A., Grabow, G. L., Hall, K. R., Halley, J., Harman, W. A., Jennings, G. D., &
Wise, D. E. (2003). Stream restoration: a natural channel design handbook. NC
State University: North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute.

Doll, B. A., Wise‐Frederick, D. E., Buckner, C. M., Wilkerson, S. D., Harman, W. A.,
Smith, R. E., & Spooner, J. (2002). Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban
streams throughout the piedmont of north carolina. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association, 38(3), 641-651.

Filoso, S., & Palmer, M. A. (2011). Assessing stream restoration effectiveness at
reducing nitrogen export to downstream waters. Ecological Applications, 21(6),
1989-2006.

Glysson, G. D., Gray, J. R., & Conge, L. M. (2000). Adjustment of total suspended
solids data for use in sediment studies Building Partnerships (pp. 1-10).

Knies, S. V. (2009). Riparian buffer effectiveness at removal of NO3-N from
groundwater in the middle Coastal Plain of North Carolina. (Masters), NC State
University, Raleigh, NC.

Line, D. E., Osmond, D. L., & Childres, W. (2016). Effectiveness of Livestock Exclusion
in a Pasture of Central North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Quality, 45(6),
1926-1932.

Narasimhan, B., Allen, P. M., Srinivasan, R., Bednarz, S. T., Arnold, J. G., & Dunbar, J.
A. (2007). Streambank erosion and best management practice simulation using
SWAT. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 4th conference on ‘Watershed
management to meet water quality standards and TMDLs’, San Antonio. ASABE
publication.

NC-DEQ. (2005). 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Retrieved from
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005.
NC-DEQ. (2014). 2014 Integrated Report Summary Ambient Data. Retrieved from
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5965f22e762
143a3bdea66ea8bcf1f38.

NC-DEQ. (2015). 319 Watershed Plan Maps. Retrieved January 4, 2017, from NC
Department of Envrionmental Quality https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-grants/319-grant-program/319-watershed-restoration-
plan-map

NC DEQ. (2016). Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of
Benthic Macroinvertebrates Version 5.0. NC Department of Envrionmental
Quality, Division of Water Resources, Water Sciences Section, Biological
Assessment Branch, Retrieved from https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroinverte
brate-SOP-February%202016_final.pdf.

Noe, G. B., & Hupp, C. R. (2005). Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus accumulation in
floodplains of Atlantic Coastal Plain rivers, USA. Ecological Applications, 15(4),
1178-1190.

Piedmont Triad Regional Council (PTRC), & Triangle J Council of
Governments(TJCOG). (2012). Upper Cape Fear River Basin Conservation and
Restoration Analysis and Strategy. Retrieved from
http://www.ptrc.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1760

Purvis, R. A., & Fox, G. A. (2016). Streambank sediment loading rates at the watershed
scale and the benefit of riparian protection. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms, 41(10), 1327-1336. doi:10.1002/esp.3901

Rabon, D., & Heise, R. Cape Fear Shiner. In U. F. W. Service (Ed.).

Robison, G. E., & Beschta, R. L. (1990). Coarse woody debris and channel morphology
interactions for undisturbed streams in southeast Alaska, USA. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms, 15(2), 149-156.

Rosgen, D. L. (1994). A classification of natural rivers. CATENA, 22(3), 169-199.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0341-8162(94)90001-9

Rosgen, D. L. (1996). Applied river morphology. Pagosa Springs, Colo.: Wildland
Hydrology.

Rosgen, D. L. (2001). A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation
Conference.

Schafale, M. P., & Weakley, A. S. (1990). Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina. Third approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh.

Simon, A. (1989). A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms, 14(1), 11-26. doi:10.1002/esp.3290140103

Spruill, T. B., Eimers, J. L., & Morey, A. E. (1997). Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in
shallow ground water of the coastal plain of the Albemarle-Pamlico drainage
study unit, North Carolina and Virginia. Fact Sheet FS-241-96. Reston, Va. US
Geological Survey.

Starr, R., Harman, W. A., & Davis, S. (2015). Final Draft Function-Based Rapid Stream
Assessment Methodology Assessment Methodology.
Annapolis, Md. Retrieved from
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/stream/StreamsPDF/FinalDraftFunctionBasedRapid
StreamAssessmentMethodologyandAppendices5-29-15.pdf.

US Forest Service. (2012). Uwharrie National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan. Troy, NC.

USDA NRCS. (1995). Soil Survey of Randolph County, NC. Retrieved from
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/north_carolina/NC151/
0/Randolph.pdf.

USDA NRCS. (2017). The PLANTS Database Retrieved from http://plants.usda.gov.

Yang, C. T. (1979). Unit stream power equations for total load. Journal of Hydrology,
40(1-2), 123-138.
14. APPENDICIES

14.1 Ap pendix A – Detailed Functional Uplift Study with SQT
14.1.1 Hydrology
The major documented watershed disturbance for streams at the Site has been
the conversion of forested cover to pasture lands and hay production. The tributary
catchments are nearly 100% pasture or managed for hay production and the Millstone
Creek catchment is only 35% forest and 48% pasture and hay production. Loss of
forested land cover, canopy interception and uptake frequently results in a change in
stream flow regime or sediment supply boundary conditions. Surface runoff volumes and
peak discharges increase, while the time to peak decreases meaning greater discharges
arrive at the watershed outlet sooner (Leopold, 1968). Sediment supply may also increase
from more erodible upland areas and channel and bank sources as stream flow and
power increase. A gauge with long-term flow records does not existing within the Site
drainage areas, so the actual magnitude and rate of change in hydrologic regime cannot
be confirmed. Urban development and growth is not anticipated within the project
drainage areas and NC DOT has no current or long range plans for road construction and
infrastructure development.
The SQT quantifies catchment landuse and condition with the CN, and lower CNs
are taken to be more representative of forested reference conditions and higher
functioning systems. All drainage area CN’s resulted in “Not Functioning” scores for
hydrology functions (Table 24). Uplift is produced for hydrology of the tributaries by
reducing reach-scale runoff through buffer planning (reforesting) and with upstream
BMPs. The proposed RSCs and temporary storage of runoff above NT R2, UTA R2 and
UTB will eliminate the erosional gullies (concentrated flow points) and result in catchment
hydrology more similar to a forested condition. CNs were estimated for the tributary
catchments with BMPs under the proposed or restored site conditions to capture the uplift
in hydrology function. The Millstone Creek watershed is relatively large (8.3 mi2) and the
restoration effort will not produce uplift in catchment hydrology. Some reach-scale
hydrology uplift is possible through establishment of riparian buffer outside the right bank;
however, it is insignificant in comparison to the larger catchment.
Table 24: Millstone Creek Site Resource Hydrology Functional Parameters

Site
Resource
Catchment Hydrology Reach Runoff Concentrated Flow Points
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
NT R2 73 30 73 61 1 0
UTA R2 73 30 73 61 1 0
UTB 73 40 73 61 2 0

Millstone
Creek 75 75 73 61 - -

Not Functioning (NF)
Functioning at Risk (FAR)
Functioning (F)

14.1.2 Hydraulics
Tributaries NT R2 and UTA R2 are incised and entrenched systems with bank
height ratios (BHRs) of 1.5 and 1.8 and entrenchment ratios (ER) of 2.0 and 1.1,
respectively. NT R2 hydraulics are “Functioning-at-Risk” and UTA R2 is “Not
Functioning”. UTB is a channelized and incised system as well with BHR and ER of 1.3
– 2.3 and 1.4 – 1.8, respectively. On a hydraulics basis, UTB is designated “Functioning-
at-Risk”. Millstone Creek hydraulics are “Functioning” as quantified by the SQT. The
system is only slightly incised (BHR = 1.1 – 1.2) and not entrenched (ER = 7.1 – 12.3).
This moderate degree of incision is likely linked to aggradation of post-European
settlement legacy sediments in the valley bottom.
Restoration efforts on the tributaries and the mainstem of Millstone Creek will
create channels that are connected to their floodplains such that at bankfull discharges,
stream flow is accessing the floodplain without impediment. BHRs for all reaches will be
1.0 after project implementation. Floodplain connection will increase the water table
elevation in the riparian zone for enhanced nutrient processing and uptake. Increased
flood frequency will provide additional opportunity for detention and spreading of flood
flows to decrease in-channel velocities and shear stresses. On reaches NT R2 and UTA
R2, bankfull benching will increase ERs to 3.5 or greater. ER for UTB will be increased to
3.5 – 7.5 and ER on Millstone Creek will remain relatively high. The hydraulics of Millstone
Creek are currently “Functioning”, however this not indicative of a healthy and functioning
system overall. Substantial bank erosion and lateral migration has been documented,
degrading Geomorphology functions described in Section 5.1.3. The restoration effort
will result in “Functioning” hydraulics for all tributaries and enhance the hydraulic function
of Millstone Creek (Table 25).
Table 25: Millstone Creek Site Resource Hydraulic Functional Parameters

Site Resource BHR ER
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
NT R2 1.5 1.0 2.0 3.0
UTA R2 1.8 1.0 1.1 3.0
UTB 1.8 1.0 1.2 3.5
Millstone Creek 1.2 1.0 5.5 7.0
Not Functioning (NF)
Functioning at Risk (FAR)
Functioning (F)
14.1.3 Channel Geomorphology
Channel geomorphology for all stream reaches has been designated “Not
Functioning”. Select existing and proposed channel geomorphology functional
parameters are presented in Table 26. All reaches lack woody riparian vegetation with
the exception of the area east of the left bank of Millstone Creek. The bedform of the
tributaries is nearly 100% riffle / run, lacking pools entirely. The tributaries are also
relatively straight with low sinuosity, which is not uncommon for streams in confined
valleys with relatively steep water surface slopes. Millstone Creek does have several
shallow pools with median pool-to-pool spacing ratio (P-P/W BKF) of 5.9, however the range
of P-P/W BKF is inconsistent and varies widely from 2.5 to 20.0. Fifty-two percent of the
stream banks on Millstone Creek show signs of erosion (surface source, mass wasting,
hoof shear) and several of the meander mender bends are migrating and adjusting
laterally up to 4 ft/yr. LWD counts for all streams were low and designated “Not
Functioning”, with some sub-reaches completely devoid of any large wood.
The proposed restoration design for the Site will bring all stream reaches up from
“Not Functioning” to “Functioning” on a Geomorphology basis. On tributaries NT R2 and
UTA R2, geomorphology functions will be restored through an Enhancement II level
approach by reconfiguring the longitudinal profile to establish appropriate feature lengths,
pool-to-pool spacings (P-P/W BKF = 2.0) and pool depths appropriate for the B stream type.
Enhanced riffles with native substrate and log steps will be used to diversify the bedforms,
hold grade and maintain pools through energy dissipation and scour. A similar (though
restoration level) approach will be implemented on UTB. The proposed UTB channel will
be reconstructed with appropriate channel dimensions, planform geometry and bedform
features for a B4c stream type. Millstone Creek has incised slightly through 1.5 – 2.5 feet
of post-European settlement sediments that have accumulated in the valley bottom.
Millstone Creek channel will be reconstructed with several new meander bends to
establish appropriate planform geometry and longitudinal profile with feature lengths,
pool-to-pool spacings and pool depths appropriate for E5/C5 stream types. LWD will be
added to the system as wood riffles, bank treatments and select habitat features.
Table 26: Select Millstone Creek Site Resource Geomorphology Functional
Parameters
Site Resource P-P/WBKF DPOOL/DBKF % Riffle Sinuosity
Exst. Prop. Exst. Prop. Exst. Prop. Exst. Prop.
NT R2 - 2.0 - 1.7 100% 51% 1.01 1.01
UTA R2 - 2.0 - 1.7 100% 51% 1.01 1.01
UTB - 3.4 - 1.7 100% 45% 1.08 1.10
Millstone Creek 5.9 4.9 1.2 1.4 31% 50% 1.09 1.11
Not Functioning (NF)
Functioning at Risk (FAR)
Functioning (F)
Millstone Creek Reach-wide Streambank Erosion and Deposition Summary
An analytical study of streambank adjustments was conducted for the reach of
Millstone Creek that is within the existing site easement (Table 27). Methods described
by Purvis and Fox (2016) were followed to quantify adjustments of individual streambanks
and the net change in sediment flux from field measurements and historical aerial photos.
Aerial photos from 2007, 2010, 2014 and a field survey from 2016 were used to identify
the left and right top of bank (LTOB and RTOB) for the reach. The erosional and
depositional areas were traced using GIS software and summed for each study interval.
On site, bulk density samples were collected at four (4) locations within the project reach
and from four (4) distinctly different or stratified layers of the bank material. From the four
sample sites and four (4) stratified layers, a weighted average bulk density of 91.1 lb/ft3
or 1.46 g/cm3 was calculated for the reach using stratified layer thickness as a basis. The
traced erosional and depositional areas were then multiplied by the reach average bank
height (5.6 ft) and the reach weighted average bulk density to determine total sediment
erosion and deposition within the project reach for each study interval.
Table 27: Millstone Creek Reachwide Streambank Erosion and Deposition Summary
Study
Interval
Erosion Summary Deposition Summary Reach
Balance
(tons) Area (ft2) Mass
(tons)
Rate
(tons/yr) Area (ft2) Mass
(tons)
Rate
(tons/yr)
2007 - 2010 9,337 425 142 7,099 323 108 -102
2010 - 2014 10,532 480 120 4,574 208 52 -271
2014 - 2016 18,892 860 430 3,716 169 85 -691

Average 12,920 588 231 5,130 234 81 -355

The project reach showed a net export of sediment from bank erosion for all three
(3) study intervals totaling 1,064 tons. While deposition of sediment on streambanks did
occur for all study intervals, depositional surface area and the total mass of sediment was
substantially less than eroded sediment mass. The Millstone Creek project reach is a
significant source of sediment, on average the reach exports 231 tons (net 150 tons) of
sediment each year from bank erosion. There was a substantial increase in sediment
export from 2014 – 2016. It is possible that the increase in erosional area is related to the
2016 field survey and slight differences in aerial overlay or TOB traces. However, the
overwhelming majority of the erosional area from 2014 – 2016 occurred between Bank 2
and Bank 3 (STA. 4+00 FT to STA. 11+00 FT) in Figure 74. This reach of the project in
particular has been significantly impacted by cattle access, bank trampling and lack of
riparian vegetation.
Seven (7) individual streambanks were also studied through aerial photos and the
2016 field survey (Figure 18). Total lateral adjustment and average annual adjustment
rates were quantified. In general, the study streambanks have shown substantial lateral
adjustments due to both deposition and erosion. The outside meander bends of Banks 1,
2, and 3 have been highly unstable, moving laterally more than 3.0 feet per year. Bank 2
has eroded laterally up to 5.0 ft / yr. The outside meander bends of Banks 4, 5, 6 and 7
have been slightly less unstable during the study intervals, adjusting laterally 0.5 ft to 2.1
ft per year on average. Deposition of sediment has also occurred on the streambanks
within the study period. The high level of lateral streambank adjustment observed within
the project reach is likely linked to high sediment supply and suspended load transported
by Millstone Creek, lack of deep rooting riparian vegetation on the right bank, cattle
access, bank trampling and a moderate degree of incision. The analysis of the lateral
adjustments of the existing streambanks has been used to inform the proposed
restoration design approach on Millstone Creek and bank treatments.
14.1.4 Physicochemical
Rigorous surface water and groundwater quality monitoring has been conducted
on the tributaries and mainstem of Millstone Creek since summer 2014. High nutrient and
pathogen inputs from land applied swine wastes are the most prevalent physicochemical
stressors on the Site’s tributaries. The tributary monitoring stations were located on NT
R2 and UTA R2 just above the confluence with UTB. All water quality degradation
observed on NT and UTA is also similarly impacting UTB. For functional parameters in
the SQT, the mean or aggregate of the parameter (which ever was appropriate and most
representative) was used. On a Physicochemical basis, the tributaries are extremely
degraded and “Not Functioning”. However, conductivity of the stream flow was measured
and is suitable for macroinvertebrate habitat and recruitment. The mainstem of Millstone
Creek is also “Not Functioning”, though nutrient concentrations are much lower and fecal
coliform counts are much higher than those observed on the tributaries.
As part of the Millstone Creek mitigation effort, cattle exclusion fencing and
watering stations were installed in summer of 2015. However, due to issues with cattle
watering devices and electrical supply, cattle were not excluded from the conservation
area until approximately December 2015. Data from the pre-exclusion (8/5/14 to 12/2/15)
and post-exclusion (1/1/16 to 9/7/16) periods are separated to evaluate the results of the
cattle exclusion effort, which is a component of the restoration effort. It should be noted
that NCSU BAE staff have observed a few cattle inside the conservation easement during
nearly all visits to the site since December 2015. Generally, only 8-10 cows or fewer have
been observed inside the fence. In some instances, NCSU BAE staff have herded the
stray cows outside the fence during these visits in an effort to preserve the validity of the
pre- and post- fencing comparisons.

Pre-Implementation Water Quality Monitoring Results

Tables 28 and 29 below contain summary statistics of nutrient and sediment
concentration data obtained from water quality analysis results of surface water samples
collected during storm event discharge and non-storm (baseflow) discharge through
9/7/16. For storm samples on NT, the pollutant concentration means during the pre- and
post-fencing periods are similar with the post-fencing means being slightly greater. For
UTA, the post-fencing means are less than the pre-fencing. The reason for the seemingly
greater effect in on UTA was likely the result of greater channel and bank erosion and the
observation that the cows appeared to spend more time in UTA during the pre-fencing
period given that they were observed there more often and that the area adjacent to the
stream was more inviting (shaded and relatively flat) for cattle lounging as compared to
NT (not shaded) where easily accessible.
Table 28: Summary Statistics for Stormflow WQ Samples in NT and UTA

North Tributary (NT): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 6.55 7.47 0.79 2.40 1082
Median 5.72 5.11 0.55 2.25 582
Count 11 11 11 11 11
North Tributary (NT): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 7.45 7.64 0.84 2.62 1274
Median 8.80 5.32 0.80 3.16 1257
Count 7 7 7 7 7
UT Reach A (UTA): Pre-fencing

Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 12.58 5.70 1.21 3.21 2122
Median 12.90 5.35 0.78 2.43 665
Count 16 16 16 16 16
UT Reach A (UTA): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 10.15 4.83 0.69 2.82 1404
Median 11.90 3.49 0.58 2.71 1558
Count 7 7 7 7 10

Table 29: Summary Statistics for Baseflow WQ Samples in NT and UTA

North Tributary (NT): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 1.87 16.32 0.33 0.22 40
Median 1.48 17.15 0.26 0.13 25
Count 26 26 26 26 25
North Tributary (NT): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 1.00 18.05 0.23 0.10 16
Median 0.97 18.03 0.21 0.08 6
Count 18 18 18 18 21
UT Reach A (UTA): Pre-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 5.28 8.78 0.94 1.02 150
Median 3.74 8.65 0.49 0.55 77
Count 24 24 24 24 22
UT Reach A (UTA): Post-fencing
Statistic TKN (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L) NH3-N (mg/L) TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)
Mean 3.31 10.09 0.33 0.68 76
Median 2.02 9.64 0.27 0.39 24
Count 16 16 16 16 23

For baseflow samples from both tributaries, mean concentrations of TKN, NH3-N,
TP, and TSS decreased from the pre- to post-fencing periods, in contrast the mean
concentration of NOx-N increased. This was expected as TKN, NH3-N, TP, and TSS tend
to increase when cattle have unlimited access to a stream and decrease when excluded,
whereas, NOx-N is unaffected. Comparing concentrations between tributaries, the
greatest differences occur for NOx-N. Boxplots comparing stormflow and baseflow
concentrations of NOx-N for UTA and NT show that during the pre- and post-fencing
periods the NOx-N concentrations in NT baseflow were much greater than in UTA. This
suggests the groundwater flowing to the North Tributary has a much greater NOx-N
concentration than that contributing to the UTA. The reason for the higher concentration
for NT is unknown, but may be due to the closer proximity of this tributary to the swine
production operation and waste application equipment. Evaluation of the nutrient
management plan and waste application permit for the farm could perhaps provide some
insight relative to the variation between the tributaries.

Figure 20: NOx-N Concentrations pre-fencing (left) and post-fencing (right) for UT
Reach A (UT) and North Tributary (N).
Discharge and pollutant mass export for UTA and NT are included in Table 30.
and in Figure 20. The duration of the pre-exclusion fencing period was 1.33 years, which
is marginally sufficient to characterize the hydrology, whereas the post-fencing duration
of 0.67 years was not yet adequate. Discharge in both tributaries decreased considerably
from the pre- to post-fencing periods thereby complicating direct pre- to post-fencing
load/export comparisons (8.6 to 6.3 in/yr for the UTA and 9.3 in/yr to 7.4 in/yr for NT). For
the UTA, export of all nitrogen forms, phosphorus, and TSS decreased from the pre- to
post-fencing period. The greatest decreases by percentage were for NH3-N and TSS. For
the North Tributary, export of all nitrogen forms, except NOx-N, along with phosphorus
and sediment decreased following exclusion fencing. This was expected given that past
studies have shown that exclusion fencing has a little effect on NOx-N export, at least in
the short-term (Line, Osmond, & Childres, 2016).
Table 30: Total load of Nutrients for NT and UTA

North Tributary (NT)

Treatment
Period

Dur.
(yr)

Rain
(in/yr)

Q
(in/yr)
----------------------- Export lbs / ac / yr -----------------------
TKN NOx-N NH3-N TN TP TSS
Pre-fence 1.33 47.9 9.3 8.34 31.15 1.36 39.5 2.12 707
Post-fence 0.67 45.1 7.4 4.03 32.07 0.64 36.1 0.96 401
25.0 25.0
20.0 20.0
15.0 15.0
10.0 10.0
5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
UT-storm UT-base N-storm N-base UT-storm UT-base N-storm N-base NOx-N (mg/L) NOx-N (mg/L)

UT Reach A (UTA)
Treatment
Period
Dur.
(yr)
Rain
(in/yr)
Q
(in/yr)
----------------------- Export lbs / ac / yr -----------------------
TKN NOx-N NH3-N TN TP TSS
Pre-fence 1.33 47.9 8.6 11.76 17.38 1.54 29.1 2.73 1303
Post-fence 0.67 45.1 6.3 5.23 15.37 0.54 20.6 1.28 420

The baseflow discharge on both streams was much greater than the storm
discharge, which was unexpected considering the slope of the pasture and the soils. The
low storm discharge may be attributed to the relatively dense pasture grass, roughness
and contouring of the ground surface. The pasture has many 8-10 ft diameter and 1-2 ft
deep depressions and several terraces. These depressions create a macro-roughness
that likely enhances infiltration and reduces surface runoff. Figure 21 shows that baseflow
export for NOx, NH3-N and TN are much greater in baseflow than in stormflow. In
contrast, stormflow export of TP exceed those from baseflow as phosphorus attaches to
sediment. TKN is near equal in stormflow and baseflow. This figure also indicates that
total export is greater for NT compared to UTA. Large reductions in sediment export
occurred as a result of the fencing, especially in the UTA.
Figure 21: Total Nutrient Loads From Baseflow and Stormflow for UT to Millstone
Reach A and North Tributary
Stream conductivity is an important indicator of suitable water chemistry conditions

for fish and macroinvertebrates. In-situ conductivity measurements for UTA are shown in
Figure 22. As shown, while there are many anomalous measurements, which are typical
of in-situ probes, the vast majority of the conductivity measurements were about 190
µS/cm. During periods of surface discharge (4 large events), the conductivity decreased
considerably. For NT, the majority of the conductivity measurements were about 325
µS/cm, which was considerably greater than those at UTA. One possible reason for the
higher conductivity at the NT was that it had higher NOx-N concentrations, which means
it had more anions in the water to increase the conductivity. This may also help explain
why during periods of surface discharge the conductivity decreased given that NOx-N
concentrations were much less in storm flow samples. The conductivity of most rivers in
the US is generally between 50 to 1500 µS/cm. Studies of inland fresh waters indicates
that streams supporting good mixed fisheries have a range between 150 and 500 µS/cm.
This suggests that tributary conductivity measurements are already within the suitable
range for macroinvertebrate communities. Furthermore, clay soils tend to have higher
conductivity due to the presence of materials that ionize when mixed with runoff or stream
flow. There is additional opportunity to decrease conductivity by preventing bank erosion
and creating shallow groundwater flows within U/S BMPs to enhance water chemistry for
macroinvertebrates.

Figure 22: In-situ probe conductivity measurements at NT and UTA.
Boxplots of fecal coliform (FC) levels in grab samples collected after exclusion
fencing installation on the tributaries and on Millstone Creek (Mill-dn) are shown in Figure
22. Median levels are similar (about 300 cfu/100ml) for both tributaries with the UTA
having higher 1st and 3rd quartiles. The median fecal coliform level at Millstone Creek was
more than 3 times greater than the tributaries. This was likely due to cattle having
unlimited access to Millstone Creek just upstream of the exclusion corridor and
throughout the watershed, while there was no direct access to the tributaries. Boxplots of

FC levels before (JL-pre) and after (JL-post) livestock (beef cattle) exclusion from a small
stream located near Silk Hope, NC are also shown in Figure 23 to compare and represent
a similar restoration site. Note there was a considerable decrease in FC levels following
exclusion of the cattle and that the post-exclusion levels are similar to those of the
tributaries.

Figure 23: Fecal coliform in grab samples at Millstone (UT-base, N-base, and Mill-dn)
and Jordan Lake (JL-pre and JL-post).
For Millstone Creek, boxplots of water quality samples collected are presented in
Figure 24. The median TKN and NH3-N concentrations were similar to baseflow medians
of the tributaries (post-fencing), whereas the NOx-N was much less than that of the
tributaries. The median TP concentration was almost exactly at the midpoint between the
medians of the tributaries. The median TSS concentrationwas greater than those for
baseflow from the tributaries, but much less than those for stormflow from the tributaries.
This was expected as the samples collected from Mill-dn were a combination of baseflow
and stormflow.
JL-post JL-pre Mill-dn N-base UT-base
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500 Fecal Coliform (cfu/100 ml)
Millstone Concentration (mg/L) TSS Concentration (mg/L)
8.0
450
7.0 400
6.0 350

5.0
4.0
3.0
300
250
200
150

2.0 100
1.0 50
0.0 0
TKN NOx-N NH3-N TP Mill UT North
Figure 24: TKN, NOx-N, NH3-N, and TP (left) and TSS (right) concentrations at Mill-
dn.
To provide physicochemical uplift at the site, the proposed restoration design
includes planting and reestablishment of woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation,
reconnection of streams to floodplains, construction of RSCs as BMPs above NT R2 and
UTA R2, and an expanded wetland downstream of UTB. Riparian buffer establishment
will provide shade to decrease in-stream temperatures and supply organic material.
Exclusion fencing and an undisturbed riparian zone may also filter some pathogens from
surface runoff. Uptake and processing of nitrogen, which is a major stressor at the site,
may also be increased through more frequent floodplain inundation and a higher water
table in the riparian zone. The BMPs and expanded wetland area are designed to
increase processing and filtration of nutrients and fecal coliform before being transported
downstream.
For the purpose of quantifying functional uplift in advance of implementation and
monitoring, some assumptions have been made to estimate the level of treatment and
processing. For TN, TP and fecal coliform treatment efficiencies of 60% have been
assumed for the RSCs above the tributaries as recommended by Anne Arundel County
and WV DEQ. Actual physicochemical uplift will be determined by detailed post-
implementation field monitoring. However, even with these pollutant removal efficiencies
and the uplift provided by the additional treatment efforts, the reaches and site will not get
beyond the “Not functioning” designation (Table 31). This is because the SQT uses
reference stream water quality as a basis for determining stream function. If the SQT were
to be used as the mitigation credit determination for this project, there would actually be
no incentive implement and monitor the BMPs because the degree of departure from the
reference condition is so great. Similar findings are presented for the biology parameters
in the following sections. For this Site, the SQT may not adequately capture and describe
the physicochemical uplift provided by the mitigation effort. In fact, the SQT dis-
incentivizes implementation of BMPs and physicochemical monitoring at highly degraded
sites because they are less likely to achieve reference quality conditions necessary to
receive credit as assigned by the tool currently.
Table 31: Summary of Physicochemical Functional Parameters

Site
Resource
TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) FC (cfu/100mL) Conductivity (µS/cm)
Exst. Prop. Exst. Prop. Exst. Prop. Exst. Prop.
NT R2 17.7 6.8 2.6 1.1 300 120 323 100
UTA R2 14.2 5.7 2.8 1.1 293 118 191 100
UTB 15.9 6.4 2.7 1.1 297 119 257 100
Millstone
Creek 2.9 2.9 0.3 0.3 1450 1200 - -

Not Functioning (NF)
Functioning at Risk (FAR)
Functioning (F)
14.1.5 Biology

Macroinvertebrate Assessment

Benthic macroinvertebrate assessments have been conducted at the Site on four
occasions including November 2014, April and November 2015 and May 2016. All
sampling has been conducted using protocols developed by the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources (NC DEQ, 2016). For the first two visits, sampling was conducted
only in the tributaries at three locations (NT, UTA and UTB). The three tributary locations
have been sampled during all four visits to the site. In November 2015 sampling of
Millstone Creek was included. This sampling has varied in location including sites U/S,
within and D/S of the project reach to characterize the project reach and the likelihood of
recruitment. A summary of the sampling results including richness, biotic indices and
bioclassification metrics are provided in Table 18. Raw data results are included in the
appendices.
For the first two visits (November 2014 and April 2015), the NT exhibited significant
accumulated Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM) suggesting limited flow. The
benthic fauna was dominated by tolerant taxa including midges (Zavrelimyia in the fall
and Tanytarsus in the spring) and amphipods; no EPT organisms were collected. The NT
scored poor and fair bioclassification during these visits, respectively. (Note: DWQ Biotic
Index values for small Piedmont streams with seasonal correction factors applied as
appropriate). UTA had less CPOM suggesting more flow and more cobble and small
boulders were present, however the fauna at this location was also dominated by very
tolerant taxa (mostly midges including Conchapelopia group and Zavrelimyia spp). Two
EPT organisms were collected (one mayfly and one caddisfly) on the first visit and only
one the second visit. The very high biotic index at this location resulted in a Poor
bioclassification for both sampling visits. During the third site visit in Fall 2015, both
tributaries exhibited positive differences in taxa richness, the presence of intolerant taxa
(having a BI of 2.5 or less) and lower biotic index values. EPT taxa richness and the
presence of intolerant taxa increased in 2015, which resulted in a lower biotic index and
an improved bioclassification (Good/Fair). This sampling suggested that conditions had
improved in both locations. The caddisfly, Diplectrona modesta was present in both of the
tributaries and the caddisfly Lepidostoma spp was found in the UTA. During the fourth
visit in spring 2016, taxa richness values were similar to the values noted from this
location in the fall 2015. However, there was an increase in abundance of tolerant taxa
(especially Simulium spp, Chironomus spp., and Physella spp.), which increased the
Biotic Index values and resulted in a Poor bioclassification for the North Trib. and Fair for
UT Reach A. Mosquito larvae and Crustacea were also abundant during this survey.
The sample location of UTB is approximately 160 ft. below the confluence of NT
and UTA. The instream habitat at this location becomes slightly more heterogeneous and
the presence of bank habitat was noted. For the first sampling in Fall 2014, the total
number of taxa was 18 at this location and 3 EPT taxa were collected (two mayflies;
Paraleptophlebia spp, which was common, and Centroptilum spp: and one caddisfly
Ptilostomis spp). The benthic fauna at this location is also dominated by tolerant taxa
including midges and Physidae snails. Three taxa that have a NC Biotic Index of < 2.5
were collected, which lowered the total biotic index for the site to 6.12 and a Fair
bioclassification using these criteria. The improvement in biological conditions noted at
the NT and UTA during the third sampling, however, was not seen at the UTB station
below the confluence. Comparison of November 2014 and 2015 samples at this location
noted a slight decline in the fauna; slightly lower taxa richness values and a lower number
of intolerant taxa. During the spring 2016 visit, the bioclassification increased only slightly
in UTB. Extremely high numbers of blackfly larvae were collected during this survey, but
interestingly the relatively intolerant baetid mayfly Baetis pluto became abundant during
this survey. This mayfly has only been collected from these stations only during the last
two surveys and only abundantly from this site. These data resulted in a Fair
bioclassification for all four surveys at this reach. Comparisons of total taxa richness and
EPT taxa richness and abundance for the three tributary sampling stations are provided
in Figures 25 - 27 below.

Figure 25: Total taxa richness for Millstone Creek tributaries

Figure 26: EPT taxa richness for Millstone Creek tributaries

Figure 27: EPT abundance for Millstone Creek tributaries

Table 32: Macroinvertebrate Assessment Summary

Collection
Location
Mill
U/S
Mill
PR1
Mill
PR1
Mill
D/S

North Tributary (NT)

UT Reach A (UTA)

UT Reach B (UTB)
Collection Date
(yr/mo)
2016
May
2015
Nov
2016
May
2015
Nov
2014
Nov
2015
Apr
2015
Nov
2016
May
2014
Nov
2015
Apr
2015
Nov
2016
May
2014
Nov
2015
Apr
2015
Nov
2016
May
Total Taxa
Richness 25 24 33 31 10 11 19 18 11 15 18 14 18 17 17 16
EPT Taxa
Richness 7 11 8 13 0 0 3 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 1 2
EPT Seasonal
Correction**

7

8

8

10

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA
EPT Abundance 24 57 41 36 0 0 7 2 2 1 8 2 5 1 3 13
Biotic Index 6.51 5.54 5.67 5.54 7.16 6.37 5.49 6.94 7.43 7.05 5.33 6.62 6.02 5.88 5.78 5.24
BI Seasonal
Correction*

6.71

5.64

5.87

5.64

7.26

6.57

5.59

7.14

7.53

7.25

5.43

6.82

6.12

6.08

5.88

5.44
Number of taxa =
2.5 or less

1

5

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

1

3

0

1

1
Classification
Criterion

EPT Richness

NC Biotic Index

NC Biotic Index

NC Biotic Index
Bioclassification Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair/
Good Poor Poor Poor Fair/
Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair/
Good
1PR = Millstone Creek Project Reach
* Seasonal correction for BI; +0.1 fall, +0.2 spring
** Seasonal correction for EPT richness, subtract seasonal Plecoptera taxa from list.
Millstone Creek was sampled within the project reach and just D/S of the project
at a location below the confluence with UTB in November 2015. During the May 2016
sampling Millstone Creek was sampled just U/S and within the project reach. The habitat
in all sampling locations is dominated by shifting sand. At all locations, the taxa richness
and abundance in Millstone Creek is much higher than those recorded from all tributary
locations. Total and EPT taxa richness values are 24/11 and 31/13 respectively for 2015
and 25/7 and 33/8 for 2016. Taxa richness and EPT abundance was slightly higher at the
D/S locations. Several EPT taxa were found only at the D/S site during the first visit
including Eurylophella verisimils, Maccaffertium modestum and Triaenodes ignitus. The
only stonefly collected during the spring 2016 survey was collected in Millstone (Perlesta
spp.) whereas four stonefly taxa were collected from Millstone Creek during the 2015
surveys. Because Millstone Creek is much larger and has greater habitat heterogeneity,
NC DWR recommends using the total number of EPT taxa (corrected for season) as the
metric to define the bioclassification (DWR 2013). As a result, all locations on Millstone
Creek were given Fair bioclassifications for both sampling visits.

Fish Assessment

The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) was contacted to determine if they
had interest in sampling fish in Millstone Creek to document existing fish habitat and
restoration potential. NC WRC declined the opportunity indicating that improved fish
assemblage was not expected from the proposed restoration project, and thereby a
sampling effort would not benefit the research results. However, WRC provided the
following observations regarding the mainstem of Millstone Creek:
• The project is somewhat high in the watershed; it is fairly sizeable but for the slate belt
it’s still in a range that can see periods of little to no surface flow. That alone will affect
the expected fish assemblage in this region.
• As with any stream restoration project if the site has degraded habitat above and
below the site it will be difficult to reestablish those communities.
• Staff looked at multiple crossings of this system and each one exhibited degraded
habitat.
• Species observed during site visit, sunfish, creek chubs, and corbicula, are all very
tolerant. The upstream and downstream reaches did not have any additional species
diversity. Due to these survey results, we don’t expect recolonization of the restored
reach with anything other than what is currently present.
• Improved aquatic assemblage would not be expected by the proposed restoration
effort. Macroinvertebrate monitoring should be a better biological measure for uplift at
this location.
In general, there is little habitat in the Site streams to support rich and diverse
macroinvertebrate communities. The tributaries are plane bed systems comprised of
mostly riffle / run bedforms with little to no flow or bedform diversity. No deep pools are
present. The riffles do contain some well-graded gravel substrate, however the particle
size analysis of the bed materials indicated large fractions of sand and silt/clay had also
accumulated in the channel bed. The fine material likely originates from upstream channel
and bank sources and buries suitable habitat for macroinvertebrates as it is transported
downstream. There is a limited amount and supply of LWD to the tributaries to provide
flow diversity and pocket habitats. Woody riparian vegetation is non-existent on UTB and
there is little riparian vegetation on NT and UTA to provide shading and a source of
organic material through leaf fall and die off. Few terrestrial species exist in the riparian
zone other than pasture grasses. The hydraulic conditions of the incised systems are not
suitable for macroinvertebrates as in-stream velocities and shear stresses are increased
at lower flows due floodplain disconnection. Physicochemical inputs to the tributaries are
extremely high and may be the greatest stressor to aquatic organisms and habitat. The
jurisdictional wetland just below the UTB may be a barrier to aquatic organism passage
and potential recruitment. Pre-restoration macroinvertebrate assessments of biotic
indices and EPT taxa present in the tributaries have scored poorly. This is may be due to
several factors including lack of bedform diversity, fine material accumulating in the riffles,
few habitat features and extremely high physicochemical stressors. It is unclear if uplift in
biology functions will be detected on the tributaries, however post-restoration
macroinvertebrate assessments will be conducted for evaluation.
Millstone Creek is a sand bed system with some small gravels deposited on bars
and in riffles, but lacks larger angular gravels typical of other Slate Belt streams suitable
that typically support macroinvertebrate habitat. Some LWD is present within the project
reach and has created pocket pool habitat and cover for aquatic organisms. Similar to the
tributaries, Millstone Creek also lacks riparian vegetation and floodplain connection.
Physicochemical stressors also exist (as described in Section 5.1.4), but at substantially
lower concentrations compared to the tributaries. Interestingly, Millstone Creek has had
a relatively high number of EPT Taxa present during sampling events (mean = 40).
However, biotic indices have remained high because most of the taxa are tolerant species
and EPT Taxa richness has remained low. There is some potential for biology parameters
to improve in Millstone Creek with the enhancement of bedform diversity, shade from
riparian vegetation and the addition of large wood and habitat features. For the purpose
of using the SQT, targets for biotic indices have been selected to lift biology functions
from “Not Functioning” to “Functioning at Risk” (Table 33). This will be monitored post-
construction to quantify the actual uplift. It may require additional monitoring beyond the
typical 5 or 7-year monitoring period to detect a trend in uplift of biology functions.
Table 33: Summary Biology Functional Parameters

Site Resource Biotic Index EPT Taxa Present
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
NT R2 6.6 5.8 2.3 15
UTA R2 6.8 5.8 3.3 15
UTB 5.9 5.5 5.5 15
Millstone Creek 5.9 5.5 40 50

Not Functioning (NF)
Functioning at Risk (FAR)
Functioning (F)

14.2 Appendix B – Field Morphology Data
Table 34: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for Millstone Creek.
Stream Name: Millstone Creek Sample Length (ft): 2040
LWD Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total
Score
Length/Bankfull Width 20 9 3 3 3 38 74
Diameter 10 9 7 6 6 38 103
Location 4 17 17 38 165
Type 1 16 13 8 38 141
Structure 24 4 6 4 38 70
Stability 1 3 7 3 24 38 160
Orientation 13 6 8 4 7 38 100
Total 69 31 51 46 69 813
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.4
Ave. Total for 300 feet 121
Debris Dams
Length 3 1 4 6
Height 2 2 4 8
Structure 3 1 4 14
Location 1 1 2 4 15
Stability 2 2 4 8
Total 7 1 9 0 3 51
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.0
Ave. Total for 300 feet 8

Table 35: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for the North Tributary
Stream Name: North Tributary Sample Length (ft): 409
Score

Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total
Score
Length/Bankfull Width 3 1 3 7 24
Diameter 4 2 1 7 11
Location 2 1 2 1 1 7 19
Type 1 4 2 7 23
Structure 6 1 7 9
Stability 3 1 3 7 20
Orientation 3 1 3 7 20
Total 19 8 9 1 12 126
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.3
Ave. Total for 300 feet 92
Debris Dams
Length 1 1 5
Height 1 1 5
Structure 1 1 3
Location 1 1 3
Stability 1 1 3
Total 0 0 3 0 2 19
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.05
Ave. Total for 300 feet 14

Table 36: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for UT to Millstone Reach A
Stream Name: UT Reach A Sample Length (ft): 595
Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total
Score
Length/Bankfull Width 1 5 6 29
Diameter 2 3 1 6 11
Location 3 2 1 6 11
Type 1 1 3 1 6 17
Structure 5 1 6 7
Stability 3 1 2 6 15
Orientation 2 1 1 2 6 17
Total 16 9 5 2 10 107
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.2
Ave. Total for 300 feet 54
Debris Dams
Length 1 1 2 8
Height 1 1 2 8
Structure 1 1 2 8
Location 1 1 2 6
Stability 1 1 2 6
Total 1 1 3 1 4 36
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.06
Ave. Total for 300 feet 18
Table 37: LWD piece and debris dam counts and scores for UTB
Stream Name: UT Millstone Reach B Sample Length (ft): 514
Score
Pieces 1 2 3 4 5 Count Total
Score
Length/Bankfull Width 2 2 4 8 34
Diameter 6 1 1 8 11
Location 2 2 1 3 8 27
Type 1 3 4 8 26
Structure 7 1 8 11
Stability 1 4 1 2 8 27
Orientation 4 2 2 8 20
Total 21 1 14 9 11 156
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.3
Ave. Total for 300 feet 91
Debris Dams
Length 1 1 5
Height 1 1 3
Structure 1 1 3
Location 1 1 4
Stability 1 1 2
Total 0 1 2 1 1 17
Ave. Score/ Linear Foot 0.03
Ave. Total for 300 feet 10
North Tributary STA. 0 + 87 FT (NT XS1)
460
455
450
445
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (ft)
XS WSE BKF LBH

Figure 28: North Tributary Existing Longitudinal Profile

Type = G5
ABKF = 3.7 ft2
W BKF = 5.9 ft DBKF = 0.6 ft DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 9.4
ER = 1.4

Figure 29: North Tributary XS1 STA. 0 + 87 FT Elevation (ft) WSE
Station (ft)
RTOB BKF LTOB TW
4+50 4+00 3+50 2+50 3+00 2+00 1+50 1+00 +50 +0
470

465

460

455

450

445

440

435

430
North Tributary Profile Elevation (ft)

Figure 30: North Tributary Station 0+87 looking upstream

Figure 31: North Tributary XS1 STA. 1 + 86 FT
BKF LBH XS WSE
Distance (ft)
50 40 30 20 10 0
440
Type = F5
ABKF = 2.3 ft2
WBKF = 5.8 ft
DBKF = 0.4 ft
DMAX = 0.6 ft
W/D = 14.5
ER = 1.5
450

445
455
460
North Tributary STA. 1 + 86 FT (NT XS2) Elevation (ft)

Figure 32: North Tributary Station 1+86 looking downstream

Figure 33: North Tributary XS1 STA. 3 + 16 FT
BKF LBH XS WSE
Distance (ft)
50 40 30 20
450
Type = B5
ABKF = 2.3 ft2
WBKF = 4.9 ft 445 DBKF = 0.5 ft
DMAX = 0.6 ft
W/D = 10.2
ER = 2.0
440
0 10
455
North Tributary STA. 3 + 16 FT (NT XS3) Elevation (ft)

Figure 34: North Tributary station 3+16 looking upstream

Figure 35: UTA Longitudinal Profile Elevation (ft) RTOB TW
6+00 5+00 4+00 3+00
Station (ft)
LTOB
2+00 1+00 +0
475

470

465

460

455

450

445

440

435
UTA Longitudinal Profile

Figure 36: UTA XS1 STA. 0 + 64 FT

Figure 37: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 0+64 Looking Upstream Elevation (ft) BKF LBH XS WSE
Distance (ft)
50 40 30 20 10 0
455
Type = F5
ABKF = 9.9 ft2
WBKF = 11.9 ft
DBKF = 0.8 ft
DMAX = 1.2 ft
W/D = 14.3
ER = 1.5
465

460
470
475
UTA R1 - STA. 0 + 64 FT (UTA XS1)

UTA R1 - STA. 2 + 49 FT (UTA XS2)
465
460
455
450
445
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (ft)
XS WSE BKF LBH

Type = F5

ABKF = 8.0 ft2
WBKF = 11.3 ft DBKF = 0.7 ft
DMAX = 1.2 ft
W/D = 15.8 ER = 1.2

Figure 38: UTA XS2 STA. 2 + 49 FT

Figure 39: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 2+49 Looking Downstream Elevation (ft)
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan

Figure 40: UTA XS3 STA. 3+95 FT

Figure 41: UT Millstone Reach A STA. 3+95 Looking Downstream

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan Elevation (ft) BKF LBH XS WSE
Distance (ft)
50 40 30 20
450 Class = B5
ABKF = 2.0 ft2
WBKF = 7.2 ft DBKF = 0.3 ft 445 DMAX = 1.2 ft
W/D = 26.0
ER = 2.5
440
0 10
455
460
UTA R2 - STA. 3 + 95 FT (UTA XS3)

Figure 42: UTA XS4 STA. 5+30 FT

Figure 43: UT Millstone Reach A STA 5+30 Looking Upstream Elevation (ft) BKF LBH XS WSE
Distance (ft)
50 40 30 20 10 0
435
= 14.6 ft2
= 14.5 ft
= 1.0 ft
= 1.3 ft
= 14.3
= 1.1
ABKF
WBKF
DBKF
DMAX
W/D
ER
440
Class = F5 445
450
455
UTA R2 - STA. 5 + 30 FT (UTA XS4)

Figure 44: UTB Existing Longitudinal Profile Elevation (ft) Station (ft)
TW LTOB RTOB
13+00 12+00 11+00 10+00 9+00 8+00 7+00
425
6+00
430
435
440
445
UTB Longitudinal Profile
UT Reach B STA. 6 + 76 FT (UTB XS1)
445
440
435
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (ft)
Series1 WSE BKF LBH

Type = G5
ABKF = 3.7 ft2
WBKF = 5.6 ft
DBKF = 0.7 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft W/D = 8.4
ER = 1.8

Figure 45: UTB STA. 6 + 76 FT

Figure 46: UTB STA. 6+76 looking downstream Elevation (ft)

Figure 47: UTB STA. 8 + 62 FT Elevation (ft) BKF LBH XS WSE
Distance (ft)
50 40 30 20 10 0
435
Type = G5
ABKF = 3.0 ft2
WBKF = 4.4 ft
DBKF = 0.7 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 6.6
ER = 1.4 440
445
UT Reach B STA. 8 + 62 FT (UTB XS2)

Figure 48: UTB STA. 10 + 98 FT

Figure 49: Millstone Creek Existing Longitudinal Profile Summary Elevation (ft) Distance (ft)

XS WSE BKF
50 40 30 20 10 0
430
Class = E5
ABKF = 2.1 ft2
WBKF = 4.4 ft
DBKF = 0.5 ft
DMAX = 0.9 ft
W/D = 9.3
ER = 20 435
440
UTB STA. 10 + 98 FT (UTB XS3)
WSE BKF RTOB LTOB TW
20+00 15+00 10+00
Station (ft)
5+00 +0
420
425
430
435
440
Millstone Creek Longitudinal Profile Elevation (ft)

Figure 50: MC XS1 STA. 1 + 75 FT

Figure 51: MS XS1 STA. 1+75 Looking Downstream Elevation (ft) BKF LBH XS WSE
Distance (ft)
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
425
Type = C5
ABKF = 123.6 ft2
WBKF = 46.6 ft
DBKF = 2.7 ft
DMAX = 4.1 ft
W/D = 17.6
ER = 7.1
430
435
440
Millstone Creek STA. 1 + 75 FT (MC XS1)

Figure 52: MC XS2 STA. 3 + 91 FT

Figure 53: MC XS2 STA. 3 + 91 FT Looking Upstream

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan Elevation (ft) Distance (ft)
XS WSE BKF
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
425
430
= 7.8:1 PBS
DPOOL = 2.3 ft
DMPOOL = 4.3 ft 435
APOOL = 95.9 ft2
WPOOL = 42.1 ft
440
Millstone Creek STA. 3 + 91 FT (MC XS2)

Figure 54: MC XS3 STA. 8 + 37 FT

Figure 55: MC XS3 STA. 8 + 37 FT Looking Upstream.
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan Elevation (ft) BKF LBH XS WSE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Distance (ft)
425
430
Type = C5
ABKF = 75.3 ft2
WBKF = 28.9 ft
DBKF = 2.6 ft
DMAX = 3.3 ft
W/D = 11.1
ER = 7.5
435
440
Millstone Creek STA. 8 + 37 FT (MC XS3)

Figure 56: MC XS4 STA. 13 + 33 FT

Figure 57: MC XS4 STA. 13 + 33 FT Looking Upstream
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan Elevation (ft) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Distance (ft)
XS WSE BKF
425
430
DPOOL = 3.5 ft
DMPOOL = 5.6 ft
PBS = 4.2:1 435
APOOL = 151.0 ft2
WPOOL = 43.4 ft
440
Millstone Creek STA. 13 + 39 FT (MC XS4)

Figure 58: MC XS4 STA. 17 + 37 FT

Figure 59: MC XS5 STA. 17 + 37 FT
Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan Elevation (ft) Distance (ft)
XS WSE BKF
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
425
430
= 3.3:1 PBS
DMPOOL = 5.2 ft 435
APOOL = 105.2 ft2
WPOOL = 32.2 ft
DPOOL = 3.2 ft
440
Millstone Creek STA. 17 + 37 FT (MC XS5)

Figure 60: MC XS6 STA. 19 + 84 FT

Figure 61: MC XS6 STA. 19 + 84 FT Looking Upstream

Millstone Creek – Randolph County Mitigation Plan Elevation (ft) BKF LBH XS WSE
Distance (ft)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
425
430
Type = E5
ABKF = 105.8 ft2
WBKF = 30.9 ft
DBKF = 3.4 ft
DMAX = 4.3 ft
W/D = 9.0
ER = 12.3
435
440
Millstone Creek STA. 19 + 84 FT (MC XS6)

Table 38: NT R1 and NT R2 BEHI Assessment

Sta. Bank
Height
BKF
Height
Bank Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth
Root Depth/
Bank Height

Root Density

Bank Angle Surface
Protection

Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stress
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft ft # Index ft (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index Units ft ft # Index
0+15 12.9 0.7 18.4 10.0 12.9 8.2 50 4.4 70 5.0 55 3.8 3 Mod 34.4 High Sand
0+30 10 0.7 14.3 9.5 10 100 1.0 40 6.0 50 4.2 10 8.7 5 High 34.4 High Sand
0+52 5 0.7 7.1 10.0 2 40 5.2 20 7.8 42 3.6 2 9.4 5 High 41.0 Very High Sand
1+95 6 0.7 8.6 7.9 6 100 1.0 30 6.9 30 2.8 25 7.4 5 Low 30.9 High Sand

Figure 62: BEHI assessment locations STA. 0+15, STA. 0+30, STA. 0+52 and 1+95

Table 39: UTA R1 and UTA R2 BEHI Assessment

Sta.

Bank
Height

BKF
Height

Bank Height/
Bankfull

Root
Depth

Root Depth/
Bank Height

Root Density

Bank Angle

Surface
Protection

Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stres s

Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category

Adjust.
Notes
Units ft ft # Index ft (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index Units ft ft # Index
0+25 7.5 0.9 8.3 10.0 5.5 73.3 2.5 20 7.8 90 7.1 5 9.1 10 Mod 46.5 Extreme Sand +
Strati.
1+89 Left 13 0.9 14.4 9.5 3 23.1 6.9 5 9.2 90 7.1 0 9.5 0 High 42.3 Very High none
1+89 Right 8 0.9 8.9 10.0 3 37.5 5.4 25 7.4 90 7.1 20 7.8 10 High 47.7 Extreme Sand +
Strati.

Figure 63: BEHI Assessment Locations (From Left to Right) STA. 0+25, STA. 1+89 Right Bank and STA. 1+89 Left Bank.

Table 40: UT Millstone Reach B BEHI Assessment

Sta. Bank
Height
BKF
Height
Bank
Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth
Root Depth/
Bank Height

Root Density

Bank Angle Surface
Protection

Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stress
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft ft # Index ft (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index Units ft ft # Index
7+20 1.95 0.9 2.2 8.5 1 51.3 4.3 30 1.95 115 8.9 20 7.8 0 Low 34.4 High n/a
8+50 2.55 0.9 2.8 10 1 39.2 5.3 25 2.55 110 8.6 15 8.2 0 Low 34.4 High n/a
10+20 1.45 0.9 1.6 7 1 69.0 2.9 70 1.45 85 6.7 50 5.2 0 Low 41.0 Moderate n/a
Table 41: Millstone Creek BEHI Assessment

Sta. Bank
Height
BKF
Height
Bank Height/
Bankfull
Root
Depth
Root Depth/
Bank Height

Root Density

Bank Angle Surface
Protection

Adjust.
Near
Bank
Stress
Total
Score
Erosion
Potential
Category
Adjust.
Notes
Units ft ft # Index ft (%) Index % Index ° Index % Index - - - - -
0+43 6 3.2 1.9 7.5 4 66.7 3.1 15 8.0 60 4.0 20 7.3 10 Mod 39.9 High Stratify
2+43 6 4.3 1.4 6.0 2.3 38.3 5.3 25 7.4 60 4.9 25 7.4 10 High 40.9 Very High Stratify
3+83 5.7 3.1 1.8 7.4 2.5 43.9 4.9 30 6.9 90 7.1 25 7.4 10 High 43.6 Very High Stratify
4+49 5 3.1 1.6 6.0 5 100 1.0 80 2.4 85 6.7 90 1.7 10 Mod 27.8 Moderate Stratify
4+92 4.4 3.1 1.4 5.5 4.4 100 1.0 50 5.1 45 3.8 35 6.5 10 High 31.9 High Stratify
7+50 4.8 3 1.6 6.0 4.8 100 1.0 80 2.4 85 6.7 65 3.8 5 Mod 25.0 Moderate Stratify
8+57 3.2 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 21.9 7.1 5 9.2 90 7.1 5 9.1 5 Mod 38.5 High Stratify
11+19 4.5 4.5 1.0 5.9 1 22.2 7.0 10 8.7 60 4.9 10 8.7 10 Mod 45.2 Extreme Stratify
12+02 4.3 4.3 1.0 1.0 4.3 100 1.0 45 5.5 100 7.8 25 7.4 10 High 32.7 High Stratify
15+65 4.4 4.4 1.0 5.9 4.4 100 1.0 85 1.9 90 7.1 70 3.4 10 Mod 29.3 Moderate Stratify
16+97 5.4 2.3 2.3 8.4 2.7 50 4.4 25 7.4 90 7.1 20 7.8 10 Mod 45.1 Extreme Stratify
17+03 4 4 1.0 5.9 1.5 37.5 5.4 20 7.8 85 6.7 15 8.2 10 V. High 44.0 Very High Stratify
18+29 6.1 3 2.0 8.0 3 49.2 4.5 30 6.9 75 6.0 20 7.8 10 V. High 43.2 Very High Stratify
18+68 5.8 3.9 1.5 6.0 5.8 100 1.0 90 1.5 55 4.6 85 2.1 5 Mod 20.1 Moderate Stratify
14.3 Appendix C – Detailed Millstone Creek Sediment Supply Analysis

Field Collected TSS Data and USGS Equations to Estimate Sediment Loads

A significant amount of suspended sediment data has been produced using the
total suspended solids (TSS) laboratory analysis method. However, TSS concentration
data does not necessarily relate directly to suspended sediment concentrations (SSC)
and suspended sediment loads. Glysson et al. (Glysson, Gray, & Conge, 2000) have
described the differences between TSS and SSC samples in detail:
“The fundamental difference between SSC (ASTM, 1999) and TSS (APHA and
others, 1995) analytical methods arises during the preparation of the sample for
subsequent filtering, drying, and weighing. A TSS analysis generally entails withdrawal of
an aliquot of the original sample for subsequent analysis, although as determined in a
previous study, there may be a lack of consistency in methods used in the sample
preparation phase of the TSS analyses. The SSC analytical method uses the entire water-
sediment mixture to calculate SSC values. Subsampling in itself can introduce error into
the analysis. Also, if a sample contains a significant percentage of sand-size material,
stirring, shaking, or otherwise agitating the sample before obtaining a subsample will
rarely produce an aliquot representative of the sediment concentration and particle-size
distribution of the original sample. This is a by-product of the relatively rapid settling
properties of sand-size material, compared to those for silt- and clay-size material, as
described by Stokes Law. Aliquots obtained by pipette might be withdrawn from the lower
part of the sample where the sand concentration tends to be enriched immediately after
agitation.”
USGS analysis of 14,466 paired SSC and TSS samples from 48 states showed
that the TSS concentrations tended to be substantially smaller than SSC concentrations
throughout the observed range of TSS and SSC concentration. Glysson et al. (2000)
developed a general equation to relate TSS and SSC measurements:
SSC (mg/L) = 126 + 1.0857*[TSS (mg/L)]
This equation resulted in a significant linear relationship and an R2 of 0.54.
However, USGS recommends exercising caution when relating SSC and TSS using the
general equation, particularly when sand fractions within the sample are high. A more
robust approach would be to develop a regression relationship between TSS and SSC
concentration for the specific monitoring station where the TSS data has been collected.
However, a substantial number (30+) of samples is likely necessary to produce a
significant regression relationship, if the relationship exists.
The general equation was used to relate TSS data to SSC data for the project
reach of Millstone Creek and suspended sediment load was calculated using field
measured flow data from 12/16/2016 to 10/6/2016 (9.66 months) (

Table 42). The summation of loads method was then used to determine the total
suspended sediment load during the monitoring period. Based on these methods, 1,755
tons of suspended sediment passed through the system in the 9.66 month monitoring
period with 37.54 in of rainfall, which can be converted to an annual sediment load of
2,135 tons using annual rainfall as a basis. However, this estimate of annual sediment
load is likely under predicted by two (2) to four (4) times, because the majority of the
sediment transported by the project reach is sand, which is consistently under predicted
in TSS and SSC measurements as described by Glysson et al. (2000). This approach
also does not account for bedload transported by the stream. For Millstone Creek,
bedload may only include some fine gravels and coarse sand, nonetheless this fraction
of the total sediment load has not been accounted for. By the field collected TSS and flow
data and methods and nuances of TSS and SSC data collection and analysis described
by Glysson et al. (2000), the actual range of annual sediment load moving through the
Millstone Creek project reach may be between 4,300 tons and 8,600 tons.

Table 42: Millstone Creek SSC Concentration and Sediment Load from TSS data and
the general USGS Equation

Sample Date Stream Flow (ft3) TSS (mg/L) SSC (mg/L) Suspended Sediment
Mass (Tons)
12/16/2015 81,349,434 104 239 607
1/7/2016 11,302,862 158 298 105
1/21/2016 22,957,038 9 136 97
2/8/2016 30,130,628 62 193 182
2/25/2016 12,271,916 142 280 107
3/9/2016 9,622,358 20 148 44
3/24/2016 16,014,984 8 135 67
4/5/2016 7,971,933 71 203 51
4/21/2016 4,936,839 14 141 22
5/3/2016 11,077,476 29 157 54
5/18/2016 9,431,462 39 168 50
5/31/2016 3,461,001 139 277 30
6/15/2016 2,499,300 57 188 15
6/28/2016 1,841,857 48 178 10
7/13/2016 605,174 120 256 5
7/26/2016 4,867,325 26 154 23
8/10/2016 1,050,599 308 460 15
8/23/2016 1,594,747 321 474 24
9/7/2016 2,926,892 104 239 22
9/20/2016 11,550,132 348 503 181

10/6/2016 7,300,988 63 194 44
Study Period Load (Tons) = 1,755
Estimated Annual Load (Tons/year) = 2,135

ArcSWAT Modeling of Historical Annual Sediment Supply

The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) has been integrated with ArcGIS to
conduct large scale spatial and temporal modeling studies of watersheds. ArcSWAT is
design to assess the sediment and nutrient loading contributed by different land use
types, sub-basins, reservoirs and streams. SWAT is a physically based basin-scale,
continuous time and distributed parameter hydrologic model that uses spatially distributed
data on soil, land cover data, Digital Elevation Models (DEM) and historical weather data
for hydrologic modeling and operates on a daily time step (Arnold et al. 1998 and Neitsch
et al. 2002). An accelerated and simplified modeling approach was used with ArcSWAT
to estimate historical upland and channel sediment supply to the project reach of Millstone
Creek from 1/1/1990 to 12/31/2006 (17 years). Calibrating and validating the SWAT
model with field collected discharge, water quality, rainfall and weather data was beyond
the scope of this mitigation planning effort. However, sediment data outputs from the
SWAT model were roughly calibrated to field collected TSS data with guidance from
Narasimhan et al. (2007).
In ArcSWAT, the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Randolph
County was used to extract soil attributes. The land cover data was obtained from the
2011 National Land Cover Dataset and 10m Digital Elevation Model from USGS was used
to characterize watershed topography. Based on these input datasets the Millstone Creek
project reach watershed was divided up into 19 distinct Hydrologic Response Units
(HRUs). Daily records of rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature, solar radiation and
wind parameters were brought in from the ArcSWAT database. Standard values for
typical crop production and management practices were used for row crops, hay
production, timber and pasture lands.
The Yang (Yang, 1979) equations for channel degradation and sediment transport
were used. Narasimhan et al. (2007) provides a detailed description of using ArcSWAT
to model upland, channel and bank sediment loads. Streambank erosion and power
function parameters in ArcSWAT (spcon and spexp) were adjusted based on field
inspection and study aerial imagery. Channel physical properties such as channel
vegetation cover factor (Cch) (0.1 to 1.0) and channel erodibility factor (Kch) (0.3 to 0.8)
were adjusted for individual stream segments based on field assessment, geological data
and study of aerial imagery. Higher values of Cch and Kch result in greater risk of channel
and bank erosion. Model coefficients were calibrated such the predicted average TSS
concentrations from model were within the range of TSS concentrations measured at the
Millstone Creek project reach monitoring station. This was done based on guidance from
Narasimhan (Narasimhan et al., 2007). Predicted annual sediment loads to the project
reach of Millstone Creek ranged from 811 tons to 28,650 tons with an average annual
sediment load of 11,340 tons (Table 43). TSS concentrations ranged from 14 mg/L to 185
mg/L with an average of 98 mg/L. The 17-year average TSS concentration predicted by
model is similar to the average TSS concentration measured at the Millstone Creek
monitoring station of 104 mg/L.
Table 43: ArcSWAT Model Summary for Sediment Load and TSS concentration for
Simulation Period from 1990 to 2006

Modeling Year Sediment Load Delivered (tons) Predicted Reach TSS
(mg/L)
1990 6,678 83
1991 6,467 90
1992 12,420 81
1993 9,467 75
1994 13,370 118
1995 14,500 151
1996 13,190 93
1997 7,539 68
1998 15,650 149
1999 16,870 134
2000 1,970 29
2001 811 14
2002 1,766 28
2003 28,650 185
2004 6,459 81
2005 25,230 161
2006 11,750 127
Study Minimum 811 14
Study Maximum 28,650 185
Study Average 11,340 98

HEC-RAS Modeling of Annual Sediment Transported

Hydraulic design and sediment transport modeling functions in HEC-RAS 5.0 can
be used to model and simulate rivers with highly mobile beds. These functions and tools
are designed to track cross-section geometry changes at each time step of given flow
series. The quasi-unsteady sediment transport functions can also be used estimate the
sediment load that moves through each cross-section over the duration of the flow series.
Multiple sediment transport modeling equations are available in HEC-RAS 5.0 including
Ackers-White, Engelund-Hansen, Copeland, Myer Peter Muller (MPM), Toffaleti and
Yang. Due the sand bedded nature (with some fine gravels) of the Millstone Creek project
reach, the Yang equations for sediment transport were used for model simulations (Figure
64).

Figure 64: HEC-RAS Model of the Existing Millstone Creek Project Reach
Field measured hourly flow data from 12/16/2015 to 11/17/2016 (336 days) from
the Millstone Creek monitoring station was used to populate a quasi-unsteady flow series
for sediment transport modeling. Substrate bulk samples and depth measurements were
collected from the project reach for inputs to the model. A rating curve developed for the
monitoring station was used as the D/S boundary condition to begin the model simulation.
For quasi-unsteady sediment transport modeling, an U/S boundary condition is needed
to describe the influent sediment load. Various boundary conditions may be used
including a sediment rating curve, sediment data series or an equilibrium load. For this
modeling study, an equilibrium load was used as the U/S boundary condition. The
equilibrium load condition assumes that the influent sediment load is equal to the
sediment transport capacity of the cross-section, which is a relatively reasonable
assumption so long as the river system is not in a state of total disequilibrium. The U/S
extent of the project reach of Millstone Creek has shown some signs of minor incision,
widening, sediment aggradation within the channel and some lateral adjustments at select
meander bends. However, not to the degree that the system would be characterized as
being in a state of total disequilibrium with dramatic changes occurring routinely.
Outputs from the quasi-unsteady sediment transport simulation of the existing
conditions of the project reach are included in Table 44 and Figure 65. Figure 65 includes
graphical representations of simulated streambed elevations on 12/16/15, 3/15/16,
MILLSTONE CREEK SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDY Plan: Plan 17 3/2/2017
2000 1700
1800 1600
1500 1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600400
500
300
200
0
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
Legend
Millstone Creek Bed Elevation
429.5

429.0

428.5

428.0

427.5

427.0

426.5

426.0

425.5

425.0

424.5
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
River Station (ft)
16-Dec-15 15-Mar-16 15-Jun-16 15-Sep-16 17-Nov-16
6/15/16, 9/15/16 and 11/17/16. In general, moderate deposition occurred in the first 500
ft of the reach and sediment settled behind the thalweg elevation of STA. 1+ 500 FT.
Fewer changes in bed elevation occurred through the middle and D/S extents of the
project reach. Sediment transport capacity of the project reach and its importance to the
restoration design approach will be discussed in detail in below.

Figure 65: Streambed Elevations from Quasi-unsteady HEC-RAS Model of the
Existing Millstone Creek Project Reach
Table 44 details the total sediment load delivered to each cross-section of the
project reach during the 336 day simulation. At STA 20+00 FT the boundary condition
was set to an equilibrium load, which means the total mass of sediment that can be moved
by cross-section 20+00 FT during the simulation period is 8,838 tons or 9,600 tons per
year. Cross-sections D/S of STA 20+00 FT received slightly less sediment load, indicating
that some deposition was occurring within project reach and that cross-sections below
STA 20+00 were not able to transport the entire equilibrium load. The average sediment
moved through the reach was 8,566 tons or 9,305 tons per year. Bed Elevation (ft)
Table 44: Millstone Creek Sediment Loads Delivered to Modeled Cross-Sections

Reach Station (ft) Total Sediment Load Delivered to
Cross-section (tons)
20 + 00 8,838
19 + 00 8,838
18 + 00 8,731
17 + 00 8,617
16 + 00 8,512
15 + 00 8,396
14 + 00 8,408
13 + 00 8,409
12 + 00 8,449
11 + 00 8,466
10 + 00 8,484
9 + 00 8,513
8 + 00 8,500
7 + 00 8,504
6 + 00 8,580
5 + 00 8,594
4 + 00 8,584
3 + 00 8,594
2 + 00 8,589
1 + 00 8,616
0 + 00 8,643
Study Reach Average = 8,566
Annual Reach Average = 9,305
14.4 Appendix D – Additional Maps and Figures
Figure 66: Millstone Creek Watershed Slopes

Figure 67: Millstone Creek Watershed Landuse

Figure 68: Millstone Creek Drainage Area

Figure 69: Millstone Creek Site Tributary DA’s and Topography

Figure 70: Millstone Creek Site Streambank Condition Summary

Figure 71: Morphology Survey Cross-Section and Soil Boring Locations

Figure 72: Millstone Creek Substrate Sampling Locations (Upstream)

Figure 73: Millstone Creek Substrate Sampling Locations (Downstream)
Table 45: Millstone Creek Streambank Adjustment Summary

Bank 1
Period Left Bank (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank* (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -16 -5.3 +13 +4.3
2010 - 2014 +12 +3.0 -11 -2.8
2014 - 2016 -18 -9.0 -4 -2.0
Average2 15.3 5.8 9.3 3.0
Bank 2
Period Left Bank* (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -7 -2.3 -10 -3.3
2010 - 2014 -21 -5.3 +22 +5.5
2014 - 2016 -10 -5.0 +4 +2.0
Average2 12.7 4.2 12.0 3.6
Bank 3
Period Left Bank (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank* (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -17 -5.7 +14 +4.7
2010 - 2014 +17 +4.3 -12 -3.0
2014 - 2016 -7 -3.5 +6 +3.0
Average2 13.7 4.5 10.7 3.6
Bank 4
Period Left Bank* (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -3 -1.0 +1 +0.3
2010 - 2014 0 0.0 0 0.0
2014 - 2016 -1 -0.5 -8 -4.0
Average2 1.3 0.5 3.0 1.4
Bank 5
Period Left Bank (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank* (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 +3 +1.0 -7 -2.3
2010 - 2014 +10 +2.5 -6 -1.5
2014 - 2016 -6 -3.0 -4 -2.0
Average2 6.3 2.2 5.7 1.9
Bank 6
Period Left Bank* (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -2 -0.7 -6 -2.0
2010 - 2014 -4 -1.0 -1 -0.3
2014 - 2016 +2 +1.0 -1 -0.5
Average2 2.7 0.9 2.7 0.9
Bank 7
Period Left Bank (ft) Left Bank Rate (ft/yr) Right Bank* (ft) Right Bank Rate (ft/yr)
2007 - 2010 -3 -1.0 +9 +3.0

2010 - 2014 0 0.0 -7 -1.8
2014 - 2016 -14 -7.0 +3 +1.5
Average2 5.7 2.7 6.3 2.1
*Denotes outside streambank of meander bend
1 ”-“ indicates erosion “+” deposition
2Average of absolute values of adjustments

Figure 74: Millstone Creek Channel Adjustment Summary

Figure 75: Millstone Creek 2007 – 2010 Deposition and Erosion

Figure 76: Millstone Creek 2010 – 2014 Deposition and Erosion

Figure 77: Millstone Creek 2014 – 2016 Deposition and Erosion
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
RANDOLPH COUNTY
SPO File Number 76-Z
EEP Site ID 204
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: D partment of Administration
State Property ffice
1321 Mail Seryi e Center
Raleigh, NC_.276 -1321
FILED Krista M Lowe Register of Deeds, Randolph Co,NC
��0���l n�s�:r� !�1 t�0 $ 00
20090806000131150 R / W Bk:RE2141 Pg:1027 08/06/2009 10:29,58 AM 1/12
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND ACCESS EASEMENT
/��h>',
� '2-4-h\.-i h.m'or f o e,t))(.. 'Lo 6� 3
� b '1\.A> NC ;:l. 'l 4 2..z,
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, pursuant to the provisions of N.C.
General Statutes Chapter 121, Article 4 and made this � -t--"' day of A,�krl 2009, by Joe Dean Cox, legally divorced and Billie White Cox, legally divorce �each holding
equal ownership as tenants in common ("Grantor"), whose mailing address is P.O. Box 1090,
Ramseur, NC 27316, to the State of North Carolina, ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is
State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The designations 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.
WITNESS ETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 ��the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland
and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources has approved acceptance of this instrument; and
1
t
�►�1U�����UIU��►,►��UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
RE2141 1028 2112
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003. This MOA recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and
natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Leicester Township, Buncombe County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 90.1 acres and
being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 1228 at Page 1304 of the
Randolph County Registry.
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement over the herein
described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the included areas of
the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing
to accept such Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement shall be for the protection
and benefit of the waters of Millstone Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement of the nature and character and to the extent hereinafter set forth, over a described area
of the Property, referred to hereafter as the "Easement Area", for the benefit of the people of
North Carolina.
The Easement Area consists of Tract One containing 6.13 acres and Tract Two containing 11.19
acres for a total of 17.32 acres in Conservation Easement, along with a total of 0.64 acres in
Access Easements denoted as Tracts "A" and `B" as shown on the plat of survey entitled "Final
Plat, Conservation Easement for NCEEP, Project Name: MILLSTONE CREEK, SPO File No.
76-Z, Property of Joe Dean Cox and Billie White Cox" sealed April 21, 2009 as certified by
Douglas R. Yarbrough, PLS Number 3395. Plat is recorded in the Randolph County Register of
Deeds at Plat Book 121, Pages 34. See attached "Exhibit A", Legal Description.
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, create and
preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the protection
and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat,
and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Easement Area in its natural
condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will
significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following
conditions and restrictions are set forth:
2

�► R►12141 1029 1���3/12
U II I I II II III I II I I I I I II I III
011111111111 Dili "AyKIME1341-WMy 30-1 DRI I
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement
shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the use of, the
Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against Grantor's
heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly reserved as a
compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited
as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are prohibited, restricted, or reserved as
indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped
recreational uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the
Easement Area for the purposes thereof. Usage of motorized vehicles in the Easement Area is
prohibited, except as they are used exclusively for management, maintenance, or stewardship
purposes, and on existing trails, paths or roads.
B. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others
to engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including organized
educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the property shall
not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
C. Vegetative Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non-native plants,
diseased or damaged trees, and vegetation that obstructs, destabilizes or renders unsafe the
Easement Area to persons or natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or
destruction of any trees and vegetation in the Easement Area is prohibited.
D. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All are prohibited in the
Easement Area.
E. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses within the Easement Area including any
use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland are prohibited.
F. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna,
utility pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area.
G. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or
paving in the Easement Area. Existing roads or trails located in the Easement Area may be
maintained by Grantor in order to minimize runoff, sedimentation and for access to the interior
of the Property for management, maintenance, stewardship purposes, or undeveloped
3

� ���l1UU��UlU�U�,IaUUllilllill IIIII
RE2141 1030 4/12
recreational and educational uses of the Easement Area. Existing roads, trails or paths may be
maintained with loose gravel or permanent vegetation to stabilize or cover the surfaces.
H. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement, signs giving
directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement Area may be
allowed.
I. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances or machinery, or other material in the Easement Area is
prohibited.
J. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading,
filling, excavation, dredging, mining, or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals, or other materials.
K. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or
permitting the diversion of surface or underground water. No altering or tampering with water
control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created
drainage patterns. All removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps,
or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited. In the event of an emergency
interruption or shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Easement Area may
temporarily be used for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock and agricultural
production.
L. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the underlying fee that is subject to this Easement is allowed. Unless
agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future conveyance of the underlying fee for the
Easement Area and the rights as conveyed herein shall be as a single block of property. Any
future transfer of the fee simple shall be subject to this Conservation Easement. Any transfer of
the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and
across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
M. Development Rights. All development rights are removed from the Easement
Area and shall not be transferred.
N. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is consistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor shall not vary from the above restrictions without first obtaining written
approval from the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail
Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.

►RE2141 � 1031 5/12
I IINII IIIIII II IIIIII �I
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Ingress, Egress, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive the perpetual right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress
to the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore,
manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the wetland and riparian resources of the Easement
Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long-term management plan. Unless
otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the rights granted herein do not
include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and
herbaceous vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade,
fill, and prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in -stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement,
Grantee is allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the
purposes of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Easement
Area that may have been damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this
Conservation Easement by Grantor, their successors or assigns, that comes to the attention of the
Grantee, the Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor, their successors or
assigns in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such
notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after
ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal
proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b)
to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any
appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate
right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate
relief if the breach of the term 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.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have
the right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable
times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor, their successors or assigns
are complying with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation
Easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor, their
successors or assigns, for any injury or change in the Easement Area caused by third parties,
resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood,

RE2141 1032 6/12
storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under
emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property
or harm to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor, their
successors or assigns, including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by
Grantor's acts or omissions in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be
borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the
Grantee and any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the
event of any breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested
to the parties at their addresses shown above or to other address(es) as either party establishes in
writing upon notification to the other.
C. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to
whom the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is
made. Grantor further agrees to make any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by
which any interest in the Property is conveyed subject to the Conservation Easement herein
created.
D. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall
survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
E. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in 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 purposes of the Conservation Easement.
F. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement
are in gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees,
that in the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.

� ��1U���UlU�U, IUUIIIIIIII 1111111 IIIIIIIII
RE2141 1033 7/12
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Easement
Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the
Easement Area.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same are free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and ye r first ab ve written.
(SEAL)
o ean Cox, legally divo ed
&t� (SEAL)
Billie W. Cox, legally divorced
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF i r
I, a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Joe Dean Cox; legally divorced, Grantor, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN I�r SIE I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the CP4
Notary Public
oI.' .......... FSrti,✓ Jr
My coinwiistcan expires:
�J1zn1

NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF (31,, ,1 (ov d
����1���l��►U1U��,Ia�U IIIIIIII IIIIIIII II II III
RE2141 1034 8/12
I, 10-. j (,,,s 'F�, tri cr 72 , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Billie White CoxMegally divorced, Grantor, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of Qti , 200.
� bb tD
Notary Public
My commission expires:
���q,•FAi
/0
10 �: IOTA k%. p

1I�1U1���lUIU��I,I��Ullllllllllllllllllllll III
RE2141 1035 9/12
Exhibit "A"
Metes and bounds descriptions of tracts for Access and Conservation Easements for NCEEP,
Project Name: Millstone Creek, SPO File No. 76-Z, Property of Joe Dean Cox and Billie White
Cox.
TRACT "A" 15 foot permanent access easement across the property of Billie W. Cox in
Coleridge Township, Randolph County, North Carolina.
Beginning at a new iron pipe at the southeast corner of the eastern terminus of a 40 foot private
drive easement of Jo Dean Trail as shown in Randolph County Register of Deeds Plat Book 98
Page 11 and being in the line of Joe Dean Cox and Billie Jo Cox and Billie W. Cox, said new
iron pipe being N 88°27'51" E 767.21' from North Carolina Geodetic Monument "Barrett
1975", running thence with the said Cox line and with the eastern terminus of Jo Dean Trail N
05018'48" W 15.26' to a new iron pipe; thence crossing the property of Billie W. Cox S
84047'23" E 75.73' to a computed point in the line of Joe Dean Cox and Billie Jo Cox and Billie
W. Cox; thence with the said Cox line S 77°12'58" W 48.56' to a computed point is said Cox
line; thence crossing the property of Billie W. Cox N 84'47'23" W 26.76' to the point and place
of beginning and containing 0.02 acres to the point and place of beginning and containing 0.02
act as recorded in Plat Book 121 Page 34 of the Randolph County Register of Deeds, said plat
entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for NCEEP, Project Name: Millstone Creek, SPO
File No. 76-Z, Property of, Joe Dean Cox and Billie White Cox" as surveyed by Landmark
Surveying, Inc., dated March 30, 2007 and revised September 25, 2008, December 23, 2008, and
April 21, 2009.
TRACT `B" 15 foot permanent access easement across the property of Joe Dean Cox and Billie
White Cox in Coleridge Township, Randolph County, North Carolina.
Beginning at a new iron pipe in the line of Daniel Junior Staley and wife Mary L. Staley, said
new iron pipe being N 78°05'20" E 2428.61' from North Carolina Geodetic Monument "Barrett
1975", thence crossing the property of Joe Dean Cox and Billie Jo Cox the following:
S 09017'25" W 15.16' to a new iron pipe
N 89001'24" W 137.04' to a new iron pipe
S 26026'19" W 65.40' to a new iron pipe
S 48015'14" W 195.52' to a new iron pipe
S 50032'34" W 99.95' to a new iron pipe
S 55037'06" W 50.20' to a new iron pipe
S 38008'24" W 50.05' to a new iron pipe
S 15033'06" W 49.92' to a new iron pipe
S 12024'34" W 49.96' to a new iron pipe
S 19036'20" W 49.98' to a new iron pipe
S 40022'34" W 49.85' to a new iron pipe
S 64047'48" W 49.79' to a new iron pipe
N 75002'09" W 133.96' to a new iron pipe
S 88048'23" W 586.43' to a new iron pipe
N 83045'34" W 199.89' to a new iron pipe

���UU�����►UIU���,11�U IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 1111111
RE2141 1036 10/12
N 84047'23" W 86.31' to a mathematical point in the line of Billie W. Cox;
thence with the line of Billie W. Cox N 77°12'58" E 48.56' to a mathematical point; thence
crossing the property of Joe Dean Cox and Billie Jo Cox the following:
S 84°47'23" E 40.26' to a new iron pipe
S 83045'34" E 199.05' to a new iron pipe
N 88048'23" E 587.58' to a new iron pipe
S 75002'09" E 130.61' to a new iron pipe
N 64047'48" E 41.06' to a new iron pipe
N 40022'34" E 43.86' to a new iron pipe
N 19036'20" E 46.29' to a new iron pipe
N 12024'34" E 49.43' to a new iron pipe
N 15°33'06" E 53.32' to a new iron pipe
N 38008'24" E 55.35' to a new iron pipe
N 55037'06" E 51.84' to a new iron pipe
N 50032'34" E 98.99' to a new iron pipe
N 48015'14" E 192.33' to a new iron pipe
N 26026'19" E 71.99' to a new iron pipe in the line of Daniel Junior Staley
and wife Mary L. Staley; running thence with said Staley line S 89°01'24" E 148.70' to the
point and place of beginning and containing 0.63 acres± as recorded in Plat Book 121 Page 34 of
the Randolph County Register of Deeds, said plat entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement
for NCEEP, Project Name: Millstone Creek, SPO File No. 76-Z, Property of, Joe Dean Cox and
Billie White Cox" as surveyed by Landmark Surveying, Inc., dated March 30, 2007 and revised
September 25, 2008, December 23, 2008, and April 21, 2009.
TRACT ONE Conservation Easement on the property of Joe Dean Cox and Billie White Cox in
Coleridge Township, Randolph County, North Carolina.
Beginning at a new iron pipe in the line of Daniel Junior Staley and wife Mary L. Staley, said
new iron pipe being N 78°05'20" E 2428.61' from North Carolina Geodetic Monument "Barrett
1975", thence with the line of Daniel Junior Staley and wife Mary L. Staley the following:
S 89001'24" E
232.45'
to an existing 1.5" open iron pipe
S 04036'38" W
113.01'
to a new iron pipe
S 04036'38" W
91.99'
to a new iron pipe
S 04036'38" W
137.37'
to a new iron pipe
S 04036'38" W
386.59'
to a new iron pipe
S 04036'38" W
320.33'
to a new iron pipe
S 04036'38" W
187.90'
to a new iron pipe
S 04036'38" W
208.17'
to a new iron pipe the line of Daniel Junior Staley
and wife Mary L. Staley; thence crossing the property of Joe Dean Cox and Billie White Cox the
following:
N 47003'05" W
120.35'
to a new iron pipe
N 47003'05" W
90.03'
to a new iron pipe
N 47003'05" W
149.98'
to a new iron pipe
N 25038'01" E
245.89'
to a new iron pipe
N 25038'01" E
209.50'
to a new iron pipe
N 05049'42" W
199.98'
to a new iron pipe
N 05049'42" W
171.58'
to a new iron pipe
N 05049'42" W
177.81'
to a new iron pipe
10

' �►�1U1�l�UlU��►,►��UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
RE2141 1037 11/12
N 10010'26" W 98.58' to a new iron pipe
N 09°17'25" E 131.76' to a new iron pipe
N 09017'25" E 15.16' to the point and place of beginning and containing
6.13 acres± as recorded in Plat Book 121 Page 34 of the Randolph County Register of Deeds,
said plat entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for NCEEP, Project Name: Millstone
Creek, SPO File No. 76-Z, Property of, Joe Dean Cox and Billie White Cox" as surveyed by
Landmark Surveying, Inc., dated March 30, 2007 and revised September 25, 2008, December 23,
2008, and April 21, 2009.
TRACT TWO Conservation Easement on the property of Joe Dean Cox and Billie White Cox
in Coleridge Township, Randolph County, North Carolina.
Beginning at an existing rebar in the line of Daniel Junior Staley and wife Mary L. Staley and a
corner with Karolyn C. Carmac, said new iron pipe being S 61°21'34" E 2803.05' from North
Carolina Geodetic Monument "Barrett 1975", thence with the line said Carmac the following:
N 85044'50" W
215.01'
to a new iron pipe
N 85044'50" W
170.82'
to an existing iron pipe
N 85044'50" W
87.19'
to a new iron pipe in the line of said Carmac; thence
crossing the property of Joe Dean Cox and Billie White Cox the following:
N 04056'45" E
69.96'
to a new iron pipe
N 29005'26" W
132.42'
to a new iron pipe
N 29005'26" W
87.80'
to a new iron pipe
N 77033'57" W
177.50'
to a new iron pipe
N 77033'57" W
194.18'
to a new iron pipe
S 87058'38" W
192.05'
to a new iron pipe
S 88007'52" W
191.01'
to a new iron pipe
S 88007'52" W
145.00'
to a new iron pipe
S 75026'46" W
132.02'
to a new iron pipe
N 04"07'10" E
103.68'
to a new iron pipe in the line of Kenneth W. Cox
and wife Theresa B. Cox;
thence with Kenneth W. Cox and wife Theresa B. Cox N 8399,12" E
18.71' to a new iron pipe
a corner Kenneth
W. Cox and wife Theresa B. Cox; thence with the
line of Kenneth W. Cox and wife Theresa B. Cox N 10°02'46" W 17.76' to a new iron pipe;
thence crossing the property of Joe Dean
Cox and Billie White Cox the following:
N 84023'12" E
97.12'
to a new iron pipe
N 76033'15" E
265.89'
to a new iron pipe
N 76°3Y1 5" E
105.01'
to a new iron pipe
S 89018'54" E
131.46'
to a new iron pipe
N 56022'28" W
222.05'
to a new iron pipe
N 15°11'31" W
147.44'
to a new iron pipe
N 35053'56" E
51.22'
to a new iron pipe
S 70044'09" E
191.85'
to a new iron pipe
S 41002'39" E
268.26'
to a new iron pipe
S 67026'52" E
242.80'
to a new iron pipe
S 67026'52" E
215.85'
to a new iron pipe
N 36050'31" E
216.34'
to a new iron pipe
N 25038'01" E
50.64'
to a new iron pipe
S 47003'05" E
150.01'
to a new iron pipe
S 47003'05" E
89.35'
to a new iron pipe
M

II�11���l��1UIU��►,►��� illlllll 111111 l 1111111 III
RE2141 1038 12/12
S 47003'05" E 130.58' to a new iron pipe in the line of Daniel Junior Staley
and wife Mary L. Staley; thence with the line of the line of Daniel Junior Staley and wife Mary
L. Staley S 04036'38" W 376.63' to the point and place of beginning and containing 11.19
acres± as recorded in Plat Book 121 Page 34 of the Randolph County Register of Deeds, said
plat entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for NCEEP, Project Name: Millstone Creek,
SPO File No. 76-Z, Property of, Joe Dean Cox and Billie White Cox" as surveyed by Landmark
Surveying, Inc., dated March 30, 2007 and revised September 25, 2008, December 23, 2008, and
April 21, 2009.
12

N ¢ ONrn o
w y lb Nh
_ LOQ N
oZ O
348 w _ Z z
s z p vu o
BARO!/r ° o q �N 8 a y p = 0!
0-
A"E w
e�� 1. ♦ a kmp� �g - nmo—
VR�o �
ryS z 3z�^N w F 09 O aw
Z ' w - ed mga 0. vWi FR' a a 6
�OW
pW, 8a s
d gb'�gg�p�y7 F p N$ r
Z,• °�w��� xz ay � a � � �
LL
F.i pqG q
�i �J. r 1pn�O °i � eo av`Vim°�iomwwmniO "a,mn q qp. � Qi y b
JQ�n9�Sa ^�<N9N&Namo°nos y
Z d I O] 3w33w .www ww w3;3333333333333 Z� rum v,n ,4W
o� ox��mN< PNoo���� O� pW� saa
UWmmNH-«"�iPnn Seip PSe+ p'on£Vaoa V w m Z �R'eQ
y� ca 0.a"i O d0 i'iC
^aaR€QQ �OwO^ u u bFyo
m E88 ! p 3 wit
�! Aa7tl,LS'7.Llty{y x�4aaQ Qpey+ yq � m i W i a
„ fll ,66'l6 ,Lf'LfIM 9£.9£.40 S7[OM(]('ffiNy4
dr, 'N .9f.9£.40 S
O O e .9l'Sl 1�9�8� � i� :��//.� 04
t7t�_, w "Q�.os. joy/�`9 3 3 " 4t 00e^s
nzfit. p
�L�f�---0549.37' N OS•49.42' '0Y60` ^a < ^ #g�,
zy{.iHtzZ \`,•��e"s HO
F."',4,V'z
� pa', �yyc��7 Lxy-7� 1 y3L
0 Q 4 a J �``� > F `D z w '(a '.' �alF,'oS,\[" a W map - uai � o i t 1 a �� R•
zm x v
y7 U p' a
z pE w'.!
r o`> R "�18�m i BAF
I/ryAw
q OOF mama
/ 3 3
o n t
} a
xo 6� Ho s
� p�amm tipAry� ryl�m ; �s
11 •�a�
GpSgagq� 'p5�aq�+yy1 1 _ 8 ' A 1 tIl<,
M .9£.9s.L9 5 2
Av
Zoo
.gi
q qz i m �I ele
.9b1979L S 5
iCg Fp�'
3 N I
,ZO'ZfL
po PO Y Iq ,Zl,fZ49 j \
o
wS
�q�g�\^n17.76
O,Ha!lo
N toro7
,
"`O ,��y�g6.�` .... aY J bd1 t i
Kri°"`�'- W.cOX •rol "a,°.`ro o<.,wze ao' rE <:a <0"
i s n a r Ttff>R� pl
z y :�Y i���:pr.n��• .a0.V�0 SB,%u �pN�.lg
V
g
UgDBOK......
�� 4
Up,4`p�
�7da'B
oa 1 1 o mg
b
o
---------
# --4 ayo 2� ki 98 b8
OUTkI
22 Sq
eusucfdGWr
g � 8

" ka,' 4-o. J • y Farr i a t -
Po 66, a0343
Gceer\sbore, Ae A7gao
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
RANDOLPH COUNTY
SPO File Number 076 -AP
EEP Site ID 204
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Rem. e: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
FIL�
sRegister ofrDeedsM Randolph Co,NC ` /
Recording Fee: $44.00
NC Real Estate x Tx:$.00
20100729000108450 R/W
Bk:RE2192 Pg:1144
07/29/2010 04:28:48 PM 1/11
���U��IIIiUIu��
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS,
pursuant to the provisions of N.C. General Statutes Chapter 121, Article 4 and made this
29 day of July , 2010, by Victor Craig Staley, Anthony Todd Stout, and
Mary Magalene Lawson Staley, Co -Trustees of the Magalene Staley Family Trust,
("Grantor"), whose mailing address 5810 Old Siler City Road, Ramseur, NC 27316, to the
State of North Carolina, ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina,
Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1321. The designations Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their
heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter
as required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et sea•, the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland
and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources has approved acceptance of this instrument; and
Page 1 of 8

�UIWI�YIIIIWII�IIVIIRE2192 1145 2/11
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003. This MOA recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and
natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Coleridge Township, Randolph County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 93.05 +/- acres and
being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 2053 at Page 1450 of the
Randolph County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
included areas of the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth, and
Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights. The Conservation Easement shall
be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Millstone Creep
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Easement Area consists of the following:
Conservation Easement A containing a total of 1.49 acres as shown on the plat of survey entitled
"Final Plat Conservation Easement for NCEEP, Project Name: MILLSTONE CREEK, SPO File
No. 076-Z, EEP Project No. 204, Property of Victor Craig Staley, Anthony Todd Stout, and
Mary Magalene Lawson Staley Co -Trustees of the Magalene Staley Family Trust" dated
02/17/2410 by Douglas R. Yarbrough, PLS Number 3395 and recorded in the Randolph County,
North Carolina Register of Deeds at Plat Book 125 Page 81.
See attached "Exhibit A", Legal Description.
See attached "Attachment 1", Table of Coordinates
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Easement Area in its natural
condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will
Page 2 of 8

�9�V!�I IWl�111IIIIIIIIIIIIIRE2192 1146 3111
significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following
conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly reserved as a
compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited
as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any rights not expressly
reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are prohibited, restricted, or reserved as
indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Easement Area for
the purposes thereof. Usage of motorized vehicles in the Easement Area is prohibited, except as
they are used exclusively for management, maintenance, or stewardship purposes, and on
existing trails, paths or roads.
B. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including organized
educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the property shall
not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
C. Vegetative Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or
damaged trees, and vegetation that obstructs, destabilizes or renders unsafe the Easement Area to
persons or natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and
vegetation in the Easement Area is prohibited.
D. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All are prohibited in the Easement
Area.
E. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses within the Easement Area including any use for
cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland are prohibited.
F. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area.
G. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or paving
in the Easement Area.
Page 3 of 8

1147 4111
H. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement, signs giving
directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement Area may be
allowed.
I. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances or machinery, or other material in the Easement Area is
prohibited.
J. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals, or other materials.
K. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water. No altering or tampering with water control
structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage
patterns. All removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or
wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption
or shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Easement Area may temporarily be
used for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock and agricultural production.
L. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the underlying fee that is subject to this Easement is allowed. Unless
agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future conveyance of the underlying fee for the
Easement Area and the rights as conveyed herein shall be as a single block of property. Any
future transfer of the fee simple shall be subject to this Conservation Easement. Any transfer of
the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and
across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
M. Development Rights. All development rights are removed from the Easement Area and
shall not be transferred.
N. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-native plants,
trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is consistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor shall not vary from the above restrictions without first obtaining written
approval from the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail
Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Easement Area over the
Page 4 of 8

RE219248 651,11��llillpNlWl
Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore, construct, manage, maintain,
enhance, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other riparian resources of the Easement Area,
in accordance with restoration activities or a long-term management plan. Unless otherwise
specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the rights granted herein do not include or
establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in -stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes
of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Easement Area
that may have been damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this
Conservation Easement by Grantor, their successors or assigns, that comes to the attention of the
Grantee, the Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor, their successors or
assigns in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such
notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If the breach remains uncured after
ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal
proceedings including damages, injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b)
to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any
appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate
right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate
relief if the breach of the term 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.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times
for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor, their successors or assigns are
complying with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor, their successors or
assigns, for any injury or change in the Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from
Page 5 of 8

�,�l;2V9U114ll6l11�ll IiIIIIIVI I I
causes beyond the Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth
movement, or from any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency
conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or harm to
the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring, any costs incurred by
Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor, their successors
or assigns, including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts
or omissions in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
C. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees to make any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which
any interest in the Property is conveyed subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
D. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
E. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in 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 purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the Property shall
notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any
transfer of all or any part of the Property. Such notification shall be addressed to: Justin
McCorkle, General Counsel, US Army Corps of Engineers, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
NC 28403
F. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Page 6 of 8

11�!�'IWIU150 ll��Mllllp�lll
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.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Easement
Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the
Easement Area.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same are free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
Victor Craig Staley,
Attorney -In -Fact for
Mary Magalene Lawson Staley,
Co -Trustee
By: A ZV y —
Anthony odd Stout,
Attorney -In -Fact for
Mary Magalene Lawson Staley,
Co -Trustee
Grantor
Page 7 of 8
By: G�i�/iyt�
Victor Craig Staley, Co -Trustee
By: a�'lu *`+
Anthony odd Stout , Co -Trustee

��ll�lU�I��NIIIIIpIVpIRE2192 1151 Bill
NORTH CAROLINA .
COUNTY OF G'U,a' I W
I, ,T-. " Ais F--,, F--k,,)fL, -U t- 'a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Victor Craig Staley, and Anthony Todd Stout, attorneys -in -
fact for Mary Magalene Lawson Staley personally appeared before me this day, and being by
me duly sworn, says that they executed the foregoing and annexed instrument for and in behalf
of Mary Magalene Lawson Staley, and that their authority to execute and acknowledge said
instrument is contained in an instrument duly executed, acknowledged, and recorded in the office
of the Randolph County, North Carolina, Register of Deeds at Book 2046, Page 603, on the Stn
day of October, 2007, and that this instrument was executed under and by virtue of the authority
given by said instrument granting him power of attorney; that the said Victor Craig Staley and
Anthony Todd Stout acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing and annexed instrument
for the purposed therein expressed for and in behalf of the said Mary Magalene Lawson Staley.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the a 9 -�
day of Jam, ,� , 2010.
My commission expires:
4.�' ' A
° JFV/pr
; N 0 TA-
G:pU8
•c o v N�
A.
w J Notary Public
Page 8 of 8

��UIU�llIN9�B�IIII�IIYIIRE2192 1152 9/11
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA - COUNTY OF GUILFORD
I, U • Rky-ws V-1moo- -T(L , [print name] a Notary Public of the County and
State aforesaid, certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this
day, and
❑ I have personal knowledge of the identity of the principal(s)
'A I have seen satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity, by a current state or
federal identification with the principal's photograph.
❑ A credible witness has sworn to the identity of the principal(s);
each acknowledging to me that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for
the purpose stated therein and in the capacity indicated:
Date: Zul D
Commission Expires:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA - COUNTY OF GUILFORD
1,73- & (�s Fa a kAun- T (Z , [print name] a Notary Public of the County and
State aforesaid, certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this
day, and
❑ I have personal knowledge of the identity of the principal(s)
`ia I have seen satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity, by a current state or
federal identification with the principal's photograph.
❑ A credible witness has sworn to the identity of the principal(s);
each acknowledging to me that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for
the purpose stated therein and in the capacity indicated:
........
NAME
CAPACITY ` �' •
°'o `
ANTHONY TODD STOUT
Individual(s)
Date:
TAR U � � ►� sn�=�•.,�i �.. � � �
Commission Expires:

IVq��I W�I�NIIIIENYYIINRE2192 1153 10/11
',X kAislT A
Description of a conservation easement on the property of Victor Craig Staley, Anthony
Todd Stout, and Mary Magalene Lawson Staley in Coleridge Township, Randolph
County, North Carolina, adjoining the property of Joe Dean Cox and wife Billie Jo Cox:
Beginning at an existing rebar and cap in the line of Victor Craig Staley etal and Joe
Dean Cox and wife Billie Jo Cox, said point of beginning being N 83'32'13" E 2608.70
feet from geodetic monument "Barrett 1975"; thence from said point of beginning and
crossing through the property of Victor Craig Staley etal the following:
S 11°36'47" E 202.68 feet to a new rebar and cap
S 05039'51" E 186.79 feet to a new rebar and cap
S 08054'36" W 201.30 feet to a new rebar and cap
S 09011'22" W 198.41 feet to a new rebar and cap
S 09°11'21" W 206.15 feet to a new rebar and cap
S 13058'50" W 261.45 feet to an existing rebar and cap in the line of Joe
Dean Cox and wife Billie Jo Cox; thence with the line of Joe Dean Cox and wife Billie Jo
Cox the following:
N 04°36'38" E 208.17 feet to an existing rebar and cap
N 04036'38" E 187.90 feet to an existing rebar and cap
N 04036'38" E 320.33 feet to an existing rebar and cap
N 04036'38" E 368.59 feet to an existing rebar and cap
N 04036'38" E 137.37 feet to the point and place of beginning and
containing 1.49 acres more or less as shown on a plat by Landmark Surveying, Inc. dated
February 17, 2010 and entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for NCEEP, Project
Name: Millstone Creek, SPO File No. 76-Z NCEEP Project No. 204, Property of,
Victory Craig Staley, Anthony Todd Stout and Mary Magalene Lawson Staley, Co -
Trustees of, The Magalene Staley Family Trust" as recorded in the Randolph County
Registrar of Deeds at Plat Book 125 at Page 81
arbrough PLS L-6
.��OrQOFss8/0
r I q 9< 9
SEAL
BOG fLI 95Q C?:
ti o `

92�V154HGI9I�fIi�Elliii0
A -m -A &H mf N-, -i
staleyascii
1,710268.162249054,1815597.58190042,0,
2,710069.60454,1815638.38712,0,
3,709883.72643,1815656.82309,0,
4,709684.85444,1815625.64528,0,
5,709488.9954,1815593.9624,0,
6,709285.48805,1815561.04024,0,
7,709031.78305386,1815497.8761002,0,
8,709239.279380556,1815514.62352139,0,
9,709426.571670354,1815529.72543038,0,
10,709745.86257592,1815555.4684452,0,
11,710131.204286921,1815586.54282888,0,
l��

W O W U 5
z
d y�
8 2 WE�•+QZFWziI[EzIW a ci
pn a "Eo P �� w z a W R 8$
d �V.WE`o
E— onmwESL'm$€3eQa
z z o U o ��
o z� Nie U � � o
,$ OS6I 8otld ESOZ NOON aaaa F
ah Isnxcx myv�xa�ucsanm �yovw (�
W W ° xil'7V.LS NOSMV77NrTWDVW j.SM Sag,,17LL-q� �'i' S (� C x
JJIOyg aao, xNo I a
AJ.NV'x9'IVJ.S ior"D
Fig
B Q
w $
'LE
_ 98£
9--,65 0 A cs
'u -Sm
O
Iw--
�wo
OMO
W � . aWoaO 0$Ug��^m
RRRO(
0 U
a; t;
d
yd700RraAl
`
y>p
g rU U /V x
.'Lm po �,
41Z Yi�j 1 Za O 8N `• S
4lwzpp 1 I
Op 0
QI Q� UwwQ mcg 1 I A �E aT � ``°'s•
Wo JQa 11 I ^ mm ,:�� `$
HII
m Cox
QI. —
ANDCox r'�ya N Pfi°`y :yrya rr' J P�°•.`i
1 1 p �459YAO$69 ,"DOVGp�,
1 1
8 O4 °7 �
x xa g
fie.°y AM
��--___ _----- slAll
�a
of R zz so
� _NCH[ ate. -way
W°Bail
y
J W
r
5
�
a�
W O W U 5
z
d y�
8 2 WE�•+QZFWziI[EzIW a ci
pn a "Eo P �� w z a W R 8$
d �V.WE`o
E— onmwESL'm$€3eQa
z z o U o ��
o z� Nie U � � o
,$ OS6I 8otld ESOZ NOON aaaa F
ah Isnxcx myv�xa�ucsanm �yovw (�
W W ° xil'7V.LS NOSMV77NrTWDVW j.SM Sag,,17LL-q� �'i' S (� C x
JJIOyg aao, xNo I a
AJ.NV'x9'IVJ.S ior"D
Fig
B Q
w $
'LE
_ 98£
9--,65 0 A cs
'u -Sm
O
Iw--
�wo
OMO
W � . aWoaO 0$Ug��^m
RRRO(
0 U
a; t;
d
yd700RraAl
`
y>p
g rU U /V x
.'Lm po �,
41Z Yi�j 1 Za O 8N `• S
4lwzpp 1 I
Op 0
QI Q� UwwQ mcg 1 I A �E aT � ``°'s•
Wo JQa 11 I ^ mm ,:�� `$
HII
m Cox
QI. —
ANDCox r'�ya N Pfi°`y :yrya rr' J P�°•.`i
1 1 p �459YAO$69 ,"DOVGp�,
1 1
8 O4 °7 �
x xa g
fie.°y AM
��--___ _----- slAll
�a
of R zz so
� _NCH[ ate. -way
W°Bail

!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
MaC
CcB
MaC
MeB2
MaD
RvA
MaDMeB2
CcB
RvA
MeB2MillstoneUt M illsto neDitch- CoxSeepN
orthern Tributary
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, U SGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community
Leg end
NCEEP_Co nservat ion_Ease ments selection
channels
Reach
Ditch - Carma c
Ditch- Cox
Millstone
Northern Tributary
See p
Ut Millsto ne
Conto ur_002
!(<all oth er value s>
INDICATOR
!(f3
!(F3 SAT
Existin g_Wetla nds
<all oth er value s>
Mapunit Symbol
RvA
240 0 240120 Feet
.
Millstone C reek Soils & LiDAR deriv ed 2' Contour Map
q\N A\ X17,, , N I i► f
NU liWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 ' . '
Date: Project/Site:
Evaluator:, J�\� I County
/ 1 ,R -
Total
Total Points: Stream Determination (c
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermitten(
if 2 99 or perennial if 2:30*
Latitude: 3S' f SCl
Longitude:
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ,,� l )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
S"9
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
1
1.5
24. Amphibians 0
0.5 r 1
ripple -Fool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
_1.�
2
3
9. Grade control
'0.5 .
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0,
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
a -
No = 0
Yes = 3
anuuaai uucnes are nvi raieu, see uiscussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 rg 1 1.511
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Res = 31
C_ Rinlnnv tSnhtntal = V )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2 1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0
2
3
22. Fish 0
.5 1
1.5
23. Crayfish 0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians 0
0.5 r 1
1.5
25. Algae 0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other ='O
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: , (41
SVA
2��s 1 zb�4
1v c,5u Djr_1 q
J V
S -t C. M41 `--r1I m/v

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 UT ' U� N AN1)'` ° `�
Date: i
Project/Site: \1 r
Latitude:
Evaluator: � n�I y
1 l�
County: ., `�
Longitude: 9 ► ��� n� :}
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Dete n ('rcle one)
Other
if> 99 orperennial if> 30"
Ephemeral ntermitten`' erennial
p
e. Quad Name:
g
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str ng
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
_3)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
No = 0
2
es = 3 `
ri le ool sequence
70
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
t _2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain l
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
A
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
_C _
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
+' T .
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
anmciai uncnes are not rates; see aisscc�ussions In manual
B. Hvdrolonv (Subtotal = X 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
0
2
2
3
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5'
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
2
es = 3 `
C. tilology (Subtotal = q,. j )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
(22
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22. Fish
70
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae ,
+' 0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other 0 ;
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
f
Notes:
Sketch: SIWIc�
�,
�/ /�
i �►.Av�
1U
�;
Z► :
►
rn��
,qJ& w V-L� 5(v'\ �
h*NCsV CUA -L q r�r'r( aA e

1v U V W V stream identification t'orm Version 4.11 , v _
Date: 51 a 1 l Project/Site: `,'l\�' Gl Latitude: 3 �'
Evaluator: Jul County: 1 �/ 1 J� Longitude:
Total Points: Stream Dete ircle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent 3 hent _ Ephemeral Intermittent erennial e.g. Quad Name:
if 2:19 or perennial if > 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 12. )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Str ng
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3 'I
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
s-
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool se uence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0
1
2
2
3
3
5. Active/relict floodplain - � p r1 ,,
0
0.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0.5
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0)
26. Wetland plants in streambed
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
_
2
3
9. Grade control
0
; 0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
anmciai ancnes are not rareu; see uiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1 2 3
0 1 2
14. Leaf litter
1.5 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5 + 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 .: �.5 1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 es = 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = i ] �J
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2 3
22. Fish
0
1 1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1 1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1 1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
r-
10I

!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
98
7
6
54
0
3
1
2
11
10
00
12
0000
MaC
RvA
MaD MeB2
Mi
l
l
st
oneSeepDitch- CoxUt Millstone
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, U SGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community
Leg end
Soil_Bore
!(<all other values>
!(F3 INUN D
!(f3
NCEEP_Co nservat ion_Ease ments selection
channels
Reach
Ditch - Carma c
Ditch- Cox
Millstone
Northern Tributary
See p
Ut A
Conto ur_002
Existin g_Wetla nds
<all oth er value s>
Mapunit Symbol
RvA
cpf_nw i
70 0 7035 Feet
.
Millstone Creek Existing Wetland & Soil Bore Map
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
x
Are Vegetation x , Soil , or Hydrology Yes x
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No x
No X X
No X
Yes
Yes
Yes X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
sunny, 35 degrees, no precipiation for 16 days prior to site visit, area was in pasture and actively grazed approximately 1.5 years ago
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Millstone Creek (Ken Cox) Stream and Wetland Site Ramseur/ Randolph
0000
5/28/19
Melonie Allen - NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:RamseurMelonie Allen
0planarflood plain
Datum:Nad 83-79.6224135.69683LRR P, MLRA 136
NANWI classification:Riverview sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes x
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)
=Total Cover
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
15 6 0
Yes
Yes
FAC
FACU
30
0
80
Multiply by:
0
3.67Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
10
20
(A)
(B)
(A)
1435
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
70
Cynodon 70
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Juniperus virginiana
Acer negundo
10 x 10 )
30
Indicator
Status
20
10
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
33.3%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
0000
1
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
110
0
30
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:x 1 =
1.x 2 =
2.x 3 =
3.x 4 =
4.x 5 =
5.Column Totals:(B)
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody Vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
VEGETATION (Five Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.0000
Tree Stratum )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(B)
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Prevalence Index worksheet:=Total Cover
OBL species
FACU species
(A)
Total % Cover of:Multiply by:
FACW species
Prevalence Index = B/A =
UPL species
FAC species
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
=Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?Yes No
)
)
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
=Total Cover
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
65
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
70
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 5/3
7.5YR 5/4
2-12
0-2
0000SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
x
Are Vegetation x , Soil , or Hydrology Yes x
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
x
X
Yes x
Yes x
Yes x X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Millstone Creek (Ken Cox) Stream and Wetland Site Ramseur/ Randolph
2
5/28/19
Melonie Allen - NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:RamseurMelonie Allen
2planarflood plain
Datum:NAD 83-79.6238935.69649LRR P, MLRA 136
NANWI classification:Riverview sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Photo points 1 -5
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Land use active pasture prior to 2015, livestock fenced out in 2015

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
sunny, 85 degrees, 0.3 inches of raiin on 5/23 (5 days ago)
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
2
3
4
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
140
0
70
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
75.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
1 m2 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Leersia oryzoides
Yes
Yes
Yes
20Panicum virgatum
30Festuca
Ludwigia alternifolia 10
1 m2
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACW
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
100
OBLYes
2050
Juncus scirpoides
20
20
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
60
20
0
Multiply by:
60
2.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
30
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
20
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)1 m2
=Total Cover
FACW
FAC
No
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:x 1 =
1.x 2 =
2.x 3 =
3.x 4 =
4.x 5 =
5.Column Totals:(B)
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?Yes No
)
)
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
=Total Cover
=Total Cover
)
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
=Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Multiply by:
FACW species
Prevalence Index = B/A =
UPL species
FAC species
Prevalence Index worksheet:=Total Cover
OBL species
FACU species
(A)
Total % Cover of:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(B)
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody Vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
VEGETATION (Five Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.2
Tree Stratum )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
x
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
M2
deposition of alluvium
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
2SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
C7.5YR 6/2
7.5YR 5/4
7.5YR 4/62-12
0-2
Loc2
60
Sandy
Loamy/Clayey
80
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
x
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
M2
Texture
40 M
10SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
C7.5YR 6/1
7.5YR 5/2 7.5YR 5/6
7.5YR 5/69-12
0-9
Loc2
60
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
60 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
x
Are Vegetation x , Soil , or Hydrology Yes x
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
x No X
X No
x
x
x
X
Yes x
Yes
Yes x X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Millstone Creek (Ken Cox) Stream and Wetland Site Ramseur/ Randolph
10
5/28/2019
Melonie Allen - NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:RamseurMelonie Allen
2planarflood plain
Datum:NAD 83-79.6224635.69623LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Riverview sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Land use active pasture prior to 2015, livestock fenced out in 2015; Bore location adjacent to relic ditch (no longer maintained)

NoYes
6
Is the Sampled Area
sunny, 85 degrees, last rain 5 days ago 0.3 inches
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
10
4
4
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
180
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5
Acer negundo
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Salix nigra
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Populus deltoides
Quercus michauxii
10/ x10')
60
Indicator
Status
20
20
No
Dominant
Species?
Yes
Persicaria pensylvanica
No
Yes
5
5
Panicum virgatum
20Mimulus ringens OBL
Ludwigia alternifolia 5
10' x10'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
35
FACWNo
7
13
18
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FAC
Total % Cover of:
20
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
60
40
0
Multiply by:
80
1.80Prevalence Index = B/A =
40
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
30 12
10
40
10 No FACW
Yes
Yes
FACW
OBL
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)10' x 10'
=Total Cover
FACW
FAC
No
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:x 1 =
1.x 2 =
2.x 3 =
3.x 4 =
4.x 5 =
5.Column Totals:(B)
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?Yes No
)
)
Tree – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling – Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
=Total Cover
=Total Cover
)
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
=Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Multiply by:
FACW species
Prevalence Index = B/A =
UPL species
FAC species
Prevalence Index worksheet:=Total Cover
OBL species
FACU species
(A)
Total % Cover of:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(B)
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately
3 ft (1 m) in height.
Woody Vine – All woody vines, regardless of height.
VEGETATION (Five Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.10
Tree Stratum )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Project Name:Millstone CrPnk Rlcn n� iOR
Version 1.4,8/16/05
ountName: ando
EP er: 04
roNum
'ect Sponsor: N
Project Contact Name: Melonie Allen
ro'eContact ddress: 217 West Jones Street, Ra ei h N 27603
ro'ect
ct Contact -mal: elonie. Ilen ncderin ov
P ProjectManager; Me onie Allen
Project Description E N D ivision o itigation ervices will complete a stream and wetland
enhancement project on Millstone Creek and two unnamed tributaries to Millstone
Creek consisting of approximately 3, 819 linear feet of stream enhancement and 1.2
acres of wetland enhancement. NC DEQ has secured a conservation easement on the
parent parcel owned by Joe Dean and Billie White Cox.
. • • nly
Reviewed By:
(6 et
24
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
D= Z7 -/
Date 'For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4,8/16/05

Version 1.4, 8/16/05 2
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05 3

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities

Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the specie and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05 4
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?

Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
The
Catena
Group
Appendix A:
Letters, Responses, Etc.
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]

The
Catena
,Group
National Historic Preservation Act:
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
Files at the North Carolina State Archeology Office were reviewed on December 12th,
2003. No listed archeological sites were within the project boundaries (Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Feasibility Study, Cox Property, Randolph County, NC.- TIP Project
No. R-0609WM, NCDOT, 2004).

The
Catena
Group
Dale Suiter
USFWS Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
July 27, 2010
Subject: EEP Stream mitigation project (Ken Cox) on Millstone Creek, Randolph
County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Suiter,
The purpose of this letter is to notify you of activities occurring in Randolph County on
the Ken Cox site stream mitigation project. The Ken Cox site has been identified for the
purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. A total
of 3,819 linear feet of stream restoration, 3.76 acres of wetland restoration, and 1.2 acres
of wetland enhancement of Millstone Creek are proposed (Figure 1).
Two endangered species, Schweinitz's sunflower and the Cape Fear shiner, are known to
occur in Randolph County (http://149.168.1.196/nhp/find.php and
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html). Potential project -related impacts to these
two species were evaluated in the Restoration Plan to be submitted to the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) for this project. These findings are summarized below and
provided for your information.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Potential habitat exists for Schweinitz's sunflower on the Ken Cox property along pasture
and road edges but not in the proposed area of impact of steam restoration activities.
Surveys were conducted on September 24, 2007, by Kate Montieth and Jennifer Logan of
The Catena Group and no plants were found. The nearest known population of
Schweinitz's sunflower is over eight miles away, northeast of Asheboro Given the fact
that potential habitat on the site is outside of the area of impact and the fact that no
individuals were found during surveys, it can be concluded that the proposed stream
mitigation project will have "_No Effect" on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The Cape Fear shiner is limited primarily to small stretches of the Deep, Haw, and Rocky
Rivers of the Cape Fear River basin (USFWS 1988). The most recent data on the Cape
Fear shiner population in the Deep River indicate that it is not currently known upstream
of the Coleridge Dam on the Deep River. Millstone Creek, a tributary in the Deep River
watershed above Coleridge Dam, flows through the Ken Cox site. This portion of the
stream is highly degraded through agricultural activities, is fairly narrow and shallow,

and does not contain habitat elements (shallow rocky shoals) typical of water
bodies where the Cape Fear shiner is currently known to occur. Although the Cape Fear
shiner is reported to utilize smaller tributaries during high water periods in winter months
(http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/fish/CFS_Fact_Sheetl.pdi), the presence of the Coleridge
Dam could restrict the known population from utilizing the stream in the project area. It
is possible that a currently unknown population of Cape Fear shiner could be present in
the Deep River above the Coleridge Dam, however, the likelihood of it utilizing the
stream on site is slim due to the extreme habitat degradation. Based on the lack of typical
habitat and the presence of barriers between known occupied habitat and the project area,
it can be concluded that the proposed stream mitigation project will "Not Likely to
Effect' the Cape Fear shiner. Additionally, strict erosion control measures and BMPs
should be utilized during construction to protect downstream aquatic habitats.
Additionally, please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or the Fish & Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA) from the construction of the stream restoration project on the subject
property.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that you do not have any
comments regarding associated laws and that you do not have any other information
relevant to this project at the current time.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have concerning the extent of
site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Kate Montieth
The Catena Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
cc:
Melonie Allen
EEP Project Manager
1652 -Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Becky Ward
Ward Consulting Engineers, PC
8386 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615

The
Catena
--_ _ Grou 410-B Millstone Drive
- - . p Hillsborough, NC 27278
-``,- - [phone]
July 27, 2010
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject EEP Stream mitigation project (Ken Cox) on Millstone Creek, Randolph County,
North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential wetland and stream
restoration project on the Bowman site.
The Ken Cox site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. A total of 3,819 linear feet of stream restoration, 3.76 acres
of wetland restoration, and 1.2 acres of wetland enhancement of Millstone Creek are proposed
(Figure 1).
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Sincerely,
Kate Montieth
The Catena Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
cc:
Melonie Allen
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Becky Ward
Ward Consulting Engineers, PC
8386 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615

P
1 ,
e
77— -_ < 5 $34
' �� • � + � J �{ � � ` �� ��� 1,
'Y'
,d.i` f 5fkr •y4�� v.. y
i)sr'
21.
'
•fir v �i�1 ! � { �� �� �
spF ° 45C! '.rte - - ,, • �' � ._'`'l''� �;•� f
I 1(f rf �I
I I fIr _ �,a`.•V tttf ri,�y.\`+,.�}.�f� .. �'�,1r II i r:
Soo
—41
IX
0 1,000 2.000 Feet jI ..`� ( , ;
t
17777-7-7'r
r
The
Ken Cox Stream
Catena
Restoration Site
Group
Property Boundary
As Shown
Randolph County, North Carolina
Date:
Novfrnrber 2001
Figure
sca k-�.
As Shown
.lab No.;
4124

REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONTITLE 1.1PROJECT DIRECTORYPROJECT OWNER NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICESMELONIE ALLEN217 WEST JONES STREETRALEIGH, NC [e-mail] / TSP NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITYBARBARA A. DOLL, PHD, PECAMPUS BOX 7625RALEIGH, NC [e-mail] L. PAGE, PECAMPUS BOX 7625RALEIGH, NC [e-mail] INDEXTITLE SHEET1.0PROJECT OVERVIEW2.0PROPOSED STREAM CROSS-SECTIONS3.0PROPOSED PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS4.0PROPOSED DETAILS5.0MILLSTONE CREEK MITIGATION SITENC DMS PROJECT: IMS 2045500 JOE DEAN TRAIL, RAMSEUR, NC 27316REVISED MITIGATION PLANJUNE 1, 2018SITE AERIAL PHOTOMILLSTONE CREEKUT REACH BNORTH TRIBUTARYUT REACH A
SHEET 4.5REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONOVERVIEW 4.1
SCALE: 1" = 100'
Feet
0 100 200
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAMVEGETATED BENCHVEGETATED BENCH6.0'8.0'0.5'WIDTH VARIES PER PLANTIE TO EXISTINGPER PLAN3:13:1SAND AND WOOD CHIP MIXDEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH BELOW RIFFLE /CASCADE = 2.5'PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTPROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAM4.5'4.5'1.5'PROPOSED GRADEWIDTH VARIES PER PLAN3 : 13 : 1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTSAND AND WOOD CHIP MIXDEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH BELOW POOL = 1.5'TIE TO EXISTINGPER PLANPROPOSED GRADENT R1, UTA R1 RSC CHANNEL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION (TYP.)2:12:1PROPOSED 8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN FABRICQBKF = 8 CFSWBKF= 8 FTABKF = 3.3 FT2DBKF = 0.4 FTDMAX = 0.5 FTW/D = 19.7PROPOSED RIFFLE / CASCADE50% NC DOT CLASS A ROCK, 50% NC DOTCLASS B ROCK (CLEAN ONSITE ROCK OFSIMILAR GRADATION MAY BE SUBSTITUTEDPER THE ENGINEER)8.0'FILTER MEDIA EXTENTSNT R1, UTA R1 RSC CHANNEL POOL CROSS-SECTION (TYP.)REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBMP XS: NT R1, UTA R1 3.1
FLOODPLAINFLOODPLAIN8.5'0.7'WIDTH VARIES PER PLANTIE TO EXISTINGPER GRADING PLAN3:13:1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTPROPOSED GRADEUTB R2 RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION STA. 5+29 TO 5+96 (TYP.)PROPOSED EROSION CONTROLMATTING OR SOD MATPER PLAN AND DETAILFLOODPLAINFLOODPLAIN9.0'WIDTH VARIES PER PLANTIE TO EXISTINGPER GRADING PLAN3:13:1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT1.8'2 : 12
:
12 : 13
:
1QBKF = 15.6 CFSWBKF = 8.5 FTABKF = 4.7 FT2DBKF = 0.6 FTDMAX = 0.7 FTW/D = 15.4K = 1.10S = 0.0159 FT/FT5.4'2.7'1.4'4.9'PROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BKF WSE, QBKF = 18 CFSPROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAM1 : 1PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAMPROPOSED BKF WSE, QBKF = 15.6 CFSUTB R2 POOL CROSS-SECTION STA. 5+29 TO 5+96 (TYP.)REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONXS: UTB R2 3.2
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR FIBER 700 GRAMBANKFULL BENCHBANKFULL BENCHWIDTH VARIES PER PLANTIE TO EXISTINGPER GRADINGPLAN3 : 13 : 1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTMC R2 RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION STA 14+82 FT TO 20+20 FT (TYP.)MC R2 POOL CROSS-SECTION STA 14+82 TO 20+20 (TYP.)PROPOSED GRADE36.0'3.52.5 : 12.5

:
1PROPOSED EROSION CONTROLMATTING OR SOD MAT PERPLAN AND DETAILWIDTH VARIES PER PLAN3 : 1PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTPROPOSED GRADE48.6'7 : 1TIE TO EXISTINGPER GRADINGPLAN3 : 1POINT BAR7.7'PROPOSED BKF WSEWBKF = 36 FTABKF = 85 FT2DBKF = 2.6 FTDMAX = 3.3 FTW/D = 14.0K = 1.11S = 0.0019 FT/FT2 : 118.5'WBKFP = 48.6 FTABKFP = 185 FT2DBKFP = 5.9 FTDMAXP = 7.7 FTPROPOSED BKF WSEPROPOSED IB WSEBANKFULL BENCHBANKFULL BENCHREVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONXS: MC R2 3.3
0+000+501+000+001+000+001+00
2+003+004+004+295
+
5
0
6+
0
0435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470
4354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694700+001+002+003+004+004+356.0%5.3%6.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%6.0%5.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%7.0%6.3%6.0%4.8%5.2%4.9%5.3%STA = 0+31.47ELEV = 457.91STA = 0+64.04ELEV = 456.47STA = 0+86.58ELEV = 455.10STA = 1+01.48ELEV = 454.35
STA = 1+25.74
ELEV = 453.22
STA = 1+48.64
ELEV = 452.10
STA = 1+71.18
ELEV = 450.98
STA = 1+94.02
ELEV = 449.84
STA = 2+18.08
ELEV = 448.67
STA = 2+41.51
ELEV = 447.20
STA = 2+56.79
ELEV = 446.45
STA = 2+80.60
ELEV = 445.32
STA = 3+04.08
ELEV = 443.83
STA = 3+18.76
ELEV = 443.33
STA = 3+31.18
ELEV = 442.33
STA = 3+53.64
ELEV = 441.30
STA = 3+73.14
ELEV = 440.65
STA = 3+94.14
ELEV = 439.44
STA = 0+22.48ELEV = 459.66STA = 0+40.46ELEV = 458.91STA = 0+57.63ELEV = 458.00STA = 0+70.32ELEV = 457.47STA = 0+80.67ELEV = 456.85STA = 0+95.24ELEV = 456.10STA = 1+07.71ELEV = 455.35STA = 1+20.43
ELEV = 454.71
STA = 1+31.05
ELEV = 454.22
STA = 1+43.32
ELEV = 453.60
STA = 1+53.96
ELEV = 453.10
STA = 1+66.34
ELEV = 452.48
STA = 1+76.02
ELEV = 451.98
STA = 1+89.02
ELEV = 451.20
STA = 1+99.05
ELEV = 450.84
STA = 2+12.84
ELEV = 450.16
STA = 2+23.31
ELEV = 449.68
STA = 2+35.44
ELEV = 448.95
STA = 2+50.53
ELEV = 448.20
STA = 2+63.04
ELEV = 447.45
STA = 2+75.39
ELEV = 446.71
STA = 2+85.81
ELEV = 446.33
STA = 2+98.22
ELEV = 445.58
STA = 3+12.38
ELEV = 444.83
STA = 3+25.14
ELEV = 444.33
STA = 3+37.14
ELEV = 443.83
STA = 3+46.14
ELEV = 443.20
STA = 3+61.14
ELEV = 442.80
STA = 3+67.14
ELEV = 442.43
STA = 3+79.14
ELEV = 442.15
STA = 3+88.14
ELEV = 441.60
STA = 4+00.14
ELEV = 440.94
REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONNT: PLAN - PROFILE 4.1SCALE: 1" = 20'Feet02040
0+000+004+004+290+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+505+005+506+004354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694704714724734744754354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694704714724734744750+001+002+003+004+005+006+00 6+256.0%5.0%5.5%6.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%5.5%6.5%5.0%6.0%6.0%5.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%4.8%4.1%4.0%2.2%STA = 0+17.52ELEV = 468.45STA = 0+35.36ELEV = 467.70STA = 0+47.79ELEV = 467.07STA = 0+60.04ELEV = 466.58STA = 0+72.14ELEV = 465.92STA = 0+83.43ELEV = 465.47STA = 0+93.13ELEV = 464.89STA = 1+04.95ELEV = 464.42STA = 1+17.96ELEV = 463.65STA = 1+28.04ELEV = 463.28STA = 1+40.95ELEV = 462.51STA = 1+55.95ELEV = 461.76STA = 1+68.02ELEV = 461.01STA = 1+81.00ELEV = 460.23STA = 1+96.02ELEV = 459.48STA = 2+10.44ELEV = 458.73
STA = 2+23.06
ELEV = 457.98
STA = 2+35.48
ELEV = 457.30
STA = 2+46.33
ELEV = 456.86
STA = 2+59.86
ELEV = 455.99
STA = 2+74.40
ELEV = 455.29
STA = 2+86.91
ELEV = 454.54
STA = 2+99.63
ELEV = 453.90
STA = 3+10.78
ELEV = 453.41
STA = 3+22.21
ELEV = 452.73
STA = 3+32.75
ELEV = 452.32
STA = 3+46.04
ELEV = 451.52
STA = 3+60.28
ELEV = 450.77
STA = 3+72.51
ELEV = 450.02
STA = 3+83.09
ELEV = 449.49
STA = 3+97.64
ELEV = 448.95
STA = 4+08.32
ELEV = 448.31
STA = 4+19.09
ELEV = 447.88
STA = 4+31.29
ELEV = 447.15
STA = 4+47.20
ELEV = 446.40
STA = 4+60.36
ELEV = 445.65
STA = 4+71.79
ELEV = 444.96
STA = 4+82.37
ELEV = 444.56
STA = 4+95.58
ELEV = 443.77
STA = 5+10.27
ELEV = 443.02
STA = 5+23.17
ELEV = 442.52
STA = 5+35.19
ELEV = 442.19
STA = 5+44.19
ELEV = 441.76
STA = 5+59.19
ELEV = 441.53
STA = 5+65.19
ELEV = 441.28
STA = 5+77.19
ELEV = 441.28
STA = 5+86.19
ELEV = 440.92
STA = 5+98.19
ELEV = 440.52
STA = 6+08.87
ELEV = 440.29
STA = 0+26.44ELEV = 466.70STA = 0+53.92ELEV = 465.58STA = 0+77.79ELEV = 464.46STA = 0+99.09ELEV = 463.42STA = 1+23.00ELEV = 462.28STA = 1+47.10ELEV = 460.75STA = 1+61.98ELEV = 460.00STA = 1+86.71ELEV = 458.48STA = 2+01.78ELEV = 457.73
STA = 2+16.75
ELEV = 456.98
STA = 2+40.90
ELEV = 455.85
STA = 2+66.08
ELEV = 454.29
STA = 2+80.66
ELEV = 453.54
STA = 3+05.20
ELEV = 452.41
STA = 3+27.48
ELEV = 451.32
STA = 3+51.91
ELEV = 449.77
STA = 3+66.40
ELEV = 449.02
STA = 3+90.37
ELEV = 447.95
STA = 4+13.71
ELEV = 446.88
STA = 4+37.91
ELEV = 445.40
STA = 4+53.78
ELEV = 444.65
STA = 4+77.08
ELEV = 443.56
STA = 5+01.60
ELEV = 442.02
STA = 5+16.72
ELEV = 441.52
STA = 5+29.23
ELEV = 440.69
STA = 5+51.85
ELEV = 440.03
STA = 5+71.19
ELEV = 439.79
STA = 5+92.19
ELEV = 439.02 4.4%5.5%5.5%5.5%4.5%4.8%6.0%4.5%5.2%5.1%5.4%5.4%REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONUTA: PLAN - PROFILE 4.2SCALE: 1" = 20'Feet02040
0+000+501+001+502
+
0
0
2+503+003+504
+
0
0
4
+
5
0
5+005+505+960+001+002
+
0
0
3+004
+
0
0
5+005+964+004+295+00 5+50 6+00425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445
4254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444450+001+002+003+004+005+006+00STA = 0+00.00ELEV = 440.00STA = 0+29.95ELEV = 439.83STA = 0+44.96ELEV = 439.74STA = 0+74.89ELEV = 439.58STA = 0+89.89ELEV = 439.50STA = 1+19.32ELEV = 439.03STA = 1+34.32ELEV = 438.79STA = 1+63.74ELEV = 438.32STA = 1+78.74ELEV = 438.09
STA = 2+05.56
ELEV = 437.61
STA = 2+30.10
ELEV = 437.23
STA = 2+45.10
ELEV = 437.00
STA = 2+62.26
ELEV = 436.50
STA = 2+80.34
ELEV = 436.00
STA = 2+98.31
ELEV = 435.50
STA = 3+15.90
ELEV = 435.00
STA = 3+34.29
ELEV = 434.50
STA = 3+72.54
ELEV = 434.01
STA = 4+19.72
ELEV = 433.51
STA = 4+39.72
ELEV = 433.16
STA = 4+69.16
ELEV = 432.69
STA = 4+84.09
ELEV = 432.44
STA = 5+13.51
ELEV = 431.97
STA = 5+29.08
ELEV = 431.71
STA = 5+61.41
ELEV = 431.12
STA = 5+47.61
ELEV = 431.41
STA = 5+81.62
ELEV = 430.82
STA = 5+96.32
ELEV = 430.50
STA = 0+17.34ELEV = 437.83STA = 0+61.16ELEV = 437.58STA = 1+06.29ELEV = 437.03STA = 1+50.57ELEV = 436.82STA = 1+93.51ELEV = 436.11
STA = 2+19.26
ELEV = 435.73
STA = 2+54.97
ELEV = 435.50
STA = 2+72.71
ELEV = 435.00
STA = 2+90.66
ELEV = 434.50
STA = 3+08.44
ELEV = 434.00
STA = 3+26.09
ELEV = 433.51
STA = 3+54.96
ELEV = 432.01
STA = 3+97.59
ELEV = 432.01
STA = 4+56.00
ELEV = 431.19
STA = 5+00.34
ELEV = 430.47
STA = 5+38.34
ELEV = 429.91
STA = 5+71.51
ELEV = 429.32 0.6%0.5%1.6%1.6%1.5%1.8%1.7%1.7%2.1%2.1%REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONUTB: PLAN - PROFILE 4.3SCALE: 1" = 20'Feet02040
MATC
H
L
I
N
E

S
T
A

1
1
+
9
4
.
7
2

F
T
MATCHLINE STA 11+94.72 FT0+001+002+003+00
4+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+00BP: 0+00.00PI: 0+36.59PI: 0+97.17PI: 1+57.00 PI: 2+77.95PI: 3+42.23PI: 5+15.22
PI: 5+95.59
PI: 7+28
.
7
9
PI: 8+27.
0
3
PI: 9+
3
2
.
1
2
PI: 10
+
1
7
.
5
6
PI: 11+61
.
5
8
PI: 12+42.814104114124134144154164174184194204214224234244254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444454104114124134144154164174184194204214224234244254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444450+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+001.0%0.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%1.0%0.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%STA = 0+00.00ELEV = 429.79STA = 0+36.59ELEV = 429.44STA = 0+97.17ELEV = 429.44STA = 1+57.00ELEV = 429.14STA = 2+77.95ELEV = 429.14
STA = 3+42.23
ELEV = 428.82
STA = 5+15.22
ELEV = 428.82
STA = 5+95.59
ELEV = 428.45
STA = 7+28.79
ELEV = 428.49
STA = 8+27.03
ELEV = 428.45
STA = 9+32.12
ELEV = 428.45
STA = 0+66.88ELEV = 425.23STA = 2+17.48ELEV = 424.68
STA = 4+28.73
ELEV = 424.35
STA = 6+62.19
ELEV = 425.45
STA = 7+77.03
ELEV = 425.45
STA = 8+80.12
ELEV = 425.45
REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONMC: PLAN - PROFILE 4.4SCALE: 1" = 40'BEGIN MC R1 ENHANCEMENT 1 APPROACHAT PARCEL BOUNDARYPROPOSED LOG RIFFLE (BOULDERS MAY BEPLACED FOR HABITAT AND FLOW DIVERSITY)PER DETAILTOE WOOD REVETMENT, SOILGEOLIFTS AND SOD MATPROPOSED LOG VANE WITH LOG SILLPER DETAILPROPOSED LOG RIFFLEPER DETAILPROPOSED LOG RIFFLEPER DETAILPROPOSED LOG VANE WITH LOG SILLPER DETAILFeet04080LWD TO PROMOTE SCOURAND FLOW DIVERSITYTOE WOOD REVETMENT, SOILGEOLIFTS AND SOD MATTOE WOOD REVETMENT, SOILGEOLIFTS AND SOD MATTOE WOOD REVETMENT, SOILGEOLIFTS AND SOD MATSOD MAT AND TOPSOIL HARVEST AREASOD MAT AND TOPSOIL HARVEST AREASOD MAT AND TOPSOIL HARVEST AREAEXISTING CHANNEL PROFIELEXISTING TOBPROPOSED CHANNEL PROFILE
MATCHLINE STA 11+94.72 FT MATCHLINE STA 11+94.72 FT9+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+001
8
+
0
0
19+0020+0020+20PI: 9+32.12PI: 10+17.56 PI: 11+61.58PI: 12+42.81PI: 13+41.09
PI: 13
+
9
4
.
9
9
PI:

1
4
+
4
6
.
2
3
P
C
:

1
4
+
9
5
.
8
5
Mi
d
:

1
5
+
4
1
.
3
9
PT: 15+
8
6
.
9
2
PC: 16+
6
4
.
5
3
Mid: 17+
1
9
.
3
3
PT: 17+74.12PC: 18+48.49Mid: 19+06.04PT: 19
+
6
3
.
5
9
EP: 20
+
1
9
.
9
05+505+965+96410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445
41041141241341441541641741841942042142242342442542642742842943043143243343443543643743843944044144244344444510+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0020+200.5%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.7%STA = 10+17.56ELEV = 428.04STA = 11+61.58ELEV = 428.04STA = 12+42.81ELEV = 427.66
STA = 13+41.09
ELEV = 427.66
STA = 13+94.99
ELEV = 427.66
STA = 14+46.23
ELEV = 427.66
STA = 14+95.85
ELEV = 427.28
STA = 15+86.92
ELEV = 427.28
STA = 16+64.53
ELEV = 426.69
STA = 17+74.12
ELEV = 426.69
STA = 18+48.49
ELEV = 426.13
STA = 19+63.59
ELEV = 426.13
STA = 10+89.57ELEV = 423.32STA = 12+91.95ELEV = 423.00
STA = 13+67.54
ELEV = 425.66
STA = 14+20.61
ELEV = 425.66
STA = 15+41.39
ELEV = 422.61
STA = 17+19.33
ELEV = 422.33
STA = 19+06.04
ELEV = 422.06
REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONMC: PLAN - PROFILE 4.5SCALE: 1" = 40'Feet04080PROPOSED LOG RIFFLE (BOULDERS MAY BEPLACED FOR HABITAT AND FLOW DIVERSITY)PER DETAILTOE WOOD REVETMENT, SOILGEOLIFTS AND SOD MATPROPOSED LOG VANE WITH LOG SILLPER DETAILLWD TO PROMOTE SCOURAND FLOW DIVERSITYTOE WOOD REVETMENT, SOILGEOLIFTS AND SOD MATTOE WOOD REVETMENT, SOILGEOLIFTS AND SOD MATSOD MAT AND TOPSOIL HARVEST AREAEXISTING CHANNEL PROFIELEXISTING TOBPROPOSED CHANNEL PROFILE
FLOW13 BKF13 BKF13 BKFWBKFSCOURPOOLDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALESECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALENON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEVANE ARM HEADER LOGVANE ARM FOOTER LOGSECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALEPROPOSED BANKFULL WSEVANE ARM INTO STREAM BANK@ 13 BKF STAGEEXTEND LOG INTO STREAMBANKMINIMUM 10.0 FT.ARM SLOPE = 1 - 3%LOG VANE WITH LOG SILLNOTESSELECT BACKFILLBEHIND STRUCTUREHIGH DENSITYLIVE STAKINGBURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANKMIN. 15.0 FTNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEBANKFULLFLOWEXTEND LOG SILLINTO STREAMBANKMIN. 15.0 FTHEADER LOG (VANE ARM)FOOTER LOG (VANE ARM)BURY VANE ARM INTOSTREAMBED MIN. 15.0 FTSELECTBACKFILLSCOUR POOLBELOW STRUCTURENOTCH HEADER LOGOF VANE ARM TO FITTIGHTLY OVER SILL LOGB'B A'AHEADER LOG (SILL)FOOTER LOG (SILL)NOTCH VANE ARM HEADERAND SILL HEADER13 DIA. OF LOG EACHFIT FOOTER TIGHTLY WITH SILLEXTEND LOG INTO STREAMBEDMINIMUM 10.0 FT.LOG VANE WITH LOG SILLLOG VANE WITH LOG SILLLOG VANE WITH LOG SILL1. THE LOG VANE WITH LOG SILL IS A DESIGN FEATURE USED TO PROVIDE GRADE CONTROL, ENERGY DISSIPATION AND FLOWDIRECTION CONTROL. THIS STRUCTURE WILL ALSO ENCOURAGE POOL MAINTENANCE AND CREATE A DIVERSITY OF AQUATICHABITAT THROUGH SCOUR OF THE STREAM BED. THE LOG VANE WITH LOG SILL IS COMPOSED OF A LOG SILL, WHICH IS A LOGSET AT A P.C. ELEVATION PROVIDED IN THE PROPOSED PROFILE THAT SPANS PERPENDICULAR TO AND SLIGHTLYDOWNSTREAM ACROSS THE CHANNEL. THE LOG SILL EXTENDS EXTENDS FROM A LOG VANE ARM INTO THE OPPOSITE (INSIDE)STREAMBANK. THE LOG VANE ARM EXTENDS UP AND TOWARDS THE OUTSIDE STREAMBANK, EVENTUALLY KEYING INTO THEBANK AT AN ELEVATION HIGHER THAN THE SILL BOULDERS. THE LOG VANE ARM IS BURIED IN THE STREAMBED UPSTREAM OFTHE LOG SILL AND BURIED INTO THE OUTSIDE STREAMBANK TO PREVENT SCOUR AND FAILURE AROUND THE STRUCTURE.2. ALL LOGS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 1.5 FT, BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AND LIMBS AND BRUSH TRIMMED FLUSH.3. HEADER LOGS ARE THE TOP MOST LOGS USED IN EACH LOG STRUCTURE. HEADER LOGS MAY BE SEEN PROTRUDING FROMTHE WATER SURFACE DURING BASE FLOWS.4. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTER LOGS WHERE SCOUR POOLS ARE ANTICIPATED TOFORM AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL.10. SET INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS. NO ELEVATIONS OF THE STRUCTURES MAY VARYFROM THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS WITHOUT DIRECTIONS FROM THE ENGINEER.11. HEADER LOG SHALL TIE INTO THE STREAMBANK AT A MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF 14 DMAX (MEASURED AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAMRIFFLE) BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION AND A MINIMUM ELEVATION OF 13 DMAX (MEASURED AT THE NEXT DOWNSTREAM RIFFLE)BELOW BANKFULL ELEVATION UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.15. THE LOG VANE ARM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE OUTSIDE STREAMBANK AND STREAMBED A MINIMUM OF 10.0 FT ON EACH END.16. THE LOG SILL SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 10.0 FT INTO THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE STREAM\BANK AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL.17. AT THE CONNECTION POINT OF THE LOG VANE ARM AND LOG SILL, BOTH HEADER LOGS SHALL BE NOTCHED TO A DEPTH NOGREATER THAN 13 OF THE LOG DIAMETER AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL. THE NOTCHES SHALL BE CUT SUCH THAT THE HEADERLOGS FIT TIGHTLY TOGETHER.18. ELEVATIONS, DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES OF STRUCTURES DESCRIBED IN THE DETAIL MAY BE ADJUSTED BY DESIGN ENGINEERTO FIT CONDITIONS ONSITE.19. CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO FIT LOGS TOGETHER TIGHTLY. ALL LOGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH FOOTERS.20. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCH BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTING LOGS SHALL BE CHINKED WITH LIMBS AND/ORBRUSH ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.21. ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE LOGS NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THELOG VANE ARM AND LOG SILL. NAIL NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG.22. BACKFILL STRUCTURE WITH SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.23. SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT OF THE MATERIAL ISKEPT TO A MINIMUM.24. THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THELINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR INVERTELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES AND ELEVATIONS INDICATED.25. RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWING INSTALLATION OFIN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.DEPARTURE ANGLE VARIES PER PLAN ORAS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER ONSITEREVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLOG VANE W/LOG SILL 5.1
EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR 700 GRAMDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEA'ADETAILED CROSS-SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALENOTESNOT TO SCALECONSTRUCTED RIFFLEDETAILED CROSS-SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALEB'BRIFFLE SLOPE VARIES PER PROFILESELECT RIFFLE SUBSTRATEMATERIAL DEPTH AND GRADATION PER NOTESP.C. STATIONPER PLANP.T. STATIONPER PLANBANKFULL STAGESTREAMBANK TOE OF SLOPESTREAMBEDRIFFLE LENGTH VARIESPER PLANBANKFULLCONSTRUCTED RIFFLECONSTRUCTED RIFFLECONSTRUCTED RIFFLE WITH LOG ROLLERSP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILESELECT RIFFLE SUBSTRATEMATERIAL GRADATION PER NOTESRIFFLE SUBSTRATEDEPTH MIN. = 2.5*D100 FTP.T. ELEVATIONPER PROFILEEXTEND RIFFLESUBSTRATE INTORUN MIN. 3.0 FTEXTEND RIFFLESUBSTRATE INTORUN MIN. 3.0 FTFLOWBASEFLOW WSESELECT RIFFLE SUBSTRATEMATERIAL PER NOTESGLIDERUNBANKFULL WSEBASEFLOW WSEBANKFULL WSE1. THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE IS A STREAM AND RIVER RESTORATION DESIGN FEATURE THAT INCORPORATESCOARSE MATERIAL IN THE CHANNEL BOTTOM THAT WILL NOT BE MOBILIZED UNDER DEFINED FLOWCONDITIONS. REPLACING (OR ADDING TO) THE NATIVE CHANNEL BED MATERIAL WITH LARGER DIAMETERROCK CREATES A RIFFLE THAT FUNCTIONS AS A RIGID GRADE CONTROL. LARGER ROCK MATERIALENHANCES FLOW DIVERSITY AND TURBULENCE UNDER BASE FLOW CONDITIONS, WHICH PROMOTESAQUATIC HABITAT, NUTRIENT PROCESSING AND RE-AERATION OF STREAM FLOW BENEFITING WATERQUALITY. THE D50, D85, D90 OR D100 PARTICLES OF THE CONSTRUCTED MAY BE DESIGNED TO RESIST tBKFWHILE ALLOWING SMALLER SUBSTRATE PARTICLES TO BE MOBILIZED AND REPLACED BY UPSTREAMSEDIMENT SEDIMENT SUPPLY.2. ALL SELECT RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE QUARRIED STONE UNLESS NATIVE MATERIAL OF SIMILAR SIZE ISAVAILABLE ONSITE AND MEETS THE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE SIZE SPECIFICATIONS. THE ENGINEER MUSTAPPROVE THE USE OF ALL ONSITE NATIVE MATERIAL.3. THE GRAVEL AND COBBLE SUBSTRATE USED FOR THIS DESIGN FEATURE SHOULD BE PREFERENTIALLYHARVESTED FROM THE EXISITING CHANNEL AND OTHER DESIGNATED MINING AREAS ONSITE.4. SORTING AND SIEVING OF THE HARVESTED RIFFLE SUBSTRATE IS INCIDENTAL TO THE CONSTRUCTION OFTHIS STRUCTURE.5. SELECT RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A GRADATION AS DEFINED IN THE TABLE WITHIN THIS DETAIL OR ASAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. SELECT RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE WELL GRADED WHEN IT IS PLACED INTHE CHANNEL.6. FOR INSTALLATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OVER EXCAVATE THE LENGTH OF THE RIFFLE, INSTALL 700GRAM COIR FIBER EROSION CONTROL MATTING, KEY MATTING INTO THE RIFFLE TRENCH AND BACKFILLWITH THE SPECIFIED SELECT RIFFLE MATERIAL TO THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED PROFILE.7. CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 3.0 FT U/S OF THE P.T. INTO THE GLIDE ANDD/S TO THE P.C.8. P.T. AND P.C. STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS.9. SELECT RIFFLE MATERIAL DEPTH SHALL BE AT LEAST 2.5 TIMES THE D100 (MM) SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER.10. SELECT RIFFLE MATERIAL WILL BE PLACED AT A UNIFORM THICKNESS.11. THE SELECT RIFFLE MATERIAL WILL BE PLACED SUCH THAT, IN CROSS-SECTION, ITS LOWEST ELEVATIONOCCURS IN THE CENTER OF THE CHANNEL AS PER THE DETAIL.12. SELECT RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED USING TRACK EQUIPMENT OR AN EXCAVATOR BUCKETSUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENT OF THE MATERIAL IS KEPT TO A MINIMUM.13. THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS. THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES ANDELEVATIONS INDICATED.14. RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.15. SEE TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS.
REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTED RIFFLE 5.2
EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR 700 GRAMINNER BERMDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALECONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLEA'ADETAILED CROSS-SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALECONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLENOTESNOT TO SCALECONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLEDETAILED CROSS-SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALECONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLEB'BNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE FABRICSELECTBACKFILL MATERIALMAX. SPACING =12*WBKFHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGP.C. STATIONPER PLANP.T. STATIONPER PLANSILL LOGSSILL LOGSSELECTBACKFILL MATERIALBANKFULLINNER BERMSTREAMBEDBURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 10 FTBURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 10 FTRIFFLE LENGTH VARIESPER PLANLOG SLOPE 1 - 3%LOG ROLLERBANKFULLBURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 10.0 FTHEADER LOGFOOTER LOG1. THE CONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLE IS A STREAM AND RIVER RESTORATION DESIGN FEATURE THATINCORPORATES LOGS (LARGE WOOD) IN THE CHANNEL BOTTOM THAT WILL NOT BE MOBILIZED UNDERDEFINED FLOW CONDITIONS. ADDING LOG RIFFLES TO AN ALLUVIAL SAND BED SYSTEM CREATES A RIFFLETHAT FUNCTIONS AS A RIGID GRADE CONTROL. LOG RIFFLES ENHANCES FLOW DIVERSITY ANDTURBULENCE UNDER BASE FLOW CONDITIONS, WHICH PROMOTES AQUATIC HABITAT, NUTRIENTPROCESSING AND RE-AERATION OF STREAM FLOW BENEFITING WATER QUALITY.2. LOGS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 1.5 FT. LOGS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 50 FEET.3. ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AND LIMBS AND BRANCHES SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH.4. FOOTER LOGS ARE LOGS PLACED TO PROVIDE A FOUNDATION AND SCOUR PROTECTION FOR THE HEADERLOGS. THE UPSTREAM (AT THE P.C.) AND DOWNSTREAM (AT THE P.T.) HEADER LOGS SHALL BE UNDERLAINBY FOOTER LOGS TO PROVIDE A SILL UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.5. HEADER LOGS ARE THE TOP MOST LOGS USED IN EACH LOG STRUCTURE. HEADER LOGS FOR THISSTRUCTURE ARE ONLY VISIBLE BETWEEN THE INNER BERM FEATURE.6. P.T. AND P.C. STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS.SET RIFFLE INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS. NO ELEVATIONS OF THECONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLE MAY VARY FROM THE PLAN SHEETS WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM THE ENGINEER.7. THE VERTICAL SLOPE OF EACH LOG SHALL NOT EXCEED 3% UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THEENGINEER. THE SLOPES WILL BE DICTATED BY THE WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO OF THE REACH, TYPICAL RIFFLEINNER BERM CHANNEL, AND THE VERTICAL DROP OVER THE LOG AND LOG DIAMETER.8. THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN LOGS SHALL BE 12 WBKF. MAXIMUM ELEVATION DROP BETWEEN LOGS IS 14OF THE LOG DIAMETER.9. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCHES BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS SHALL BE CHINKEDWITH LIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.10. ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE VANE ARM AND SILL LOGS A LAYER OF NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRICSHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG.11. SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FILL MATERIAL GENERATED ON-SITE WITH A MINIMUM D50 OF 60 MMOR A GRADATION SUBMITTED IN WRITING AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. A WELL-GRADED BLEND OFNCDOT CLASS A RIP-RAP AND ASTM #57 ROCK WILL BE AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTE.12. SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENTOF THE MATERIAL IS KEPT TO A MINIMUM.13. SECURE ALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON TOP OF FOOTER LOG USING 3 IN 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL ON12 IN SPACING ALONG LOG. NAIL NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL.14. THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS. THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES ANDELEVATIONS INDICATED, PROVIDED ANY HEIGHT DOES NOT EXCEED MAX. ALLOWABLE DROP OF 0.4 FT FORTHIS STRUCTURE.15. RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.16. SEE TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS.GLIDERUNBASEFLOW WSEBANKFULL WSEP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILEP.T. ELEVATIONPER PROFILEMAX. DROP =14*LOG DIAM.RIFFLE SLOPE VARIES PER PROFILEBASEFLOW WSEBANKFULL WSEREVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLOG RIFFLE 5.3
SCOURPOOLDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEDETAILED SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALENON-WOVENGEOTEXTILESELECT BACKFILL MATERIALBEHIND STRUCTUREHIGH DENSITYLIVE STAKINGNON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEBANKFULLEXTEND LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 5.0 FTSELECTBACKFILL MATERIALSCOUR POOLBELOW STRUCTUREB'BA'AEXTEND LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 5.0 FTTOE OF SLOPELOG STEPLOG STEPP.C. STATIONPER PLANP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILESTREAMBEDFIT LOGS TIGHTLY TOGETHERDEPARTURE ANGLE VARIES PER PLAN ORAS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER ONSITE1. THE LOG STEP IS A STREAM AND RIVER RESTORATION DESIGN FEATURE THAT INCORPORATES LOGS(LARGE WOOD) IN THE CHANNEL FOR GRADE CONTROL, ENERGY DISSIPATION, POOL MAINTENANCE ANDHABITAT. LOG STEPS ENHANCE FLOW DIVERSITY AND TURBULENCE UNDER BASE FLOW CONDITIONS,WHICH PROMOTES AQUATIC HABITAT, NUTRIENT PROCESSING AND RE-AERATION OF STREAM FLOWBENEFITING WATER QUALITY.2. LOGS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF 1.5 FT. LOGS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 18 FEET.3. ALL LOGS SHALL BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AND LIMBS AND BRANCHES SHALL BE TRIMMED FLUSH.4. FOOTER LOGS ARE LOGS PLACED TO PROVIDE A FOUNDATION AND SCOUR PROTECTION FOR THE HEADERLOGS. HEADER LOGS SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY FOOTER LOGS TO PROVIDE A SILL UNLESS OTHERWISEDIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.5. HEADER LOGS ARE THE TOP MOST LOGS USED IN EACH LOG STRUCTURE.9. HEADER LOG SHALL BE OFFSET SLIGHTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE FOOTER LOG..10. P.C. STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS. SET LOGSTEP INVERTS AT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS. NO ELEVATIONS OF THE LOGSTEP MAY VARY FROM THE PLAN SHEETS WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM THE ENGINEER.11. THE VERTICAL SLOPE OF EACH LOG SHALL NOT EXCEED 1% UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THEENGINEER.12. ALL GAPS/VOIDS LARGER THAN 1 INCHES BETWEEN THE HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS SHALL BE CHINKEDWITH LIMBS AND/OR BRUSH ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GEOTEXTILE.13. ON THE UPSTREAM LOGS A LAYER OF NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN INTHE DETAIL THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOG.14. SELECT BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FILL MATERIAL GENERATED ON-SITE WITH A MINIMUM D50 OF 60 MMOR A GRADATION SUBMITTED IN WRITING AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. A WELL-GRADED BLEND OFNCDOT CLASS A RIP-RAP AND ASTM #57 ROCK WILL BE AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTE.15. SELECT BACKFILL AND SOIL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLEMENTOF THE MATERIAL IS KEPT TO A MINIMUM.16. SECURE ALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON TOP OF FOOTER LOG USING 3 IN 10D GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL ON12 IN SPACING ALONG LOG. NAIL NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TO EDGE OF HEADER LOG AND BACKFILL.17. THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS. THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR INVERT ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES ANDELEVATIONS INDICATED.18. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DROP IS 0.5 FT OVER THIS STRUCTURE.19. RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.20. SEE TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS SECTION FOR DIMENSIONS.EROSION CONTROL MATTINGCOIR 700 GRAMLOG SLOPE 0 - 1%BANKFULLBURY LOGS INTOSTREAMBANK MIN. 10.0 FTHEADER LOGFOOTER LOGBASEFLOW WSEBANKFULL WSEPROPOSED BANKFULL WSEBASEFLOW WSEP.C. ELEVATIONPER PROFILENOTESNOT TO SCALELOG STEPDETAILED CROSS-SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALELOG STEPREVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONLOG STEP 5.4
A'ADIAMETER VARIES(TYP. 1/2" TO 1")BRUSH TOE PROTECTIONLIFT SETBACK (TYP.)FLOW
LENGTH VARIES(TYP. 3 TO 5 FT.)LAYER OF LIVE BRANCHESAND TOPSOIL (TYP.)700 GRAM COIR EROSIONCONTROL MATTING6" - 1'(TYP.)SOIL BACKFILL (TYP.)EXCAVATIONLIMITSUNDISTURBED GROUNDOR PREVIOUS FILLLIVE STAKES SPACING = 2.0 FT O.C.APPROX. BASE FLOW WSESELECT GRAVEL BACK FILL FORFIRST SOIL LIFTTRANSITION GEOLIFTSINTO RIVER BANKBANKFULL STAGEFILL ALL VOIDS WITH FINEWOODY DEBRIS AND GRAVELLIVE BRANCHCOARSE WOODY DEBRISLIFT SETBACK = 2.0 FTLIFT HEIGHT= 1.0 FTDETAILED PROFILE - SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEBRUSH TOE PROTECTION WITH SOIL GEOLIFT AND SOD MATDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALENOTESBRUSH TOE PROTECTION WITH SOIL GEOLIFT AND SOD MATBRUSH TOE PROTECTION WITH GEOLIFTS AND SOD MATSOD MATWIDTHMIN. = 8.0 FTLIVE STAKES ORBAREROOT PLANTINGSBANKFULL STAGEPOINT BARLAYER OF LIVEBRANCHES (TYP.)SOIL GEOLIFTS1. THE BRUSH TOE PROTECTION WITH GEOLIFTS AND SOD MAT IS A BANK TREATMENT AND REVETMENTDESIGNED TO PROVIDE STRUCTURE AND STABILITY TO THE STREAMBANK UNTIL THE VEGETATIONBECOMES ESTABLISHED.2. COARSE WOODY DEBRIS SHALL CONSIST OF LOGS, ROOTWADS, AND LARGE BRANCHES NOT SUITABLEFOR CONSTRUCTION OF LOG STRUCTURES. ALL MATERIALS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.3. COARSE WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE LARGEST MATERIAL PLACED FIRST. NO LOGSSHALL BE PLACED PARALLEL TO THE FLOW OF WATER, UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. LOGS SHALLBE PLACED IN A CROSSING PATTERN OR WEAVE SUCH THAT EACH LOG IS ANCHORED BY ANOTHER LOG.4. SMALL/FINE WOODY DEBRIS SHALL CONSIST OF MEDIUM TO SMALL LIMBS, BRANCHES, BUSHES, AND/ORLOGS. INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL NOT BE USED.5. SMALL/FINE WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE PLACED ABOVE THE COARSE WOODY DEBRIS WITH THE LARGESTMATERIAL BEING PLACED FIRST AND THE SMALLEST MATERIAL PLACED LAST.6. ALL WOODY DEBRIS SHALL BE COMPACTED WITH THE EXCAVATOR BUCKET IN ORDER TO REDUCE THEPRESENCE OF VOIDS IN THE SMALL/FINE WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.7. THE HORIZONTAL LOCATIONS OF ALL WOODY DEBRIS ARE LOCATED ON THE PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS.NO LOCATIONS OF WOODY DEBRIS SHALL VARY FROM THE PLAN LOCATIONS WITHOUT DIRECTION FROMTHE ENGINEER.8. GRAVEL LEVELING BASE SHALL BE INSTALLED ABOVE THE HIGHEST ELEVATION OF THE WOODY DEBRISBEFORE THE SOIL LIFTS ARE INSTALLED.9. THE SOIL BACKFILL USED FOR LIFTS AND TOPSOIL USED FOR LAYERING WITH THE LIVE BRANCHES SHALLBE FREE OF ANY LARGE ROOTS OR WOODY DEBRIS AND SHALL GENERALLY BE FREE FROM ANY GRAVELOR COBBLE MATERIAL.10. SOIL BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED SUCH THAT FUTURE SETTLING WILL BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM; YET,NOT SUCH THAT THE UNDERLYING BRUSH IS DISPLACED OR DAMAGED.11. THE TOP OF THE BACKFILL FOR THE FIRST LIFT SHALL BE SLOPED AT APPROXIMATELY 5% AWAY FROM THESTREAM.12. PLACE A LAYER OF TOPSOIL AND LIVE BRANCHES ON TOP OF EACH SOIL LIFT SUCH THAT APPROXIMATELY6 INCHES TO 1 FOOT OF EACH LIVE BRANCH WILL BE EXPOSED AND THE REMAINDER (2' TO 4') OF EACH LIVEBRANCH WILL BE COVERED BY THE NEXT SOIL LIFT.13. LIVE BRANCHES SHALL BE OF THE SPECIES SPECIFIED FOR LIVE STAKES OR APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.14. PLACE A LAYER OF 6.5 FEET WIDE COIR 700 GRAM EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, OR EQUIVALENT, ON TOPOF THE TOPSOIL AND LIVE BRANCHES SUCH THAT 2.5 FEET OF THE BLANKET WILL BE BURIED BELOW THENEXT SOIL LIFT. ALLOW THE REMAINING 4.5 FEET OF BLANKET TO HANG OVER THE PRECEDING SOIL LIFTOR COIR FIBER LOGS.15. PLACE A LAYER OF 6.5 FEET WIDE NON-WOVEN COIR MATTING OVER THE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET TOTHE SAME LIMITS.16. SOIL CAN BE COMPACTED BY STACKING A PIECE OF 2 X 6 SAWN LUMBER EDGEWAYS UP TO THE LIFTHEIGHT SPECIFIED IN THE STRUCTURE TABLE AND SECURING WITH WOODEN STAKES TO PROVIDE A RIGIDBACKSTOP FOR COMPACTING SOIL LIFT.17. PLACE SOIL BACKFILL UP TO THE LIFT HEIGHT SPECIFIED OF NO GREATER THAN 1.0 FT BEING CAREFULNOT TO PUSH/PULL OR TEAR THE FABRIC PREVIOUSLY PLACED.18. THE TOP OF THE SOIL BACKFILL SHALL BE FLAT WITHIN THE LIFT SETBACK DISTANCE SPECIFIED IN THESTRUCTURE TABLE. BEYOND THE LIFT SETBACK DISTANCE, THE SOIL BACKFILL SHALL BE SLOPED AT ANAPPROXIMATE 5% SLOPE AWAY FROM THE STREAM.19. TOP DRESS THE SOIL LIFT WITH TOPSOIL FROM THE FACE OF THE SOIL LIFT BACK INTO THE FLOODPLAINAT LEAST 4.0 FT.20. REMOVE THE SAWN LUMBER AND WOODEN STAKES FROM THE FACE OF THE SOIL LIFT AND WRAP THEFACE AND TOP OF THE SOIL LIFT USING THE WOVEN AND NON-WOVEN COIR MATTING HANGING OVER THEPREVIOUS LIFT/COIR FIBER LOGS.21. THE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC SHALL BE PULLED AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT TEARING OREXCESSIVELY DISTORTING THE FABRIC.22. SECURE THE EROSION CONTROL AND NON-WOVEN MATTING IN PLACE BY STAKING THE END OF THEEROSION CONTROL FABRIC WITH WOODEN STAKES ON 1.5-FOOT CENTERS.23. BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEXT SOIL LIFT BY REPEATING THE PREVIOUS NOTES STARTING WITH NOTE11.24. FINISH THE BANK TREATMENT BY USING A SOD MAT ABOVE THE FINAL GEOLIFT TO ELEVATIONS SHOWN ONTHE PLANS.25.26. THE SURFACE OF THIS STRUCTURE SHALL BE FINISHED TO A SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE INACCORDANCE WITH THE LINES, GRADES, AND CROSS-SECTIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS. THE DEGREE OF FINISH FOR ELEVATIONS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1 FT OF THE GRADES ANDELEVATIONS INDICATED OR APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.27. RE-DRESSING OF CHANNEL AND BANKFULL BENCH/FLOODPLAIN WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWINGINSTALLATION OF IN-STREAM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO CONSTRUCTION.REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBRUSH TOE W/LIFT&MAT 5.5
RSCDETAILED PROFILE - SECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEWSEWSEWSERIFFLE - STEP - POOL SEQUENCESTEP - POOL SEQUENCE6.0'8.0'RSCDETAILED RIFFLE - SECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALE4.5'3:13:18.0'RSCDETAILED POOL - SECTION C - C'NOT TO SCALEA'AC'CB'BRSCDETAILED PLANNOT TO SCALEFLOWCONSTRUCTEDRIFFLEEXTENT OF UNDERLYING FILTERMEDIAPOOLTIE OUT BOULDERKEY INTO SLOPEMIN. 2'EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTOGLIDE MIN. 2 FTBLEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTOSTRUCTURE BACKFILLRIFFLE MATERIALU/S OF STRUCTUREFILTER MEDIAEXISTING EARTH OR FILLMATERIALRIFFLE SLOPE VARIES PER PROFILE8 OZ. HIGH FLOW NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILEBOULDER STEP STRUCTUREEXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTO GLIDE MIN. 2'PLACE RIFFLE MATERIAL IN GLIDE U/S OFSTRUCTURE FOR STEP - POOL SEQUENCE MIN. 2'MINIMUM 1.5'MINIMUM 2.5'RIFFLESTEPPOOLRIFFLESTEPPOOLSTEPPOOLRIFFLEGLIDEFILTER MEDIA DEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH = 2.5'8 OZ. HIGH FLOW NON-WOVENGEOTEXTILE4.5'FILTER MEDIA DEPTH VARIES PER PROFILEMIN. DEPTH = 1.5'FILTER MEDIAEXISTING EARTH OR FILLMATERIAL0.5'CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE50% NC DOT CLASS A, 50% NC DOT CLASS BMIN. 0.75 ' DEPTHEROSION CONTROL MATTING700 GRAM COIRFILTER MEDIAEXISTING EARTH OR FILLMATERIALEROSION CONTROL MATTING700 GRAM COIRSUPERIMPOSED U/SRIFFLE CROSS-SECTION1.5'REVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONRSC 5.6
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE50% NC DOT CLASS A50% NC DOT CLASS BMIN 0.75' DEPTHA'A1. ALL BOULDERS SHALL BE NATIVE STRUCTURAL STONE OR SHOT ROCK,CUBICAL OR RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE.2. DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES OF STRUCTURES MAY BE ADJUSTED BY DESIGNENGINEER ONSITE TO PER FIELD CONDITIONS.3. BOULDERS SHALL BE 1.5 FT X 2.5 FT X 1.5 FT +/- 0.5 FT.4. CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO FIT STRUCTURE BOULDERS TIGHTLY.5. GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS SHALL BE MINIMIZED BY FITTING BOULDERSTOGETHER AND PLUGGING WITH STRUCTURE STONE CLASS A AND SELECTMATERIAL ONSITE OR OTHER CHINKING STONE APPROVED BY DESIGNENGINEER.6. FOOTER BOULDER SHALL BE PLACED INTO THE FILTER MEDIA A MINIMUM OFTHE BOULDER THICKNESS.7. SLOPE OF BOULDERS FROM CENTERLINE TO THE TOP OF THE STRUCTUREARM SHALL BE 2-4%.8. 8OZ. NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAMSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT PIPING OF STREAM FLOW ANDWASHOUT OF FILTER MEDIA THROUGH BOULDER GAPS. FILTER FABRIC SHALLEXTEND FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER BOULDER TO THE FINISHEDGRADE OF THE HEADER BOULDER AND SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRELENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE.9. TIE OUT BOULDERS SHALL BE KEYED INTO THE TERRACE SLOPE A MINIMUMOF 2 FT. WHERE THIS CONFLICTS WITH SIGNIFICANT TREE ROOTS ORBEDROCK, THE TIE OUT BOULDERS MAY BE ADJUSTED OR ELIMINATED BY THEDESIGN ENGINEER ONSITE.10. THERE SHALL BE NO ELEVATION DROP GREATER THAN 0.5 FT OVER A SINGLESTEP (SEE PROPOSED PROFILE) .11. THE STRUCTURE ELEVATION TABLE IS INCLUDED ON SHEET____.12. WSE = WATER SURFACE ELEVATION13. ELV. PT. = ELEVATION POINT (DESCRIBED IN TABLE BELOW)B'BPOOLFLOW
17.0'TOE OF SLOPESEE TYP. SECTIONHIGH DENSITY LIVE STAKING8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILETIE OUT BOULDERKEY INTO SLOPE MIN. 2'EXTENTS OF FILTER MEDIAVEGETATED BENCHSEE TYP. SECTION8.0'3.2'FLOW
ELV. PT. 1ELV. PT. 2ELV. PT. 3BLEND RIFFLE MATERIAL INTOSTRUCTURE BACKFILLPOOLWSEFLOW8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER MEDIADEPTH PER PROFILECONSTRUCTED RIFFLE50% NC DOT CLASS A50% NC DOT CLASS BMIN. 0.75 ' DEPTHELV. PT. 1ELV. PT. 2ELV. PT. 3BOULDER STEP STRUCTUREPLANNOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTUREDIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONSNOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTURESECTION A - A'NOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTURESECTION B - B'NOT TO SCALEBOULDER STEP STRUCTURENOTES22.0'ELV. PT. 1FILTER MEDIAEXISTING STREAM BEDOR ONSITE FILL MATERIALTIE OUT BOULDERKEY INTO SLOPE MIN. 2'ELV. PT. 2MINIMIZE BOULDER GAPS WITHTIGHT FIT AND CHINKINGD/S WSEU/S WSEHEADER BOULDERFOOTER BOULDER3-5% ARM SLOPE8 OZ. HIGH FLOWNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEREVISED MITIGATION PLAN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
NC DMS MITIGATION SITE
MILLSTONE CREEK
APPROVED :
CHECK :
DRAWN :
DESIGN :
PROJECT
NAME :
SCALE :
DATE :
PROJECT #
PHASE #
JLP
JLP, BAD MILLSTONE CREEK
AS NOTED
JUNE 1, 2018
PRELI
MI
NARY
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONRSC ROCK STEP 5.7